Refuting Theistic Epistemic Standards



by Francois Tremblay



The debate between atheist and theist used to be epistemically simple: generally, both sides implicitly accepted that only rational, natural evidence was acceptable. Faith was seen as a way to God but not as proof of God. Debates tended to hinge on natural facts such as the existence of the universe, causality, design, and so on. Science had not advanced sufficiently to provide ammunition to the atheistic side.

Now that cosmological and biological discoveries have defeated the classical arguments, the new current of argumentation relies on taking the battle further and questioning the very validity of reason and science as methods – as epistemic standards. To these standards, the theist opposes his own a prioris (the infallibility of the Bible, perception of “divine intervention”, divine revelation) as equal or superior standards.

I will give three ways to refute these non-rational epistemic standards, although “epistemic standards” is a bit of a misnomer given that it also applies to things like the Bible. Basically, these fatal refutations apply to any non-rational deduction or process.

1. All such standards would be circular, as they would assume the existence of God in order to prove the existence of God.

Acceptance of the Bible or divine revelation presumes the truth of a great number of presuppositions which he cannot justify, and which lead to circularity. I gave examples of such presuppositions in my article ‘The Impossibility of Divine Intervention’.

To accept the Bible as an epistemic standard, for example, we would need to justify propositions such as:

I believe that God exists.
I believe that God can, and does, intervene in the universe.
I believe that God can speak to human beings.
I believe that humans can understand God and write his words in a book.

But if we need to believe that God exists to accept the standard by which we say that God exists, we have a circular argument. All theistic standards are circular because they rely on something outside of the human mind as source.

2. Doing so contradicts the contingent nature of the theistic worldview itself, which cannot contain any principles. He must either accept our epistemic playing field or lose by default.

This argument is already fully described as the ‘Argument from Correct Choice’. It is much stronger than refutations 1 and 3, because it denies the theist’s use of any standard, rational or otherwise. Even if the theist uses a rational deduction, he could not justify that deduction, as the theistic worldview precludes the existence of principles (including the logic he is using to make the deduction).

3. Demonstrating that another epistemic standard is valid is impossible without the use of reason, since only reason is derivable from foundational principles.

To prove that the standard is valid would require the theist to demonstrate it. But such demonstration would have to proceed from rational methods, such as the senses (we would need to perceive that demonstration), logic (we would need to understand that demonstration), etc. Therefore any such attempt presumes that reason is valid, and the believer must still remain within the limits of reason.

On the opposing claims of Reformed Epistemology, see my refutation in ‘Plantinga’s Basic Beliefs: Not Quite Basic’.

Suppose that a believer tells you that he accepts divine revelation as an epistemic standard, and that this permits him to hold a belief in God as true. Let’s go through the points again:

First, how can we accept that “divine revelation” is indeed a communication from God (that is, actually “divine”) unless we presuppose the existence of God? And since “divine revelation” is used to prove the existence of God and yet presupposes the existence of God, it is a circular argument. It also begs the question of how the believer knows that he can understand God, that he is communicating with God and not Satan, and so on and so forth.

Second, how can the theist claim that “divine revelation” is a correct principle if he cannot hold any principles at all? God could very well decide to transform his “communications” into delusions or schizophrenia, without the believer being able to make the difference. Without a necessary standard, the theist is ultimately forced to nihilism.

Lastly, how can the theist show us that “divine revelation” is a correct standard without appealing to rational processes? He could tell us about some “revelations” he received, but how can we perceive and understand what he is saying without the senses? If he likewise tries to point to the practical consequences of these “revelations” (such as a better life), we must ask him how he knows that the consequences are positive without a rational standard.

I admit it's a shame this thread has been ignored. Perhaps it's the authors title, that make people believe it's intent is to flame, however that is not the case. It's an observation and debate within itself on theistic principles. So many reads and no one has a thing to say. That's unfortunate in many ways.

I found the article very interesting. I am always a bit baffled when someone who believes in the biblical god uses the bible to prove he exists, intervenes, and communicates with man. What I've wanted to explain every time it has happened is what this chap has put so well: "But if we need to believe that God exists to accept the standard by which we say that God exists, we have a circular argument. All theistic standards are circular because they rely on something outside of the human mind as source."

I like that quote as well, and I think it all goes to the presuppositionalism that accompanies any monotheist principle.The Abrahamic practices use the holy books as evidence of the god of the faith born in the revelation afforded through scripture, yet so to do those theist beliefs that ascribe proof of their god(s) in other ways as well. And, as Mr.Tremblay said, that makes for a circular argument or compartmentalized model substantiating itself, through the faith in itself. While independent critical observations are outside the box, sort of speak, they are often times disparaged by the supposition that proof is ratified by faith.

