Website: Studying the Word of GodAuthors: Brian K. McPherson and Scott McPhersonWeb Address (URL): biblestudying.net

Epistemology

I. Introductiona. Definition of Epistemology

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate DictionaryEpistemology - the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validityEtymology: Greek episteme knowledge, from epistanai to understand, know, from epi- + histanai to cause to stand— more at stand

World Book 2005 (Deluxe)Philosophy - Epistemology aims to determine the nature, basis, and extent of knowledge. Epistemology asks such questions as ‘What are the features of genuine knowledge as distinct from what appears to be knowledge?’…’What is truth, and how can we know what is true and what is false?’

Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe EditionEpistemology - The study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The name is derived from the Greek episteme (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”), and accordingly the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge.

Microsoft® Encarta® EncyclopediaEpistemology - I INTRODUCTION - Epistemology is concerned with the definition of knowledge and related concepts, the sources and criteria of knowledge, the kinds of knowledge possible and the degree to which each is certain, and the exact relation between the one who knows and the object known.

b. Essential Issuesi. How is Knowledge Acquired?

ii. How Certain is Knowledge?c. 2 Reasons Why is Epistemology Important

i. Personal and Practical1. Basic Facts

a. Everyone makes decisions, both big decisions and small decisions.

b. Everyone has beliefs (political, moral, religious, etc.)

c. And everyone disagrees with some beliefs.d. Everyone’s decisions and beliefs operate on some

epistemology, whether they know it or not.

e. Yet most people probably never consider how they know what they believe.

2. Considerationsa. If everyone had to first consider how they know

what they know, it would probably dramatically change some of their decisions and beliefs.

b. Since personal beliefs and decisions depend on our epistemology, epistemology must be critically considered, even before individual beliefs and decisions.

ii. Interpersonal - Apologetics and Debate / Discussion1. Basic Facts

a. Most discussions about beliefs spend time focussing on the beliefs themselves.

b. Most discussions probably never examine the underlying issue of how either side arrived at his/her beliefs (what the basis of belief is in each view)

c. Many people in discussions about beliefs have probably never considered the epistemology of their particular worldview or the opposing view.

d. Most disagreements and debates will not be able to be resolved unless they start by assessing their epistemologies.

2. Examplea. Example: Debating the evidence only to find out

that the other party’s beliefs don’t ultimately depend on the evidence but on what their heart tells them is true or on how they were raised.

3. Considerationsa. Therefore, when examining any belief or belief

system, we have to first identify and critically evaluate its epistemology, its view of how valid knowledge and beliefs are attained.

b. ...Only then, will we know on what grounds or by what processes to even evaluate a particular belief or worldview.

iii. 2 Views on How Knowledge is Acquired:1. Objective2. Subjective

II. The Objective Approach to Knowledgea. Definitions

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia

Objective - Adj. 1. Of or having to do with a material object.2. Having actual existence. 3. a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. b. Based on observable phenomena.

World Book 2005 (Deluxe)Objective - Adj. 2. existing outside the mind as an actual object and not merely in the mind as an idea; real.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Objective - Function: adjective 1b: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> — compare subjective.

b. Essential Componentsi. “The realm of sensible experience.”

ii. “Existing outside the mind as an actual object and not merely in the mind.”

iii. “Perceptible by all observers.”c. See diagram: “Objective Approach to Knowledge” (objective.jpeg)d. Common Associations

i. Empiricism

Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe EditionEmpiricism - in philosophy, the attitude that beliefs are to be accepted and acted upon only if they first have been confirmed by actual experience.

Microsoft® Encarta® EncyclopediaEmpiricism - in philosophy, a doctrine that affirms that all knowledge is based on experience, and denies the possibility of spontaneous ideas or a priori thought.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Empiricism - 2a: the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences.

ii. Scienceiii. Reason

World Book 2005 (Deluxe)Reason - 1. to think things out; think logically; solve new problems. 2. to draw conclusions or inferences from facts or premises.

III. The Subjective Approach to Knowledgea. Definitions

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia

Subjective - Adj. 1. a. Proceeding from or taking place within a person’s mind such as to be unaffected by the external world.

World Book 2005 (Deluxe)Subjective - Adj. 1. existing in the mind...Ideas and opinions are subjective; facts are objective...5. (Philosophy.) a. of or relating to reality as perceived by the mind, as distinct from reality as independent of the mind.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Subjective - Function: adjective 3a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective.

i. Essential Components1. “Existing in the mind” 2. “Reality as perceived by the mind, as distinct from reality as

independent of the mind.” 3. “Unaffected by the external world.”

ii. See diagram: “Subjective Approach to Knowledge” (subjective.jpeg)iii. Common Associations

1. Mysticisma. Essential Components

i. “A third kind of knowledge, the other two being sense knowledge and knowledge by inference.”

