Epistemology

Archived Posts from this Category

May 29, 2024

Changing your views too hastily

Posted by Jason Dulle under Epistemology
[6] Comments 

“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (ESV).

Many people have changed their beliefs because they heard someone make a persuasive case for some other point of view. Slow down. Don’t be so quick to change your beliefs. You need to examine their case more closely. If you can’t find anything wrong with their argument, ask others what they think of it. It’s particularly important that you ask someone who shares your current belief to examine this new point of view to see if they can find fault with the case being made. Or, see if you can find any formal debates on the matter. At the end of the day, you may discover that you were wrong and the other view is true, but more times than not, you’ll find that the case being made is not as strong as you first believed.

 

February 23, 2023

Free will and science

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Determinism, Epistemology, Science
[12] Comments 

Scientists could never discover that free will does not exist via scientific experimentation, because in a deterministic world, the result of the experiment would, itself, be determined. The conclusion that there is no such thing as free will would not be arrived at because the scientists chose to set up the experiment in a good way and reasoned correctly about the data they received. Instead, physics would determine both the study’s structure and conclusions. As such, the conclusion cannot be trusted.

Even if determinism is true, this truth would not be “discovered” by the experiment, but “determined.” Discovery requires the exercise of free will. That’s why all such experiments are self-defeating. They can only be informative if free will exists. And if the will must be free for the experiments to be informative, there is no point in doing the experiment. You already know the answer before you begin: free will exists.

 

October 12, 2022

[Don’t Always] Trust the Experts

Posted by Jason Dulle under Epistemology, Thinking
1 Comment 

We tend to trust the experts. The impulse is right because the experts have more knowledge and expertise in the subject than we do. They know the nuances. But when the experts claim to be above critique by non-experts, that’s a problem. When they say (in so many words) “you can’t evaluate my claims because I am the smart one and you are the dummy,” they are presenting an empty appeal to authority. The experts often differ among themselves, so we have reason to question the experts. After all, they can’t all be right. The only way to determine who is right is to question the experts.

(more…)

 

April 13, 2022

Knowledge, Truth, and their Relationship to Christianity

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Epistemology, Pluralism, Relativism
Leave a Comment 

Greg Koukl delivered a lecture at the 2006 Master’s Series in Christian Thought on the topic, “Truth is a Strange Sort of Fiction: The Challenge from the Emergent Church.” While the Emergent Church has morphed into the Progressive Church, the information is just as relevant today as it was in 2006.

Koukl argued that truth and knowledge are essential to the enterprise of Biblical faith, demonstrating this both Biblically and philosophically. Here is a summary of his case:

(more…)

 

February 21, 2022

Does God’s Knowledge of the Future Eliminate Our Free Will?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Calvinism v Arminianism, Determinism, Epistemology
[89] Comments 

If God is omniscient, then He knows everything that will happen in the future – including everything you will ever do. God knows that on x date at time t1 you will stub your toe, and on q date at time t5 you will forget where you placed your keys. God has had such knowledge from eternity past. Since God cannot be mistaken, it is certain that you will stub your toe on x date at time t1 and forget your keys on q date at time t5. How, then, can our “choices” be free? Does God’s knowledge of the future eliminate free will, reducing us to mere actors who simply perform the parts of a cosmic play written for us by God from eternity past? Are we puppets with no control over our own destiny? Is our experience of free choice illusory? Darwinist, Robert Eberle, sums up the problem nicely:

[Francis] Collins asserts that there is still free will, but fails to explain his logic for arriving at this extraordinary conclusion. Either what will be is known and fixed or it is not. An infallible god that knows what is going to happen is in conflict with the idea that there is free choice and thus a responsibility for one’s actions.[1]

I am not persuaded that God’s knowledge of the future determines our fate for two reasons. First, knowledge is not a cause of anything. Knowledge of some x is not what causes x to be. The truth of x must precede the knowledge of x.

(more…)

 

December 31, 2021

The “why not say we don’t know?” response to theistic arguments

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Atheistic objections, Cosmological Argument, Epistemology, Moral Argument, Theistic Arguments, Thinking
[10] Comments 

When Christians offer arguments for the existence of God based on the beginning of the universe or the objective nature of morality, some atheists will respond by asking, “Why can’t we just say we don’t know what caused the universe or what the objective source of morality is?” How might a thoughtful Christian respond?

I would suggest that you turn the question around. Ask them, “Why can’t we just admit that God best explains the origin of the universe and the objective nature of morality?” The atheist wants to plead ignorance, but we are not ignorant on these matters. It’s not as if we don’t know what the options are. We do. And it’s not as if the evidence is equal for all options. We have solid scientific, philosophical, and logical evidence that points to God as the cause of the universe and ground of morality. In other words, we have knowledge, not ignorance. So why not just say we don’t know? It’s because that would be a false statement. We do know. The evidence clearly favors the theistic hypothesis.

