How do we know what we know?

EPISTEMOLOGY

At the core of any thought invoking discussion on the existence of god is the question of how do we know what we know.  In philosophy this topic is called epistemology.  Now there are many prevailing ideas concerning epistemology and some of them are completely irreconcilable with each other which can cause insurmountable difficulties in coming to an agreement on intense philosophical ideas.  As an overview and at the risk of over simplifying the matter, I'm going to propose that most of these ideas can be boiled down into two main competing schools of thought:  Relativism and Objectivism.  Unfortunately, a relativist and an objectivist will most likely be unable to agree with each other at a core fundamental level and a consensus will be impossible.

Relativism:  Relativism is the declaration that all ideas, regardless of their incompatibility, should be considered equally valid.  Notice that relativism avoids making any declaration of "truth".  Instead it carefully circumvents truth by focusing on a person's right to believe what they want to.  This may take the form of complete ideological relativism, but more often it can be seen as a diplomatic relativism, wherein the individual adopts relativistic stances on various controversial issues simply for the sake of diffusing conflict and tension.

Objectivism, then, is the declaration and pursuit of a truth that is independent of the believer.  The problem that the objectivist is faced with, and which the relativist has cleverly avoided, is the question of how we determine this "truth" that is out there.  If two people hold conflicting ideas about a subject how can they reconcile these ideas into one coherent perspective?  Rather than elaborate on the myriad forms of truth that people have fought for over the millennia, I will put forth my own conclusions in regards to epistemology for the reader's evaluation.  I ask for some allowance to slightly redefine certain words from their typical usage for the purposes of clarifying my ideas.


GNOSTIC Vs. AGNOSTIC TRUTH

There are two basic forms of truth that we can deliberate over: Gnostic truths and Agnostic truths.  Eradicate from your mind any preconceived notions of the meaning of the word "agnostic", it does not necessitate a belief, or lack thereof, in the existence of God.  Gnostic simply means "knowledge", typically used to implicate certainty, and agnostic therefore means without.   "Gnostic" truths are those which we are absolutely sure of and "agnostic" truths are those where we can't possibly be sure of.  Why can't we possibly be sure of some truths?  Because human beings have long struggled with the obvious limitations of our own imperfections.  Perceptions vary and complete information often remains elusive.  Thus we are forced to come to conclusions about the world around us that are imperfect but nonetheless necessary.  It can be said then that with all agnostic beliefs there is always a certain allowance for error, regardless of whether or not we want to acknowledge it.

So where is the line between gnostic and agnostic truth drawn?  If we consider that the source of fallibility in agnostic truth is the imperfection in human perception then we must conclude that any truth as it pertains to the world that we perceive is agnostic.  We must allow for some margin of error, often a greater one than we prefer.  So what does that classification leave us for the realm of gnostic truth?  Not much.  It leaves us with a form of truth called tautologies, essentially something that is true because we've defined it to be that way.  For example, 2+2=4.  Why?  because that's how we've defined "2" and "+" and "=" and "4".  It is tautologically necessary that 2+2=4.  How we apply these human created concepts to the real world determines their usefulness and is also subject to error.   Tautological truths are very useful in the realm of mathematics and also Law.  We can use the definition of a law (a human construct) to determine what it means.  Or philosophy and logic itself can be considered tautological, but again, it is how we apply these ideas to the real world that takes us back into the realm of agnostic truth.


EVALUATING A CLAIM

In evaluating a gnostic or agnostic claim of truth, the processes are very similar, as are the possible outcomes.  In a gnostic claim, we simply need to take the definition of the idea(s) in question, apply agreed upon forms of logic and reasoning, and when a valid conclusion is reached we call this a "proof".  In an agnostic claim, we start with perceptions of the real world, apply agreed upon forms of logic and reasoning, and when a valid conclusion is reached it is called "evidence".  Either way, one of three positions can be taken upon being presented with a complete "proof" or "evidence" of a claim. 

1.) Acceptance of the claim: it is integrated into existing understanding of reality.
2.) Ignorance of the claim: the proof/evidence was not understood and could not be evaluated
3.) Rejection of the claim: the proof/evidence was understood but the definition and/or reasoning behind it are still in conflict with previously held beliefs.