Inference - the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning. – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

ii. “Knowledge of..reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight).”

iii. External objects and events are “illusion,” which is “realized” by subjective intuition.

2. Full Definitions

Microsoft® Encarta® EncyclopediaMysticism, I INTRODUCTION - an immediate, direct, intuitive knowledge of God or of ultimate reality attained through personal religious experience…II NON-CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM - The apparent separateness and individuality of beings and events are held to be an illusion (Sanskrit maya), or convention of thought and feeling.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Mysticism - the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight).

Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Mysticism - Mysticism may be defined as the belief in a third kind of knowledge, the other two being sense knowledge and knowledge by inference. Adolf Lasson has written: ‘The essence of Mysticism is the assertion of an intuition which transcends the temporal categories of the understanding. . . . Rationalism cannot conduct us to the essence of things; we therefore need intellectual vision.’

3. (by extension) All Religion 4. (by extension) Faith 5. *We will question these last 2 associations.

iv. Is the Subjective Approach Really Used Today?1. Example 1: What the Bleep Do We Know!?

a. Bibliographic Info: (Video: Documentary/Drama) © 2004 Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, Inc. All Rights Reserved. (108 minutes.)

b. Official Description on Video Sleeve: “Embark on a life-changing journey with Amanda…who tumbles down a metaphysical rabbit hole. Her mind-bending voyage through the worlds of science and spirituality includes revelations by quantum physics experts…and even a conversation with a wise, 35,000-year-old being. Ultimately, Amanda’s perception of reality is turned inside out…See for yourself why this groundbreaking movie became one of the most compelling and talked about films of the year.”

c. Reviews: i. “A sleeper hit! Moviegoers are enthralled.”

– Dan Cray, TIME Magazineii. “A genuinely upbeat movie with big questions

and hopeful answers.” – The San Diego Union-Tribune

2. Example 2: Dr. Deepak Chopra, M.D. a. Credentials:

i. TIME Magazine Named Him Among Top 100 Icons of the 20th Century

ii. NY Times Best Selling Authoriii. Books:

1. Peace is the Way 2. How to Know God

iv. Founder of the Chopra Center for Well-Beingb. Bibliographical Info: (“Faith Under Fire,” Lee Strobel,

PAX, Copyright: Church Communications Network 2006 - Part 3, 1:20-2:00 minutes)

c. Transcript:

Lee Strobel (Host): But you would concede though that your beliefs don’t create reality? In other words, reality isn’t changing, it’s your conception of what it is [that’s changing].

Dr. Deepak Chopra, M.D.: Well, according to fundamental physics, reality at the most fundamental level is a field of possibilities that is compelled to make choices based on how we experiment with it…There are a lot of scientists today who are talking about an underlying field of intelligence or consciousness that expresses itself as this non-local consciousness, which is the source of all the organizing power in the universe. And many scientists, when they explore these domains, they have what could be called spiritual experiences.

d. More from Dr. Chopra later when we turn to the topic of “knowledge and certainty.”

IV. Contrasting the 2 Viewsa. 6 Areas of Contrast

i. Common Associationsii. Identifying Judeo-Christian Epistemology

iii. Application to Communicationiv. Application to Assuming Unknownsv. Application to Certainty (The Second of the 2 primary concerns of

epistemology.)vi. Subjectivity in Daily Living

V. Common Associationsa. Common Perception Today

i. See Diagram: “Common Perception” (associations_misperception.jpeg)

ii. This model is simple, clean, and perhaps popular, but not accurate.

iii. The result is a faulty impression that science, reason, and evidence AND religion are either mutually exclusive or at least diametrically opposed to one another.

b. Accurate Perception

i. See Diagram: “An Accurate Understanding” (associations_accurate.jpeg)

VI. Identifying Judeo-Christian Epistemology a. What it is NOT…

i. Judeo-Christianity is NOT a worldview based upon the acquisition of knowledge through mystical and subjective means.

ii. Judeo-Christianity is NOT a worldview that rejects evidence and reason as the only valid basis.

iii. Judeo-Christianity is NOT a worldview that makes assumptions then afterwards bolsters them with a façade of reason and evidence.

