Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Answering Street Epistemology

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Answering Street Epistemology

    Those who practice what is called "Street Epistemology" say that it is a conversational tool that can be used to talk about a person's deeply-held belief. The interviewer tries to find out if the method that the interviewee used to arrive at his belief is a reliable method. Many atheists try to use this technique to try to get theists to doubt the existence of God.

    Here are some sample videos of Street Epistemology:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-M1EyhcRS8&t=451s

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tItsW3AUEmI

    If a Street Epistemologist were to interview you about the method you used to arrive at the conclusion that the Christian God exists, how would you respond to that? If you say what your method is, then you would be asked, "How do you know that your method is reliable?" or "If someone else used that method, would he arrive at the same conclusion?"

  • #2
    Originally posted by Hornet View Post
    Those who practice what is called "Street Epistemology" say that it is a conversational tool that can be used to talk about a person's deeply-held belief. The interviewer tries to find out if the method that the interviewee used to arrive at his belief is a reliable method. Many atheists try to use this technique to try to get theists to doubt the existence of God.

    If a Street Epistemologist were to interview you about the method you used to arrive at the conclusion that the Christian God exists, how would you respond to that? If you say what your method is, then you would be asked, "How do you know that your method is reliable?" or "If someone else used that method, would he arrive at the same conclusion?"
    Street Epistemology has been around for quite a long time. Its originator, Peter Boghossian, published his A Manual for Creating Atheists, on which Street Epistemology is based, back in 2013. Recruiting new Street Epistemologists started in earnest in September 1986 and there's now -- according to their "List of 10,000" -- 785 Street Epistemologists.

    That's enough background, now down to the nitty-gritty: with so many Street Epistemologists so-say actively seeking reliable methods of knowing, and who are "committed to helping others lead more reflective lives with less reliance on unreliable epistemology" -- you would expect that they should now be able to tell you what are reliable methods of knowing, and to be able to detail what reliable epistemology is. If you read their online materials or their Facebook (etc) posts you'll soon realise they haven't a clue.

    Try challenging them on whether there actually is a reliable method for knowing (or what reliable epistemology actually is) -- for knowing anything, it's supposed to be a method for challenging any belief whatsoever, including the belief that the Earth is spherical, 2+2=4 or that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old; if, implausibly you get an answer -- their advice is to avoid anything that pins them to any definitive statement -- challenge them on how they can and do know it's a reliable method/epistemology.

    That should be enough, and with luck you might leave one or two questioning themselves and their methods.

    Additional questions could be: what they claim is a reliable method isn't the only reliable method; what if it's not the best, and how would they know if it was; are different methods reliable in some areas of knowledge but not others and if so, how do they know which for which, and what are the reliable methods for knowing that; … add your own, shouldn't be hard, just keep questioning them and put them on the spot accounting for their beliefs.

    That there are reliable methods is itself a belief: ask them what a reliable method for knowing their belief is correct is, and how they can know, and how they can know that, and …

    If you've been watching their videos, you probably know more about their methods and questions than I do. Just turn them back on them. Knowing how you know how you know how... is an infinite regress. Ask them what, if anything can be known without question. Oh, and how they know it can be known without question.

    The interviewer tries to find out if the method that the interviewee used to arrive at his belief is a reliable method.

    If a Street Epistemologist were to interview you about the method you used to arrive at the conclusion that the Christian God exists, how would you respond to that?
    Do I, do you, does anyone, actually use a method? When was the last time you used an actual method, and what was it? Ask this of them, ask for a couple of worked examples of their methods and ask how they know these methods are reliable.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Hornet View Post
      If a Street Epistemologist were to interview you about the method you used to arrive at the conclusion that the Christian God exists, how would you respond to that?
      Taking a step backwards to get an overview, why bother?

      Presumably your post asks (in effect) how to "win" such an exchange. That's unlikely: your Street Epistemologist is going to be a super-atheist; what you see in the videos is them picking the low-hanging fruit, the people easily swayed, the over-willing to please -- for a start, they stopped for a stranger; they themselves will be hardened in their attitudes, lost causes not open to much if any doubt, they'll have an atheist support group, and in a week they'll be unchanged and you forgotten -- so were you to "win" you've still lost; and you haven't "won" in the eyes of onlookers because the modus operandi of the, er, interview is to be one-on-one, there normally aren't any onlookers. So how do you suppose you might win, in any worthwhile sense?

      I suppose you can chalk up wasting fifteen minutes of their time, but they have also wasted fifteen minutes of yours, I'd call that a loss. Walk by, why even bother with them!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by David Hayward View Post
        Recruiting new Street Epistemologists started in earnest in September 1986.
        Aargh. Make that September 2016.

        Don't consider them a serious threat, their numbers are not exactly rocketing up. By the time the 'List of 10,000' Street Epistemologists reaches that 10,000 target -- I'll ball-park estimate that at after fifty years ± a decade -- half of them could well be dead of old age and their names merely 'ghosting' on the List.