Some examples of this for an agnostic claim are as follows:

CLAIM: "It is snowing outside" but you are unable to go to a window to observe directly.
Perception: since we are unable to observe directly, what exactly can we perceive?  Let's say that it's January and there was a prior forecast for snow that day.  This is knowledge that we obtain about the world around us and constitutes perceptions, albeit not direct perception of the claim in question. Reason: It snows often in January in this climate and weather forecasts of this type are typically accurate, therefore....
Conclusion: It is fairly likely that the claim "It is snowing outside" is correct, thus the claim is accepted.

CLAIM: "It is snowing in Houston"
Now what if it is summer in Houston?  Since the perceptions have changed, so will the reasoning.  Now the claim is much less likely.  Direct observation of the snow would be necessary, and since aside from news reports, most of us would be unable to do so, this claim would be rejected.

CLAIM: "It is snowing in Uzbekistan"
Perception: Let's say the month is November.  What do you know about the climate of Uzbekistan?  Do you even know where it is on the map?  Is it mountainous or flatlands? 
Reason:  Assuming you aren't familiar with this country, there aren't many perceptions of this claim that you can work with.
Conclusion:  Who knows?  Who cares?  the claim is ignored from ignorance.  Without further information, this is the position most people would take.


HANDLING DISAGREEMENT

So what happens when there is a rejection of the agnostic claim?  How should we continue in our noble goal of consensus?  If the claimant believes a complete claim has been made (perceptions and agreed upon reasoning), then the burden now falls on the dissenter to explain how the claim was insufficient.  Maybe the dissenter has experienced different perceptions that are in contradiction or possibly he has alternate reasoning to be considered.  Or perhaps, as is often the case, the forms of reasoning can not be agreed upon.  It is up to the dissenter to point these out.

Many would object that this is shifting the burden of proof, but it is not.  For if enough information has been presented that a negative position can be evaluated, then it can be argued that an evidenced claim has been made.  Only if an evaluation can not be reached can one say that an evidenced claim was not made.  In other words, not enough information was provided to reach a conclusion.  This is a huge differing point between myself and most mainstream atheists, who maintain that they do not need to defend their position because the theist has not met his burden of proof.  They assume then, and I believe arrogantly so, that the position of atheism is taken simply because it is the default belief.  But the theists have made very elaborate claims indeed (however flawed they may be), and the atheists have not withheld judgment on these claims out of ignorance.  No, the atheists have outright rejected the theists' claim because they find it does not match with their existing perceptions of reality.  So to continue reiterating that god (most likely) does not exist simply because the theist has not yet met his burden of proof is akin to saying that the theist is wrong because he is not yet right, which of course is circular reasoning.  How is he not yet right?  This is the burden of the dissenter to explain, assuming a discussion is to continue.


FAITH

Is the claim "God Exists" a gnostic or agnostic claim?  Many theists would argue that since they are "certain God exists" that it must be gnostic.  True enough, many of the discussions about God can be gnostic in nature, such as discussing the nature of God as he is described in the Christian bible.  This is very much akin to a judge coming to decisions about the meaning of the definition of a law.  But there is a huge leap to go from that gnostic knowledge of a hypothetical god and to apply it to the actual reality in which we all exist.  We all know this as the Leap of Faith.  Does faith enable us to make gnostic claims about an otherwise agnostic reality?  Has the theist found a worthy loophole?

What is Faith then?  The word has many definitions, some quite similar to each other.  In order to clarify what is meant when we say faith and to reach conclusions about its value, we should distinguish between these definitions and their uses. I present my own wording in these definitions, but I trust the reader will find them compatible with standard dictionary entries.

Definition 1) Faith:  Synonymous with trust, in regards to accepting the veracity of another's claims.  I.E. "I have faith that you wouldn't lie to me."  Here, the trust is given not blindly, but based on some prior precedence of trustworthiness.  The precedence by which this trust is placed (or misplaced) constitutes some form of evidence and reasoning.  Therefore, this definition of faith can not be used to justify a belief in god, because god must necessarily already exist before you can find him to be trustworthy.