b. What it IS…i. From its beginnings and in its sacred writings, both historically and

conceptually, Judeo-Christianity IS a worldview DERIVED FROM evidence and reason.

ii. Objective proofs, both natural and supernatural, are always offered along with rational arguments for ALL MORAL AND SPIRITUAL TRUTHS.

iii. The Judeo-Christian epistemology IS based on REASON AND EVIDENCE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE.

c. Judeo-Christianity’s History of Evidence and Reasoni. Adam - Genesis 1:21-27 and 2:19

1. Genesis presents Adam as receiving objective proof of the Creator God.

2. Adam watches God create birds and animals from the ground right in front of Adam’s eyes.

ii. Noah - Genesis 6:13-17, 7:5-6, 11-12, 17-221. Genesis presents Noah as receiving objective proof of the

knowledge that God gave to him. 2. The knowledge Noah received about a Flood is confirmed

by objective proof when a massive, actual, physical flood is experienced by everyone on earth.

iii. Abraham - Genesis 18:1-33, 19:24-25 1. Genesis presents Abraham as receiving objective proof

of God. God along with 2 angels actually comes physically to Abraham, eats with him and proves his divinity by predictions that are confirmed by objective experiences:

a. the ninety-year-old Sara gives birth b. and Sodom and Gomorrah are together

extraordinarily destroyed in a single day. iv. Moses - Exodus 3:1-5, 19-20, 4:1-9, 17

1. Exodus presents Moses as receiving objective proof of the knowledge that God gave to him including a burning bush and the plagues.

2. And Moses presents such objective proofs of that knowledge to the entire nation of Jews and the entire nation of Egyptians.

v. Jesus - Matthew 4:24, 8:1-3, 8:24-27, 9:18-35, 11:4-6, 15:30-31, 14:14-29, 15:30-38, 21:19-20, Luke 7:12-22, Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-14, Luke 24:1-9, 33-44, John 5:36, 10:25, 32, 37-38, John 20:1-31, 22:1-14

1. The New Testament presents Jesus as providing unprecedented objective proof of the knowledge that God gave to him.

2. The knowledge of God presented by Jesus Christ is proven by the multitude of miracles he performs including healing those with diseases such as leprosy, healing the crippled, deaf, blind, and mute, raising the physically dead, multiplying loaves and fishes, cursing a fig tree, walking on water, controlling the weather, and ultimately his own bodily resurrection.

3. Specifically John 10:37-38, John 14:10-11, John 15:22-24 – Jesus appeals to the apparent reason of his words and to the objective proof of his miracles.

vi. Jesus’ Apostles - Matthew 4:24, 8:1-3, 8:24-27, 9:18-35, 11:4-6, 15:30-31, 14:14-29, 15:30-38, 21:19-20, Luke 7:12-22, Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-14, Luke 24:1-9, 33-44, John 20:1-31, 22:1-14; Matthew 10:1-8, Mark 16:15-20, Acts 2:43, 6;8, 8:6-13, 15:12, 19:11, Hebrews 2:4

1. The New Testament presents Jesus’ Apostles as receiving objective proof of the knowledge of God presented by Jesus including healing those with diseases such as leprosy, healing the crippled, deaf, blind, and mute, raising the physically dead, multiplying loaves and fishes, cursing a fig tree, walking on water, controlling the weather, and ultimately even physical proof of his physical resurrection including touching his body and scars as well as watching him eat.

2. And Jesus’ Apostles go out performing miracles, including healing, providing objective proof of the knowledge of God they had received from Jesus.

vii. Paul - Romans 1:16-2:31. In Romans 1-2, Paul asserts two objective lines of proof

for the knowledge of God, including both the spiritual truths, such as God’s existence, as well as the moral truths of Judeo-Christianity.

2. The objective lines of argument include the arrangements in the physical world around us and our experiences observing others.

3. See diagram “Paul’s Epistemology in Romans 1-2” (Paul_Romans1_epistemology.jpeg)

a. It’s hard to imagine a better first-century articulation of the need for objective epistemology.

d. Specific Instances of Subjective Information?i. Dreams, visions, prophetic words, etc.

ii. Considerations1. Specific instances against the backdrop of a theology

built by an objective framework a. (in direct contrast to whole worldviews built upon

subjective knowledge.) 2. The phrase “The Word of the Lord came to me” in the

major and minor prophets of the Old Testament experience visits from the pre-incarnate Word.

a. NOT subjective experiences3. Prophets were not to be believed unless their

predictions (including prophetic dreams and visions) came to pass, experienced by everyone

a. (which is in line with empiricism).4. On other occasions, context eliminates subjective

implications – such as “My Father has revealed it to you” (Matthew 16:16-17, John 1:29-41).

iii. Conclusions1. Ultimately, even instances where God reveals information

to one particular individual do not in any way suggest a subjective epistemology because such knowledge from God is only to be believed…

a. …Because it is occurring in the context of a theology in which God has already externally proven himself to be a God of the miraculous and prophecy.

b. …If the particular information is itself confirmed by external evidence.