(more…)

 

September 21, 2015

Compatibilists: Why do you deliberate?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Calvinism v Arminianism, Determinism, Epistemology, Philosophy, Theology
[111] Comments 

Deliberation-by-Mario-Sánchez-NevadoCompatibilists are those who believe that freedom and determinism are compatible with each other. On their view, one is free so long as they make actual choices. And they maintain that people do make actual choices: They choose what they desire. Of course, the problem comes when you ask where those desires come from. The desires are determined by God or physics. So what if physics or God determined for you to desire to kill your roommate? Then you will “choose” to kill your roommate.

In my estimation, this is not a very robust sense of freedom. Indeed, I would argue that it is not freedom at all. If desires cause actions, but the desires are determined by something other than the self, then the actions are determined as well, even if only in a secondary or intermediate sense. More could be said in the way of critique, but I have done so elsewhere.

For this post, I just want to pose a simple question to compatibilists: If our choices are caused by our desires, are our desires are determined by God/physics, then why is “choosing” so hard?  Why do we struggle with deliberation?  The only reason we experience deliberation is because we possess conflicting desires and we need to weigh them to decide which desire to act on.  If our desires are determined, does that mean God (or physics) determined for us to have conflicting desires?  If so, what would the purpose be other than to give us the false appearance of having libertarian free will?

 

April 12, 2015

If you know God exists, you are an atheist?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Atheistic objections, Epistemology, Logic, Tactics
[74] Comments 

Christian apologist, Tyler Vela, has observed that atheists like to define “atheism” and “belief” in very nontraditional ways, and these definitions lead to an absurdity. Consider the following: “Atheist” is redefined as someone who merely lacks the belief that God exists (rather than someone who believes God does not exist), and “belief” is redefined as holding something to be true without evidence (rather than a mental disposition concerning the truth of some proposition). Given these definitions, if God did something by which all people had direct and incontrovertible evidence that He existed, then no one could believe in God (since His existence is no longer an opinion without evidence). If no one believes in God because they know God exists, then they are atheists (because atheists lack a belief in God’s existence). Ironically, then, everyone would be an atheist precisely because they know God exists.

(more…)

 

June 23, 2014

Materialism is falsified when you think about it

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Epistemology, Logic, Mind, Naturalism, Philosophy, Thinking
[43] Comments 
Materialists will tell you they don’t believe anything other than the material world exists, but seem oblivious to the fact that propositions – such as the proposition that only the material world exists – are not material.  That means materialism is falsified the moment you think about it. Pun intended.

 

April 23, 2014

Misunderstanding the God of the Gaps

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheistic objections, Epistemology, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Science, Thinking
[17] Comments 

God of GapsI’ve noticed that many nonbelievers (and even believers) misunderstand what constitutes a “God of the gaps” argument.  They tend to think one is guilty of a God of the gaps argument if they offer God as an explanation for some X rather than some natural phenomenon.  The problem with this definition is that it presumes the only valid explanation is a naturalistic explanation.  God is ruled out as a valid explanation for anything a priori, so anyone who offers God as an explanation for X is thought to do so merely because they are ignorant of the proper naturalistic explanation.  This begs the question in favor of naturalism and against theism.  One could only conclude that every effect has a naturalistic explanation, and that God is not a valid explanation, if one has first demonstrated that God does not exist.  So long as it is even possible that God exists, then it is possible that God may be the cause of X, and thus explain X.

What makes an argument a God of the gaps type of argument is when God is invoked to explain X simply because we do not know what else can explain X.  In other words, God is used to plug a gap in our knowledge of naturalistic explanations: “I don’t know how to explain X, so God must have done X.”  This is not at all the same as arguing that God is the best explanation of X, based on what we know regarding X and the explanatory options available to us.  Here, God is being invoked to explain what we know, not what we don’t know.

(more…)

 

November 4, 2013

Science defies common sense?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Epistemology, Logic, Philosophy, Science
Leave a Comment 

science defies common senseI’ve heard science types like Lawrence Krauss claim that science has shown us over and over again that we can’t trust our common sense, and by extension, philosophical reasoning.  One of the go-to illustrations is our solar system.  It’s said that common sense tells us the sun revolves around the Earth, and yet Copernicus, through science, showed common sense was unreliable as a guide to truth.  Only science can tell us what is true.