        Comment


        • #5
          It may help for churches to have some basic answers to issues raised by these extremists.

          1. Christianity isn't an intellectual exercise but a relationship with God.
          2. But people have come via intellectual study of scripture and even when trying to oppose Christianity. C.S. Lewis came through study of scripture.
          3. The scriptures document history and are reliable as other historical accounts. To deny scriptures is similar to denying all other historical accounts.
          4. "I" may not be able to deal with questions of trustworthiness of knowledge. But people who have studied questions of 'knowledge' can deal with your atheist questions
          5. The interviewer only has maybe 30 years of experience ... and now wishes to overturn two thousand years of understanding?

          I saw parts of the video with Tia. The atheist was disingenuous in his line of questioning -- he was not just wanting to hear people's ideas. His goal was of one-upmanship rather than saving people.

          This may not be the best list of ideas but it is a start.

          Comment


          • #6
            There's no more reason to debate one of those guys than to debate presuppositionalists. Same tactic, same modernistic nonsense, same Cartesian thought spirals. The conclusions are already made up, there's no possible dialogue for them to demonstrate their position, they're only out to force you into a doubt spiral, without stopping to ask whether that in itself is a reasonable approach.

            Then after that they'll assume that the only reasonable alternative is (Atheism | The Westminster Confession of Faith).

            Comment


            • #7
              I wasn't suggesting getting into such a debate. My thought was that sometimes people encounter something like this without knowing a way out -- it wouldn't have to be this group.

              Comment


              • #8
                Out of curiosity, has anybody here actually run into one of these sophists in the wild? You would think it was a big thing based on how much it's discussed in the apologetics blog world but I suspect it's just a few guys living in their parents' basement.

                A few years ago, I probably would have tried to seek one out but at this point in life I have no interest in arguing for the sake of arguing.
                Last edited by KingsGambit; 07-14-2019, 06:34 PM.
                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Hornet View Post
                  Those who practice what is called "Street Epistemology" say that it is a conversational tool that can be used to talk about a person's deeply-held belief. The interviewer tries to find out if the method that the interviewee used to arrive at his belief is a reliable method. Many atheists try to use this technique to try to get theists to doubt the existence of God.

                  Here are some sample videos of Street Epistemology:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-M1EyhcRS8&t=451s

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tItsW3AUEmI

                  If a Street Epistemologist were to interview you about the method you used to arrive at the conclusion that the Christian God exists, how would you respond to that? If you say what your method is, then you would be asked, "How do you know that your method is reliable?" or "If someone else used that method, would he arrive at the same conclusion?"
                  I would first have to discern whether I wished to engage in an exchange with such an individual. If I did, in any case, I doubt that it would be a prolonged engagement of any sort.
                  For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You know what helps in situations like that?

                    Hanging out on forums like Theologyweb - and reading various online blogs like JP Holding's Tektonics, Glen Miller's Christian Think Tank, etc, where you basically come across every argument that such atheists can come up with and see multiple answers to those questions, and also can learn about various evidences for Christianity and God, the reliability of the bible, etc. And you get over your fear of discussing such things in person as you gain confidence online.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      You know what helps in situations like that?

                      Hanging out on forums like Theologyweb - and reading various online blogs like JP Holding's Tektonics, Glen Miller's Christian Think Tank, etc, where you basically come across every argument that such atheists can come up with and see multiple answers to those questions, and also can learn about various evidences for Christianity and God, the reliability of the bible, etc. And you get over your fear of discussing such things in person as you gain confidence online.
                      I agree. I would like to add that discussing things online is a lot different than discussing things in person. When discussing things online, one can take some time to formulate an answer before making a post. Talking to people in person is like impromptu speaking. One is put on the spot.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                        I would first have to discern whether I wished to engage in an exchange with such an individual. If I did, in any case, I doubt that it would be a prolonged engagement of any sort.
                        If a street epistemology approached, I would be happy to talk with him or her. A situation like that gives me the opportunity to talk about God's plan of salvation.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by David Hayward View Post
                          Street Epistemology has been around for quite a long time. Its originator, Peter Boghossian, published his A Manual for Creating Atheists, on which Street Epistemology is based, back in 2013. Recruiting new Street Epistemologists started in earnest in September 1986 and there's now -- according to their "List of 10,000" -- 785 Street Epistemologists.

                          That's enough background, now down to the nitty-gritty: with so many Street Epistemologists so-say actively seeking reliable methods of knowing, and who are "committed to helping others lead more reflective lives with less reliance on unreliable epistemology" -- you would expect that they should now be able to tell you what are reliable methods of knowing, and to be able to detail what reliable epistemology is. If you read their online materials or their Facebook (etc) posts you'll soon realise they haven't a clue.

                          Try challenging them on whether there actually is a reliable method for knowing (or what reliable epistemology actually is) -- for knowing anything, it's supposed to be a method for challenging any belief whatsoever, including the belief that the Earth is spherical, 2+2=4 or that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old; if, implausibly you get an answer -- their advice is to avoid anything that pins them to any definitive statement -- challenge them on how they can and do know it's a reliable method/epistemology.