2. This is still the exact opposite of worldviews asserting all knowledge of reality is fundamentally based entirely on the subjective.

e. Judeo-Christianity Summaryi. Not a single verse of either the Old or New Testament presents

knowledge or truth as innate within men, as subjective, or as the result of mystical intuition, mystical realization, or internal mystical contact with the divine, etc.

ii. Instead, the entire book of Judeo-Christian scripture from beginning to end including every major figure of the religion from Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, to Moses, to Jesus, Jesus’ apostles, and Paul, all present the Judeo-Christian knowledge paradigm as one of objective evidence, rationally contemplated to conclude truth.

f. *Relationship of Religion and Sciencei. NOTICE what this does to the relationship between science and

religion:1. Science cannot grow up/exist in any mystical culture with

its subjective epistemology.2. Science can only grow up/exist in the Judeo-Christian

culture with its objective epistemology.3. There is no conflict between scientific process and Judeo-

Christianity but a perfect harmony.4. The only conflict is between scientific process and

mystical religion / subjective epistemology.g. Calvinism and the Objective Epistemology

i. Introduction1. Calvinist forms of Christianity are going to object to the

assertion that orthodox Judeo-Christianity historically originates as a worldview derived from evidence and reason.

2. Calvinism has no problem using evidence and reason to support Christianity so long as:

a. ...that evidence and reason remain a support added after the fact of conversion.

b. ...AND belief itself results from God unilaterally (involuntary on man’s part) imparting belief into a man.

3. Thus, in Calvinism, the source of knowledge is NOT evidence and reason but an internal, subjective realization caused by an internal, spiritual experience with God.

4. Consequently, the epistemology of Calvinism is by definition subjective, mystical epistemology.

ii. Why Cover Calvinism in this Study?1. Calvinism’s epistemology is just one of multiple points on

which Calvinism is fundamentally aligned with the mystical tradition rather than Old and New Testament Judeo-Christianity.

2. However, the subject of this study is not to use epistemology (or any other grounds) to disprove Calvinism.

3. However, since Calvinism offers an alternative epistemology (to the objective epistemology we’ve outlined from scripture), in order to further vindicate that objective epistemology is the epistemology of historic Judeo-Christianity, we have to identify the historic origin of Calvinism’s subjective epistemology now.

iii. Calvinism’s Inherent Subjective and Mystical Epistemology1. Calvinism Teaches:

a. From conception, man is in a fallen state in which he is UNABLE to:

i. respond to God’s truth,ii. believe God’s truth,

iii. OR do anything to move himself even one step along the road to conversion and belief (including examining and rationally considering evidence).

b. Man comes to have and believe God’s truth (not by evidence or rational contemplation) but by an inner, subjective exchange with God.

2. Review of Mysticism’s Definition

Microsoft® Encarta® EncyclopediaMysticism, I INTRODUCTION - an immediate, direct, intuitive knowledge of God or of ultimate reality attained through personal religious experience. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Mysticism - the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight).

Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe EditionMysticism - Mysticism may be defined as the belief in a third kind of knowledge, the other two being sense knowledge and knowledge by inference. Adolf Lasson has written: ‘The essence of Mysticism is the assertion of an intuition which transcends

the temporal categories of the understanding. . . . Rationalism cannot conduct us to the essence of things; we therefore need intellectual vision.’

Inference - the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning. – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

3. Defining Calvinist Epistemology In Their Own Wordsa. The Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics

(CRTA) www.reformed.org/calvinism/trf/part_6.html

1. Total Inability or Total DepravityBecause of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not - indeed he cannot - choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ - it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation - it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God.

