| appolose said: As annoying as it may be, it must be pointed out that the belief that there is a wide agreement on basic interpretations is only an interpretation as well. It must be admitted that epistemology is taking place in... our head. Common sense, obviousness, and the like is in our head and epistemology isolates it, making all belief on the external world and it's nature equal. |
Well, I agree that common sense, obviousness, and even our observation that "there is wide agreement on basic interpretations" are all, in a sense, in our head. How you would propose to keep your skepticism from becoming solipsism, I dunno... :)
But maybe you answer that later, with "revelation."
|
As for a method of truth... I'm afraid I must claim a seemingly fatuous method to the mind of most, but, to be fair, (if you believe some history on epistemology) a method that has also been acknowledged by equally 'great minds' in regards to epistemology as well. Merely that of revelation. It holds no process or application, only the reception of knowledge from that which imputes knowledge. And what I mean by that is, one is at the mercy of that which holds knowledge (although it may be called the act of presupposition from a certain perspective). Hate to sound all mystical. It just works as an answer to epistemology and the only one that doesn't hold a problem as far as I have understood. |
Hmmm... do you mean that, the "fact" that "the sky is blue" could be "revealed knowledge"?
By the way, I love your qualifier "if you believe some history on epistemology"... :) You're in an awfully difficult spot, naturally, trying to give the reasons for your positions... because at root you're insisting that there are no reasons for your positions (or those of anyone else). But, to facilitate our discussion, how about this: you're free to make "normal/empirical" arguments without needing to qualify them, unless I raise a specific question as to "how do you know that, without resorting to empiricism?"
|
In short, how do we know? By receiving it from that which has knowledge. Any other belief, from anywhere, I don't give the same confidence (I 'step lightly'). |
This raises a couple of questions for me:
* What other origins of beliefs do you believe exist, outside of revealed knowledge?
* For any given belief, how are you aware of the origin of that belief?
|
Although uniqueness isn't an indication of truth, I think this method of truth is unique to biblical christianity. Opponents share an attempt to reach truth "by the power of man" in rationalism, empiricism, or subjectivist doctrines (e.g. Atheism, Islam, Hinduism). All of which I find either contradictory or based on false statements exposed by recognizing possibilities in the mind. |
Hmm... well this is an interesting new component to your argument! :)
All right, I'm game.
"Biblical Christianity" raises yet another couple of questions:
* What is "biblical" Christianity? Is it meant to refer to a specific denomiation or set of dogma? Because I can only compare it in my mind to "non-biblical" Christianity... and I'm not sure what that would mean, either. :)
* Is your knowledge that "revealed knowledge is a method of truth that is unique to Biblical Christianity" revealed knowledge? Or do you know that is true of Biblical Christianity via some other method?
