(In this post, I respond to BKNewton’s attempts to answer two of the 12 questions I posed in the post titled "Just What Is Christian Epistemology?")

In a message dated May 23, 1998 BKNewton writes:

You have defined ‘knowledge’ as "justified true belief". I take it that because of the lack of biblical references that this 'definition' is not taken from the Bible. But this is a dandy attempt to define a very important term, but I would like to point out some problems with it. The first thing that strikes me is the question, "If something is true, why does it need to be justified?" This ingredient in your definition, the concept ‘justified’, seems rather superfluous at the very least, and problematic - even suspicious.

Anything that is true (i.e., any true statement, proposition, or - good heavens! - a fact of reality) needs no 'justification' in order to stand. A fact is a fact, whether anyone wants to ‘justify’ it or not. Thus, including this notion in the definition of ‘knowledge’ is superfluous - it adds nothing to the concept in question.

If "justified true belief" is said to be the definition of ‘knowledge’, can there be something that is approaching knowledge, but does not quite make the grade because ‘it has not been justified?’ I would like to know of an example of how a proposition can be true but not justified, and therefore at best approximate to knowledge, according to this definition, or failing the condition of knowledge altogether because of this. Thus, this definition is problematic, primarily because the notion ‘justified’ is, well, unjustified.

Then there’s the question of WHO is going to be responsible for justifying the already ‘true belief’. This is where the suspicion enters the picture when the religionist (sorry, BK, I mean no slander to you personally) forms concepts with a detectable psychological inclination to mysticism, supernaturalism and even a dab of deontology (the view that morality is duty-based). If something is said to be ‘justified’, then logically one would have to presume that some agent or authority (I assume ‘god’ in this case) is required to perform the justification (which has been shown to be needless already). This is not only unrealistic, but it will cause the theist arguing this position incredible difficulty in explaining himself if he claims to apply such methods consistently and integrally. The questions that come to mind immediately in considering this view would include: How does one seek god’s justification of already true statements? What is the process that the believer must go through in order to procure this seal of justification? What forms must I fill out? Etc. Not to mention the question I have already asked above: IF A STATEMENT IS TRUE, WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE JUSTIFIED????

This is only the beginning of the problems I could see arising if indeed this idea ‘justified’ is to be included in the concept knowledge. I could go on, but I’ll leave at there for the time being. (Besides, BK’s embarrassment must be unbearable by now.)

Then there’s the entirely problematic and connotation-rich notion ‘belief’ which BK uses in his definition of ‘knowledge’. Knowledge, BK is saying, is a ‘belief’ that is ‘true’ and ‘justified’. What is meant by this term ‘belief’??? Is a ‘belief’ a confidence, an opinion, a conviction, a hunch, a feeling, a grain of faith, a notion, a persuasion, a view, a sentiment, etc.??? This term is rather ambiguous, and makes for a very approximate basis for definition. Again, problematic, and because of its implicit connection with faith-based ‘thinking’, I find it quite suspect as well.

Overall, my judgment is that this definition for the concept ‘knowledge’ as being "justified true belief" is inadequate and misses the mark completely. ALSO, I have never read this ‘definition’ in the Bible. I’m wondering....

Regardless of all this stuff that you have attempted, you did not answer my ORIGINAL QUESTION according to my terms. I will repeat them again: If the Bible can stand on its own as offering man a complete system of epistemology, all these questions should be able to be answered by DIRECT CITATION TO THE BIBLE EXCLUSIVELY. PLEASE GIVE BOOK, CHAPTER and VERSE FOR ALL ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED. Now, perhaps, you did not read this, or perhaps you did not understand this, or you did not like my terms and decided to answer the question anyway how you wanted to answer it, OR.... ==> YOU CAN’T DO IT BECAUSE THE BIBLE DOES NOT EVEN DEFINE THE CONCEPT ‘KNOWLEDGE’. Could that be it? How can the Bible be considered an authority on knowledge when it fails precisely to define it????