4. The Efficacious Call of the Spirit or Irresistible GraceIn addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God's grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.

b. Orthodox Presbyterian Church (A U.S. Presbyterian denomination) www.opc.org/cce/QandA/5.html

"T" for Total Depravity. That means that unsaved people are "dead in trespasses and sins." Dead people cannot respond to the things of this life. Dead people can neither hear, see, feel, taste nor smell. Ephesians 2:1 says "And you (Ephesian Christians) [God] made alive who were dead in trespasses and sins." That is, before they became Christians, all members of that church were spiritually dead. They were not able to believe and be saved. It wasn't that they were literally dead. Verse 2 continues, "... in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air (the devil), [who is] the spirit who now works in the children of disobedience." Yes, the heathen of Ephesus were very much alive to the things of this sinful world in which Satan rules in the hearts of unbelievers. But they are dead to Christ and to God and to the Holy Spirit. In other words, they weren't ABLE to repent and believe in Christ!

I Corinthians 2:14 says that "... the NATURAL MAN (the unsaved person) does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him (or her); nor CAN he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (known only through the Holy Spirit). So total depravity means that we were born in unbelief, and our state is hopeless until the Holy Spirit opens our understanding so that we can receive and believe God's Word. One more verse: Jesus, in John 6:44 says, "No one CAN come to Me unless the Father who sent Me DRAWS him; and I will raise him up (in the resurrection) at the last day." Total depravity does not mean that we are as bad as the devil. Some unbelievers are not totally wicked, or else we would all kill one another! But it means that, in the three parts of our souls, sin has taken over: in our THINKING, our FEELINGS and our WILL.

c. Saint Andrew’s Chapel, R.C. Sproulwww.saintandrewschapel.org/doctrine/about.php

Irresistible grace refers to the grace of regeneration by which God effectually calls His elect inwardly, converting them to Himself, and quickening them from spiritual death to spiritual life. Regeneration is the sovereign and immediate work of the Holy Spirit, working monergistically. This grace is operative, not cooperative, meaning that those who are regenerate always come to saving faith, as they are made willing to come to Christ to whom they most certainly flee and cling for their redemption.

d. THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITHwww.pcanet.org/general/cof_contents.htm

CHAP. IX. - Of Free-Will. 3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

CHAP. X. - Of Effectual Calling. 1. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.

2. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

iv. Epistemological Impact of Calvinism1. Objective epistemology means that (1) the knowledge of

truth exists manifestly in the external world and, (2) therefore, that all men can know and believe the truth simply by rationally / wisely contemplating the information in the external world.

a. (This is almost verbatim Paul’s argument in Romans 1-2.)

2. But Calvinism rejects that men are in a state in which they are capable of coming to belief in God by means of their own voluntary faculties (Total Depravity).

3. So, Calvinism rejects objective epistemology.4. In direct contrast, Calvinism asserts subjective (mystical)

epistemology in which man comes to understand and believe the knowledge of God by a direct, internal experience with God (even one in which man exercises no control or voluntary participation).

v. How Did Mysticism’s Subjective Epistemology Get Incorporated into Modern Christianity?

1. Answer: Through Syncretism.

Merriam-Webster’s Online DictionarySyncretism - 1: the combination of different forms of belief or practice.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. Syncretism - 1. Reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion, especially when success is partial or the result is heterogeneous.

Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe EditionSyncretism - the fusion of diverse religious beliefs and practices. Instances of religious syncretism - as, for example, Gnosticism (a religious dualistic system that incorporated elements from the Oriental mystery religions), Judaism, Christianity, and Greek religious philosophical concepts - were particularly prevalent during the Hellenistic period (c. 300 BC-c. AD 300).

2. See diagram “The Path of Subjective Epistemology” (subjective_christian_syncretism.jpeg)

a. This answers how Judeo-Christian epistemology can be Objective while so much modern Christianity operates with a subjective epistemology.

i. This history is covered in more detail in our 200 Level Course on Freewill.

VII. Application of Epistemology to Communicationa. (Particularly written language…)b. Objective Epistemology

i. Hermeneutics / Exegesis1. Objective meaning is present in the words and grammar…2. And can be determined simply by rational analysis of

vocabulary and grammar.c. Subjective Epistemology

i. Deconstruction1. Words and grammar do NOT hold objective meaning...2. But meaning is subjective, existing only in the mind of the

individual…3. And differing from individual to individual…4. With no necessarily incorrect meaning.

d. Definitionsi. Hermeneutics and Exegesis

Microsoft® Encarta® EncyclopediaHermeneutics – A quite different method can be observed among Reformation and post-Reformation Protestant theologians, who have attempted to base theology on the Bible alone…This constitutes the work of exegesis, which aims at ascertaining as far as possible the meaning that the writer intended… This step involves hermeneutics, the science of interpretation.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

Hermeneutics – The study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible).

Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe EditionHermeneutics – The study of the general principles of biblical interpretation. For both Jews and Christians throughout their histories, the primary purpose of hermeneutics, and of the exegetical methods employed in interpretation, has been to discover the truths and values of the Bible.

Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe EditionExegesis – The critical interpretation of the biblical text to discover its intended meaning.

ii. Deconstruction

World Book 2005 (Deluxe)French literature (The middle and late 1900's) – In the 1970's and 1980's, French literary criticism was heavily influenced by the philosophical movement known as deconstruction...See DERRIDA, JACQUES.

World Book 2005 (Deluxe)Derrida, Jacques – A French philosopher, is considered the founder of the deconstruction movement... But Derrida states that in language, especially written language, we mean more and other than we intended to say…This process of showing how the actual words of the text tangle and "undo" its intended meaning has come to be called deconstruction.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Deconstruction – a method of literary criticism that assumes language refers only to itself rather than to an extratextual reality, that asserts multiple conflicting interpretations of a text, and that bases such interpretations on the philosophical, political, or social implications of the use of language in the text rather than on the author's intention.

e. Impact of Subjective Epistemology and Deconstruction Philosophyi. For Christians who (knowingly or unknowingly) adopt a subjective

epistemology and/or deconstruction philosophy of language, the written scriptures cease to be their authority.

1. (...even if they sincerely employ a facade of hermeneutic or exegetical argumentation.)

ii. Consequently, no moral or doctrinal issue will be able to be resolved through exegesis of the scripture since “listening to one’s own heart” becomes the authority for each individual.

1. The Holy Spirit never contradicts the instructions that God has already revealed, which is recorded for us in the Old and New Testaments.

f. Theological Division in the Churchi. Question: If objective epistemology, hermeneutics, and exegesis

work, then why are there so many divergent denominations and doctrines in the Church today?

ii. Theological Division Results from 1 or More of 5 Items:1. Ignorance of or lack of familiarity with the scriptures.2. Ignorance of or failure to apply grammar and vocabulary.3. Ignorance of or failure to apply a knowledge of Judeo-

Christian history.4. Operating by a subjective epistemology or

deconstruction philosophy.5. Failure to actually practice the sound investigative methods

we affirm.VIII. Application to Assuming Unknowns...

a. Contrasting Epistemology With Regard To Assuming Unknownsi. Unknown = an individual concept or piece of information that we

don’t specifically have as a piece of external evidence.b. Objective Epistemology

i. (Because of its defining concern for evidence and reason…)ii. Will tend to assume only those missing items that are

1. indicated or required by the existing evidence.2. and always in line with the existing evidence.

iii. Example: 2 + 2 + X = 71. In the equation, X is an unknown:

a. We’re not supplied with piece of evidence X.2. But, the evidence we do have leads to the assumption that

X is 3.iv. Conclusions

1. In objective epistemology, typically the only acceptable assumptions are those that are conclusions deducible from the existing evidence.

2. In other words, objective epistemology is only going to make assumptions that are necessitated or suggested by the evidence that we do have.

3. Assumptions that have no attestation or indication in the existing evidence are not acceptable.

c. Subjective Epistemologyi. (Because of its defining LACK OF CONCERN for evidence and

reason…)ii. Will tend to ALLOW ideas that:

1. …are NOT indicated at all by the existing evidence.2. …whose entire function is to AVOID the conclusions

indicated by the existing evidence.iii. Example:

1. All the eye-witness testimony, forensic, and circumstantial evidence indicates that the defendant committed the crime.

2. But, although no evidence exists or is presented to support it, an alternative explanation is suggested that another, unidentified party committed the crime and fabricated all the evidence to frame the defendant.

a. (This may be accompanied by the suggestion that, although wholly unknown, other evidence exists that demonstrates this wholly speculative claim.)

iv. Conclusions1. This process is inherently subjective 2. …because its only power to convince comes from the

imagination or personal desire.v. (…This us leads to the related issue of Certainty.)

IX. Application to Certainty...a. The Second of the 2 primary concerns of epistemology.

i. Definition

Microsoft® Encarta® EncyclopediaEpistemology – I INTRODUCTION - Epistemology is concerned with the definition of knowledge and related concepts, the sources and criteria of knowledge, the kinds of knowledge possible and the degree to which each is certain, and the exact relation between the one who knows and the object known.

b. Objective Epistemology and Certaintyi. Objective epistemology is going to have no problem with

certainty and, in fact, is going to assert that certainty is the natural and necessary result when:

1. A rational analysis of the known evidence has been performed.

2. All or most of the known evidence points to a particular conclusion.

ii. We might call this “operational certainty” or “practical certainty.”1. This is the kind of certainty that we each practice in our

daily lives and decision-making.2. And it is the kind of certainty that we expect those around

us to practice in daily decision-making.c. Subjective Epistemology and Certainty

i. Earlier we stated that subjective epistemology tends to be:1. Dogmatic about uncertainty.2. Extremely skeptical about certainty.

ii. Definition

Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe EditionSkepticism – 2a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain.