                          That should be enough, and with luck you might leave one or two questioning themselves and their methods.

                          Additional questions could be: what they claim is a reliable method isn't the only reliable method; what if it's not the best, and how would they know if it was; are different methods reliable in some areas of knowledge but not others and if so, how do they know which for which, and what are the reliable methods for knowing that; … add your own, shouldn't be hard, just keep questioning them and put them on the spot accounting for their beliefs.

                          That there are reliable methods is itself a belief: ask them what a reliable method for knowing their belief is correct is, and how they can know, and how they can know that, and …

                          If you've been watching their videos, you probably know more about their methods and questions than I do. Just turn them back on them. Knowing how you know how you know how... is an infinite regress. Ask them what, if anything can be known without question. Oh, and how they know it can be known without question.



                          Do I, do you, does anyone, actually use a method? When was the last time you used an actual method, and what was it? Ask this of them, ask for a couple of worked examples of their methods and ask how they know these methods are reliable.

                          I agree with your idea of challenging them on whether there is a reliable method for knowing anything. Someone can say that he or she definitely knows something because he or she experienced it with one of their five senses, but one can ask, "How do you know that your senses are reliable?" Someone else could claim that they know things because he or she figured something out with their reasoning skills, but someone could ask about how their reasoning is reliable. A person can ask "How do you know that?" every time he hears a knowledge claim. In order to avoid the infinite regress of justifying one's truth claims, there must be some belief that does not require a justification or a belief that is impossible to deny its truth.

                          What do you think of the presuppositionalist's claim that without the Christian God, one cannot justify their belief that their senses and reasoning are reliable?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Hornet View Post
                            What do you think of the presuppositionalist's claim that without the Christian God, one cannot justify their belief that their senses and reasoning are reliable?
                            These ideas go back to Descartes, not just modern presuppositionalists. That without God no certain knowledge is possible.

                            God and the Attainment of Knowledge

                            Although Descartes’ rational foundationalism moves away from Biblical revelation and Papal authority to a system of individually verifiable knowledge, God still plays an enormous role in Descartes epistemology. Not only does Descartes believe in the existence of God (and hope to convince the readers of the Meditations to come to the same conclusion), he believes that this new system of inquiry succeeds as a result of God’s existence. If we are to succeed in our project of attaining fundamental and certain knowledge, it will depend on the existence of a benevolent God who allows us to access this knowledge. Descartes would like to argue that God is so important to our acquisition of knowledge that even the certainty of geometrical demonstrations will depend upon the knowledge of God. "And thus I see plainly that the certainty and truth of every science depends exclusively upon the knowledge of the true God, to the extent that, prior to becoming aware of him, I was incapable of achieving perfect knowledge about anything else." (Descartes 5:47)

                            Descartes’ criticism of empiricism for its lack of certainty is solved by the role of God in his epistemic theory. It is our sense experience and propensity to error that stands in the way of the attainment of certain knowledge.

                            https://www.uvic.ca/humanities/philo...a/TheRole.html
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Hornet View Post
                              I agree with your idea of challenging them on whether there is a reliable method for knowing anything. Someone can say that he or she definitely knows something because he or she experienced it with one of their five senses, but one can ask, "How do you know that your senses are reliable?" Someone else could claim that they know things because he or she figured something out with their reasoning skills, but someone could ask about how their reasoning is reliable. A person can ask "How do you know that?" every time he hears a knowledge claim. In order to avoid the infinite regress of justifying one's truth claims, there must be some belief that does not require a justification or a belief that is impossible to deny its truth.

                              What do you think of the presuppositionalist's claim that without the Christian God, one cannot justify their belief that their senses and reasoning are reliable?
                              If you assume I have the extensive knowledge of theology and philosophy so ably demonstrated by the so many here who I am unfit to undo the sandals of, you are sadly mistaken. The nearest I get is understanding and liking the argument that with evolution by natural selection one cannot justify belief that the senses and reasoning are reliable.

                              It's probably a mistake to try out sophisticated theology (as Jerry Coyne likes to describe it) on Street Epistemologists: despite the claim to philosophical competence implicit in the self-styled name, Street Epistemologist, I would be very surprised if many, if any, were; so far as I can discern from their written material that's just PR and pretension.

                              As I don't think presuppositionalism is anything that a Street Epistemologist would propose, and as I wouldn't either -- as you will see by re-reading my posts above, I would walk on -- I will refrain from attempting to discuss with you a matter I know little about.

                              Perhaps competent others will, either here or -- so you don't derail your own thread -- in a new thread set up for that purpose.
                              Last edited by David Hayward; 07-15-2019, 12:10 PM. Reason: Added missing "to"

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                              35 responses
                              166 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                              4 responses
                              49 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                              10 responses
                              119 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post mikewhitney  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                              14 responses
                              71 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                              13 responses
                              59 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Working...
                              X