Definition 2) Faith: A defined set of beliefs that are held by a group of people.  I.E. "The Jewish or Christian faith"

But the definition of "faith" as it applies within the context of justifying real world claims to be gnostic is: Definition 3) Faith: The belief that one's ideas concerning reality are absolutely and certainly true without regard for verifiable evidence.   This definition as I have presented it my seem harsh and biased, but let me demonstrate that it holds true.  Let's see it in use.   "How do you know the Bible is God's perfect word?  You just have to have faith."  But what if scholarly research and evidence supports the conclusion that the Bible is a flawed work written by many human authors, each with their own interpretations, and then edited later for internal consistency?  In fact, how does one go about showing that the Bible was written by anyone other than human beings?  I would argue it's impossible, but regardless, the de facto religious response to demands for evidence will inevitably be: "You just have to have Faith"

Faith in this context is consistently used as an alternative to evidence as a means of acquiring information and asserting claims about reality.  In fact, by its usage we can assume that they are diametrically opposed to each other.  No where else in human experience do we use this definition of faith.  We may have faith (trust) in a doctor's assessment of our illness because we believe that she has made this assessment based upon proper observation of our symptoms and the application of years of experience and knowledge.  But what if the doctor told you that your illness was caused by a horrible form of cancer, but the only proof she could provide you was that she had "faith".  No tests were done, no diagnosis was performed, she just reached a conclusion about your health and is now insisting that she knows  with certainty that you have cancer.  You may not even feel all that sick, it's no matter - just have faith.  This way of forming beliefs would be absolutely inconceivable in any other realm of human discourse outside of religion.

If a claim has evidence, then you don't need faith in the first place.  Evidence is far more effective at conveying to another individual the truth value of an idea because it is based upon something that exists outside the mind of the person making the claim.  A fossil can be found and studied by anyone on the planet.  A measurement can be consistent despite the person holding the ruler.  An X-ray can show the same broken bone regardless of who takes it, and the print can be shown to anyone who wishes to draw a conclusion from it.  Faith on the other hand, is nothing more than an idea used to reinforce another idea.  There's nothing to connect it to reality other than to continue asserting it.  This makes it far less convincing, since it requires the other individual to already believe it in order for the faith-based claim to appear to have any merit at all.  How then is this a valid means of acquiring new information or reconciling that information with someone else's ideas?  It's worthless.  It has no reconciliatory power whatsoever.  Who has ever been convinced of a competing faith-based idea because of the compulsion of the opposing party's equally stubborn faith?

Thus, faith is not a means of reaching a closer understanding of reality.  Instead, faith is a defense mechanism design to prevent the reconciliation of cherished ideas with observed reality.  The individual who insists that faith is a means of supporting a claim is not playing fairly.  Remember that in order for an agnostic claim to be presented and accepted, both parties must agree upon the standards of evidence: perceptions and reasoning.  But the  theist makes a claim based on a standard that is, by design, irreconcilable.  The ball is neither in your court nor his, you are in fact playing completely different games, which while being superficially similar, actually have different rules and win conditions.  The theist believes he is making a gnostic claim - one where certainty can be reached - and the information that justifies his claim, the information that you would need to counter in order for your ideas to be adopted, is tucked safely away inside his head, never to be harmed or affected by any information you could possibly put forth.  If you play the theist's faith-based game, you have lost before you ever began.

So I reiterate: faith is not an alternative to evidence for acquiring and justifying ideas.  It is a proxy, a false idol, it is the lie that an idea can be self supporting as long as it is claimed to be.  This does not accomplish anything useful or meaningful for the human race.  The fact that faith has been purported as a positive, even honorable, means of defending belief has become a scourge on the face of humanity.  Empowering people with the certainty they require to commit horrible acts of atrocity from war, genocide, and pervasive social oppression.  Religion alone does not bear this burden, but without the certainty that comes from the misappropriated gnostic belief that faith provides, atrocities such as these would be very difficult to justify.  If a dictator wants to wipe out an entire race of people, he's going to need to prove absolutely that they deserve it.  Good luck accomplishing this with an agnostic claim.  The responsibility that religion bears is that it is the single most predominant propagator of this ideology of faith.  And unfortunately, religious beliefs are a dime a dozen, ensuring that everyone from intellectuals to radicals have a steady source of certainty to drive their less justified beliefs and the actions that invariably result from them.