1. Example of Dr. Chopra

a. Review: earlier we covered Dr. Chopra as an example that subjective epistemology is a prominently used view of today

b. On the same program of Faith Under Fire,” with Lee Strobel, Dr. Chopra also exemplifies the subjective view regarding “certainty”

i. and Dr. Chopra demonstrates how essential uncertainty is to the whole subjective approach

Dr. Deepak Chopra, M.D.: I think at a certain state of awareness, when we can experience deep stillness within us, we can get a great taste for it. But I don’t think we can in the relative ever know the truth unless we are willing to embrace our own uncertainty and take that leap of faith and say, “I’ll trust the unknown.”

c. Source: Dr. Deepak Chopra, M.D. (“Faith Under Fire,” Lee Strobel, PAX, Copyright: Church Communications Network 2006 - Part 4, 3:42-4:03 minutes)

iii. Subjective Epistemology’s Critique of Objective Knowledge and Certainty

1. Facts:a. Subjective epistemology and mysticism are going to

REJECT “practical certainty” as a valid basis for decision-making and daily operation.

b. Instead, subjective epistemology and mysticism are going to say that omniscience is required in order to obtain certainty.

2. Premises:a. Human beings don’t know every thing and,

therefore, we could POTENTIALLY be missing some critical evidence or information.

b. Human reasoning is likewise limited and, therefore, our reasoning could POTENTIALLY be flawed.

3. Conclusions:a. Consequently, we can never know for certain

anything that is based upon human reason and humanity’s limited access to evidence.

b. Consequently, since we cannot know for certain based upon reason and evidence, a third kind of knowledge is required for certainty, namely subjective knowledge.

c. Consequently, since it is the limitations of reason and information, which prevent certainty, the only way to have certainty is to know everything, be omniscient.

iv. Subjective Epistemology and Omniscience1. It’s no surprise that mysticism speaks of the quest for

omniscience through subjective experience.2. Jainism, Buddhism, and Ajivika all sub-sects of mystical

Hinduism.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.Jainism - Religious system of India practiced by about 5,000,000 persons. Jainism, Ajivika, and Buddhism arose in the 6th cent. B.C. as protests against the overdeveloped ritualism of Hinduism, particularly its sacrificial cults, and the authority of the Veda.

3. In such mystical worldviews, the apparent separateness of persons and events is an illusion.

Microsoft® Encarta® EncyclopediaMysticism, I INTRODUCTION – an immediate, direct, intuitive knowledge of God or of ultimate reality attained through personal religious experience…II NON-CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM – The apparent separateness and individuality of beings and events are held to be an illusion (Sanskrit maya), or convention of thought and feeling.

4. In such mystical worldviews, this illusion of separateness must be overcome / disregarded, and such an achievement is called the enlightened state of Nirvana.

Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004Deluxe EditionNirvana -In Indian religious thought, the supreme goal of the meditation disciplines. The concept is most characteristic of Buddhism, in which it signifies the transcendent state of freedom achieved by the extinction of desire and of individual consciousness. It is release from these bonds that constitutes Enlightenment, or the experience of Nirvana.

5. Once Nirvana is achieved, the enlightened person becomes omniscient, no longer limited by sense knowledge in knowledge or the illusion of separateness.

Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe EditionJainism - The name Jainism derives from the Sanskrit verb ji, "to conquer." It refers to the ascetic battle that it is believed Jain renunciants (monks and nuns) must fight against the passions and bodily senses to gain omniscience and purity of soul or enlightenment.

6. In mystical religions, this process is achieved through subjective knowledge.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

Mysticism - the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight).

v. Impact of Subjective Epistemology’s View of Certainty1. Notice the switch.

a. Objective knowledge and objective epistemology are said to be invalidated by the potential lack of any evidence or perfect reasoning.

b. The suggested alternative is subjective epistemology in which having no evidence and offering no reasoning is valid knowledge.

c. If the criticism really is a lack evidence or perfect reason and the same criticism is applied to both epistemologies, objective epistemology would still be the better of the two options.