I think this is a misconstrual of the issue.  Daniel N. Robinson said it best: “What Copernicus said was not hostile to common sense but was inconsistent with common experience.”[1]  Indeed.  While science has discovered physical phenomenon which is weird, to say the least, it does not defy common sense, but our common experience.  Rationality is not at odds with science, and cannot be disproven by science.  Indeed, the task of science presupposes rationality from start to finish.

[1]Daniel N. Robinson, “Neuroscience and the Soul,” Philosophia Christi, Vol. 15, Number 1, 2013, 17.

 

October 24, 2013

Is it rational to believe in something without verifiable, empirical evidence?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Epistemology, Philosophy, Resurrection, Science, Theology
[16] Comments 

EmpiricismThose who subscribe to empiricism believe that we should not believe the truth of some X based on a competent authority.  We are only justified in believing some X if we have empirically verifiable evidence supporting the truth of X.  It goes without notice that this principle itself is not empirically verifiable, and thus empiricism is self-refuting as a complete theory of knowledge.  But let’s ignore the man behind the curtain for a moment, and explore other deficiencies in an empirical epistemology.

In his book, A Universe from Nothing, physicist and empiricist Lawrence Krauss describes the state of the cosmos in the distant future.  Due to cosmic expansion, in two trillion years all of the evidence for the Big Bang (cosmic microwave background, redshift of distant objects/the Hubble expansion, and the measurement of light elements in the cosmos), and all 400 billion galaxies visible to us now, will no longer be detectable via empirical methods.  Worse yet, all of the evidence for the dark energy that caused the cosmic expansion will be gone as well.  For scientists living in that day, all of the empirical evidence will point to a static universe inhabited by a single galaxy that is no more than a trillion years old (based on the ratio of light elements at the time).

(more…)

 

May 15, 2013

Preparing our children to deal with doubt

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Epistemology, Thinking
[10] Comments 

Michael Patton has a nice article detailing 12 ways we can prepare children for times of doubt in their Christian life.

 

May 13, 2013

What philosophers believe about God, morality, et al

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Determinism, Epistemology, Mind, Naturalism, Philosophy, Relativism, Science, Theism
[14] Comments 

thinking manPhilosohpers David Bourget and David Chalmers recently surveyed 931 philosophy faculty members to determine their views on 30 different issues.  Here were some of the more interesting results:

God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.
Metaphilosophy: naturalism 49.8%; non-naturalism 25.9%; other 24.3%.
Mind: physicalism 56.5%; non-physicalism 27.1%; other 16.4%.
Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.
Meta-ethics: moral realism 56.4%; moral anti-realism 27.7%; other 15.9%.
Normative ethics: deontology 25.9%; consequentialism 23.6%; virtue ethics 18.2%; other 32.3%.
Science: scientific realism 75.1%; scientific anti-realism 11.6%; other 13.3%
Time: B-theory 26.3%; A-theory 15.5%; other 58.2%.
Truth: correspondence 50.8%; deflationary 24.8%; epistemic 6.9%; other 17.5%.

Notice that although 72.8% of respondents are atheists, 56.4% are moral realists. This goes to show the strength of our moral intuitions. While atheists do not have a sufficient ontological grounding for objective moral values, they still believe in them nonetheless.

I was surprised that only 13.7% believe in libertarian free will. I would expect it to be much higher.  Perhaps this correlates with the high rates of physicalism.

HT: Scot McKnight

 

February 27, 2013

Waldo as an analogy of divine hiddenness

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheistic objections, Epistemology, Theistic Arguments
[19] Comments 

WaldoMany atheists employ the concept of divine hiddenness to argue against God’s existence.  If God exists, they argue, why is His existence not more obvious?

I have blogged on this issue previously (here and here), so I won’t rehearse the arguments again.  Instead, I’ll simply assert that I do not accept the claim that God’s’ existence is not obvious enough.  I think there is good evidence for God’s existence, and that God only appears to be hidden because we have not looked for Him with an open mind and heart.

(more…)

 

October 8, 2012

Does Bias Eliminate Objectivity?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Epistemology, Logic, Philosophy, Relativism, Resurrection, Theology, Thinking
[5] Comments 

Some people want to reject the testimony of the NT evangelists on the basis that they are biased.  I have written on the problems of this claim before, but here is a brief summary of my argument (with some added insight offered by Greg Koukl in his September 10, 2012 podcast):

  • This is an example of the genetic fallacy – dismissing one’s arguments because of its origin, rather than addressing it on its own merits.
  • Having a bias is irrelevant to the legitimacy of one’s testimony and/or arguments.  One must grapple with the evidence rather than dismiss it because it comes from a biased source.
  • Everyone has a bias, including those who reject Jesus.  The only people without a bias are those who are ignorant of the matter.
  • (more…)
 

August 8, 2012

Do we need to define goodness to know what is good?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Epistemology, Moral Argument, Theistic Arguments
[19] Comments 

In the context of the moral realism vs. moral subjectivism and theism vs. atheism debates the question of moral semantics is often raised: How do we define goodness?  Some are under the mistaken impression that if we cannot define goodness (a question of moral semantics) then we cannot claim to know goodness exists (a question of moral ontology) or identify what is good (a question of moral epistemology).  