An example are pagan friends I've known for years. Their goddess/god, is proven to exist in that subjective anthropomorphic guise, by all that occurs in nature. Even when ceremony is prescribed, it's to call to the fore, the subconscious that invests in the primal communication through the ritual of it all, that then removes the participants from the critical thought into the irrational processes, wherein they believe casting a circle deosil, creates a virtual temple between the worlds. Calling the old gods to the five directions, installs guardians and watch towers, etc...

That's why I find the root of religious practice, and faith, so paradoxical. The human consciousness creates for itself something to believe in, as a higher power, superiorly empowered to create all that exists. And then attaches faith that that which exists in the mind/faith, need be attended by rites, rituals, dogmas, and conscious focus on a large aspect of such irrational contemplations, so as to survive itself in living rational acts and consequences.

!

So out of curiousity, what do you have left when you removed the rites, ritual, dogma, creeds, icons, etc... ?

I'm all for scientific method, and I'm all for logical thinking... but to me, there is one thing that defies logic, and continues to do so. I understand the point of this article, (I actually read the other one too, Argument or Correct Choice) and I liked a couple of things in each article like this quote at the very begining: Faith was seen as a way to God but not as proof of God. I still see Faith as a way to God, but not proof to anyone but me, and perhaps people who have shared the experience.

Of course I see a lot of things that defy logic ... like ummm ... teenagers.

I guess while I took the time to read the article, I saw a few things that I liked, but mostly there didn't seem to be much there that I haven't already heard. That's why I didn't feel it necessary to comment initially.

teenagers...lol and amen to that....

randomhit10

Did you read Plantinga's Basic Belief: Not Quite Basic, in the links attending the OP?

Excerpts:(sic)Sense perception is accounted for by secular foundationalism because it is the necessary center of rational thinking. If we accept that reality is objective, which is to say that it can only be found by extrospection, then the senses are by definition our sole fundamental means to find reality. This is not surprising, since the capacity to interface between the mind and exterior reality is precisely how we define the senses in the first place.

(Sic)As for the divine sense, it is obvious that there is actually nothing being perceived there. For one thing, the results of that “perception” is extremely cultural-dependent, which is an obvious sign of a subjective interpretation being imposed on simpler objective phenomena. All we really have in our minds is the emotional impact of holding religious belief, of which constructions of a divine sense seem to be nothing more than a rationalization. Theism is not superior to atheism in having a supposed perceived object, and even if it did, it would have no relevance to theism’s actual validity. (end)


I found the full read of not only the original article, but it's corroborating article/links, not like anything that's been discussed before. I do appreciate your input in this, I hope it continues amid other members as well.



Edit to ask: Shadow, have you ever read David Hume's Moral Philosophy? He's defiantly unique. The odd duck out, but yet a fascinating duckie none the less.

No, but I've read his Treatise of Human Nature, and that includes book III "of Morals". I've got "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" under the bed, waiting to be read, along with a million other books that I will eventually get around to.

Your house sounds like mine. Haven of the bookworm!

What's that you say? Just let me push this pile of books aside so I can see my laptop.

being a believer, i have accepted the fact that i am dealing with something i cannot easily explain in tangible terms....God is not tangable and has told us so in His bible....

Col 1:16 - For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

i know that there are super novas in space, that the universe may be without end but i can not begin to explain either....i know that each cell in my body has 8 feet of dna but i can not read the actual map....i look outside my window and see creation....i cannot find the evidence that all this was an accident....so to tell me that i must have a rational explanation for what i believe is more than my mind can probably explain to your satisfaction, but inside, i understand it perfectly....in this life, i do not believe that all things will be known by us....i think that God wants it that way....we have a decision to make in this life and that decision has to be made by our own belief based on faith...God has given us enough evidence if we choose to see it....when i pray to God and see it answered before my eyes has convinced me that my God is alive, large, and in charge....i can quote large amounts of scripture, argue over vague issues but these usually don't amount to any real conclusion....i have lived a long time...seen a lot of things happen, both good and bad (to myself also)...i understand more now than i ever have about God...i know also that one sees what one wants to see...i want and choose to see God in all His Glory...

randomhit10

~quirks eyebrow toward a giant pile of Shakespeare~ "I see movement captain! Right behind the Hamlet. "

What!




And I mean this in the most respectful way Random. Reading your reply you sound exactly like what Mr.Tremblay's article speaks to in the theistic circularity. I thank you for your reply, because I get the chance to read it side by side with the OP and it better helps articulate the observations of Mr.Tremblay, even more.