2. Notice the contrast.a. Objective epistemology asserts that the degree of

certainty we already operate by in our day-to-day decision making is the same certainty we should operate by in moral and spiritual matters.

b. Subjective epistemology asserts that the only acceptable degree of certainty is the certainty that comes with omniscience.

c. THEREFORE IF (since) you don’t have omniscient (subjective) knowledge of a topic, THEN you ought not to be or act certain.

vi. (…This leads to Daily Living.)X. Subjectivity in Daily Living

a. Introductioni. Demonstrating the Error in the Subjective Approach

ii. Question: What would happen if subjective epistemology were applied in everyday living and decisions?

iii. Answer: You’d be considered insane.b. Daily Living and the 2 Major Issues of Epistemology

i. How knowledge is obtained.1. What you think of a business partner who constantly made

all his business decisions while ignoring all experience and sense data and ignored reasoning?

2. What you you say to a doctor who didn’t reflect on medical studies or evaluate your symptoms but simply told you undertake particular medical procedure that he simply had an intuition or inner feeling about? (What if he wanted to perform surgery blindfolded based on inner knowledge of the world around him?)

3. What would happen if you closed your eyes, plugged up your ears (sense data), and refrained from reasoning and

then tried to brush your teeth, eat breakfast, drive to work, or go shopping based solely on information acquired subjectively?

ii. Certainty of Knowledge1. What would happen if we regarded all knowledge gained

through objective processes as not valid enough to be or act certain about?

2. You’d never be able to turn onto a busy street for fear of oncoming cars.

3. You’d check to make sure you didn’t leave the iron on constantly, never being sure you’d just turned it off.

c. Effectively, you would not be able to function.d. Defining Insanity

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Psychosis – Fundamental mental derangement (as schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality.

Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe EditionPsychosis – Any of several major mental illnesses that can cause delusions, hallucinations, serious defects in judgment and insight, defects in the thinking process, and the inability to objectively evaluate reality...But, in general, patients suffering from the recognized psychotic illnesses exhibit a disturbed sense of reality and a disorganization of personality that sets them apart from neurotics…Psychotics may require hospitalization because they cannot take care of themselves or because they may constitute a danger to themselves or to others.

Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe EditionPsychosis – (Thought, Types of thinking, Pathological thinking, Psychosis) In significant degree, the psychotic's emotional and cognitive processes appear to the observer to be independent of what is happening in the surrounding environment.

Microsoft® Encarta® EncyclopediaPsychosis (Dictionary) – A mental disorder marked by derangement of personality, loss of contact with reality, and deterioration of normal social functioning.

Microsoft® Encarta® EncyclopediaPsychosis – Mental illness in which a person loses contact with reality and has difficulty functioning in daily life.

Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe EditionPsychosis – (Mental disorder, Types and causes of mental disorders, Classification and epidemiology, Classification) Psychotic patients exhibit a disturbance or disorganization of thought, emotion, and behaviour so profound that they are often unable to function in everyday life and may be incapacitated or disabled. The psychotic patient is often unable to realize that his subjective perceptions and feelings do not correlate

with objective reality...Neuroses, or psychoneuroses, are less serious disorders in which a person may experience such negative feelings as anxiety or depression and his functioning may be significantly impaired, but his personality remains relatively intact, he maintains a capacity for recognizing and objectively evaluating reality, and he is basically able to function in everyday life.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Neurosis – A mental and emotional disorder that affects only part of the personality, is accompanied by a less distorted perception of reality than in a psychosis.

i. See diagram “Typical Default Solution of Most People” (inconsistent_ways_to_operate.jpeg)

ii. Implications1. This approach is inherently self-contradicting /

hypocritical: a. To make assessments based on 2 selectively-

applied, contradictory approaches and to do so without accountability to reason or evidence.

2. Effectively, a subjective epistemology / mysticism is nothing less than a form of moral and spiritual insanity.

XI. Study Conclusionsa. Subjective Epistemology Conclusions:

i. Those who subscribe to subjective epistemology / mysticism have a choice between 2 Options:

1. Self-Contradicting Hypocrisy WITH Moral and Spiritual Insanity

2. Consistency WITH Total Insanity

b. Objective Epistemology Conclusions:i. The only option for consistency, sanity, and function is Objective

Epistemology.ii. Objective Epistemology is the epistemology of the Bible and

historic Judeo-Christianity.iii. The only basis for valid theology or any valid worldview is

Objective Epistemology.