I do not want to focus on whether it is possible to provide an adequate account of moral semantics, but rather to point out that even if we are unable to do so, it does not follow that there are no objective moral goods or that we are incapable of knowing them.  Greg Koukl illustrates this point beautifully.  He notes how our experience of goodness is similar to our experience of color.  We recognize color as color when we see it.  If someone were to ask us how we know what green is, we would respond, “I just see it.”  We don’t need to define green to know it when we encounter it.  Similarly, we do not need to define goodness to know that we have encountered it.  God has given us moral intuitions to recognize good and discern between good and evil. 

(more…)

 

August 6, 2012

The Role of Desire in Evangelism and Conversion

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Epistemology, Tactics, Thinking
[5] Comments 

Scott McKnight alerted me to a couple of posts by philosopher Jeff Cook on the topic of desire and reason in evangelism (1,2).  Cook contends that “the debate about God today is not about what’s reasonable—it is almost entirely about preferences and desire.”  That doesn’t mean he is opposed to using reason or providing evidence for Christianity in our evangelism of the lost.  He simply believes that this alone will not persuade most people because it is not rationality alone that causes them to reject Christianity. 

Cook proposes that if people are going to be persuaded by our reasons for Christianity, they must first want there to be a God.  In his words, “Wanting God to exist is more important than believing in God.  By ‘more important,’ I mean desire is more crucial to the transformation of a person’s heart, more helpful in moving them toward faith in Christ, and more instrumental in one’s ‘salvation’ than right thinking. … It seems then that enticing the passions and wills of those who do not follow Christ is far more important than targeting their intellect with arguments for God’s existence. Showing that God is desirable will be the primary target of the successful 21st century apologist, for wanting God to exist opens highways for subpar apologetics; yet a closed heart will not here [sic] the voice of wisdom.” 

(more…)

 

July 13, 2012

Morality and the Epistemology-Ontology Distinction

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Epistemology, Logic, Moral Argument, Philosophy, Theism, Theistic Arguments
[36] Comments 

There’s a difference between how we know something to be true (epistemology), and what makes that something true (ontology).  Keeping this distinction in mind would illuminate many debates.  For example, atheists often claim that one doesn’t need God to know morality and act morally.  That’s true, but it misses the point.  Just because one can know moral truths and behave morally without believing in God does not mean God is not necessary to explain morality.  As Greg Koukl likes to say, that’s like saying because one is able to read books without believing in authors, authors are not necessary to explain the origin of books (author-of-the-gaps).  In the same way books need authors, moral laws need a moral-law giver.

(more…)

 

March 22, 2012

The Mind-Body Interaction Problem is not a Sufficient Reason to Reject Dualism

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Dualism, Epistemology, Mind, Naturalism, Philosophy
[7] Comments 

Those who reject dualism (the view that man is made up of two kinds of substances: physical and immaterial) often cite the “interaction problem” as an argument against the view.  Stated simplistically, the interaction problem is to explain how an immaterial entity such as a mind/soul could causally interact with material entities.  One envisions the Hollywood movies in which a ghost is desperately trying to pick up a beverage or kiss someone to no avail.  Try as he might, he cannot connect his immaterial self to the material world to affect it in any way (unless you are Patrick Swayze!).  Many monists think the interaction problem alone is sufficient to dismiss dualism as a possibility.

Such an approach to the question seems wrongheaded, however.  One should not look at the queerness of mind-body interaction and immediately conclude that the mind cannot exist independent of the brain.  One must first evaluate the evidence for the existence of such an entity.  If there are good, independent reasons to think the mind is not an immaterial entity—but can be reduced to the brain or arise from material processes—then the interaction problem could serve as further confirmation that there is no soul.  But if there are good reasons to think the mind is an immaterial entity separate from the brain, then the interaction problem—while difficult or even impossible to explain—is insufficient to overturn the evidence that the mind is immaterial.  While we may not know how the mind interacts with the material world, we know the two entities do exist, and do interact with each other.  One need not explain how something occurs to know that it occurs.  We may forever be ignorant of how the mind and body relate to each other, but we have direct awareness and experience of the fact that they do.

(more…)

 

Next Page »