DEFINITION OF ‘KNOWLEDGE’ (NOT TAKEN FROM THE BIBLE, FOLX!):

‘Knowledge’ is "a mental grasp of a fact (or facts) of REALITY, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of REASON based on perceptual observation," (Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pg. 45; underscore and emphasis T/box).

Note several points about this definition:

By ‘mental grasp’ Rand points out the fact that knowledge requires consciousness.

By ‘fact (or facts) of REALITY’ Rand points out the fact that knowledge is reality-based, reality-centered, and that the standard of knowledge must be agreement with reality (reality = the realm of existence).

By ‘reached’ Rand indicates that man requires a means of acquiring knowledge.

By ‘perceptual observation’ Rand points out that means of acquiring basic facts about reality.

By ‘Reason’ Rand points out the fact that abstractions and their proofs (validation) must be achieved and performed according to the stricture of a rational standard, which is LOGIC. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

Therefore, any complete definition of ‘knowledge’ will have to take into account man’s nature as a CONSCIOUS BEING (‘mental grasp’), that knowledge is knowledge of REALITY (as opposed to some supernaturalia and/or otherworldly dimensions [or dementia]), and that this mental grasp of reality must be acquired by some identifiable and rigidly testable MEANS (i.e., perceptual observation and reason). One cannot divorce the concept ‘knowledge’ from the concept ‘reality’. Why? Existence exists.

I’ve already been acquainted with all the claims about ‘god’ and the alleged ‘creation’. What I have asked is: How does the BIBLE define truth? NOT: How does BKNewton define truth? If the Bible gives a definition of ‘truth’, then let’s hear it (please cite book, chapter, and verse). IF NOT, BE HONEST AND SAY, "NO, IT DOESN’T SAY". I’m not interested in inferences you derive from statements made in the Bible, I’m interested in what the Bible says in its own behalf if indeed it can stand on its own as providing a complete system of epistemology. Howard has already conceded that the Bible only provides ‘parameters’ (whatever that means), and does not give the ‘details’ (i.e., it doesn’t say JACK!!) Now you have a question:

Truth is: "THE RECOGNITION OF REALITY; reason, man’s only means of knowledge, is his ONLY STANDARD OF TRUTH (Rand). Truth is the conceptual identification of existence and its corollaries: identity, causality and nature. No statement of truth can be divorced from reality (existence exists). As Rand states:

Rand also states, "The truth or falsehood of all of man’s conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions," (Ibid.) [cf. my analysis of the definition of ‘knowledge’ proposed by BK above].

Also note the following points:

For more complete familiarity with the ideas of Objectivist epistemology, I refer you to the source cited. Here is one example of an atheist defining ‘truth’.

However, BKNewton et al., even if I or any other atheist does NOT provide a definition for these or any other terms, does that in fact argue FOR your Bible and your ‘god’? I don’t think so. Even though quite the opposite is the case, if supposing your Bible DID provide epistemological basis as Christians claim AND ALL ATHEISTS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY EPISTEMOLOGICAL SYSTEM, would that mean that ‘god exists’???? No, it does not. Not by a long shot. Many Christians will disagree with the definition of truth I have given here. You’ve had your chance to offer yours. You still can if you like, however, I wonder how much of that second attempt will be fueled by genuine intellection, or by face-saving embarrassment. If I were you, I would be embarrassed.

Do I expect all atheists to agree with these definitions? No, I do not think that individuals are beholden to labels, not do I think they HAVE to accept these definitions. However, one of Rand’s points was that the truth of one’s propositions depends on the truth of one’s definitions. Certainly approximate definitions will not lead to anything of any worth to those who seek genuine knowledge (as opposed to the $#!+load of bullcrap out there). Knowledge is hierarchical, and depends on its conceptual foundations just as a skyscraper depends on the bedrock of its foundations. The analogy, I think is appropriate, and exact. The Bible offers sand. Objectivism offers reason.

Till later folx, I’m off to the pubs!! Hoist the steins, lads!

Tindrbox

$

_________________________________