The epistemology thread

[silentreader]

I always have been a bit puzzled by Jesus saying that His sheep know His voice and the voice of another they will not follow. How do you understand this when we have so many varying views on what the voice of Jesus is saying to His sheep ? Your thoughts Jim ?

What are the logical alternatives?
1) Jesus was mistaken and made a false statement.
2) Our understanding of what Jesus said is mistaken.
3) Some who believe they are Jesus' sheep in actuality aren't.

All three possibilities create difficulties. Because it does not feel a very charitable interpretation, I am hesitant to publicly say #3 is true (#2 seems more humble) but I think it the most likely alternative. What am I missing? Do you have a better answer?

I find your statement "because it does not feel a very charitable interpretation" especially interesting, as I think we in tolerant liberal America are often guided by this sort of ethic, not wanting to be considered harsh or "unloving". I know other people who are guided by a different ethic who are willing to be more direct and forthcoming - and personally I trust those people more.

While it is impolite, I think #3 is the most accurate and aligns best with what Jesus said concerning the narrow way: "many are called [invited] but few are chosen", and "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many."

I agree completely. I would also say that this calls for discernment on our part, but not judgement on our part, if we can keep the two things separate.

[Bootstrap]

When I consider the agendas of the government and big pharma, the power and the money versus the Christian microbiologist, scientists, doctors, and nurses who are swimming against the current ...

What makes you such an expert on the motivations of all the experts out there? What makes you so certain that the highly politicized narratives you promote don't reflect agendas we should be uncomfortable with? If I claimed to be an expert on your motives or the motives and agendas of others here, would you accept that? I sure wouldn't. I would hope people would pile on to say that's just not OK.

I am very reluctant to say that I fully understand anyone else's motives, especially people I do not know well, but I think it is possible to understand data and research designs. To me, it feels like there is a group that approaches this from the opposite perspective. They are quite confident they know the agendas and evil motives of anyone who disagrees with them, but data and research design and all that stuff scientists deal with is beyond them. At my age, I have been surprised by a good handful of people who seemed to have good motives but turned out to be abusing children or committing financial fraud. I have also been surprised by the integrity and intelligence of people I had misjudged. I suspect other people just might be equally fallible when they judge the motives of others, and I suspect we may all be just a little blind about who is trying to manipulate us and how.

Frances Collins is the author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief and founder of the BioLogos institute. I think these paragraphs capture my views on what we can know scientifically and why that is not the only factor we need to consider as Christians.

Scientists are not all-knowing and have biases like the rest of us. That’s why the process of scientific research has built-in steps for testing, vetting, and validation by the whole community. While any individual scientist may be biased, the community actively critiques each other’s work to reduce bias and errors until together they develop a consensus on what the data are saying. It’s not a perfect process and one can always find dissenters, but scientists working together are far more accurate than one person’s theory on YouTube. Scientists are trained to communicate where the consensus is uncertain and to not overstate conclusions. They may speak in sound bites in an interview, but if you listen a bit longer you will hear the caveats. So when Dr. Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, tells us what scientists have learned about this infectious disease, he should be listened to.

We need more than science alone to make good decisions. Invoking “science” is not a one-word rationale for public policy; many factors need to be considered. The economic losses and social hardships of the pandemic are painful, and thoughtful Christians will disagree on how to balance those needs with health needs. Even closer to our hearts is the impact of quarantine on church fellowship. As churches reopen, Christians need to balance God’s call to meet together with God’s call to protect the vulnerable among us. We need more than science to make these decisions; we need biblical faith to be wise and discerning (James 3:13-18). As Christians throughout history have shown during other pandemics, our faith is what moves us to deep compassion for the sick, the young, the old, and the vulnerable, as we follow Jesus’ command to care for the least of these (Matthew 25:31-36). Our faith calls us to sacrifice ourselves for others and accept temporary limitations on our freedoms because we have a permanent and complete freedom in Christ (Hebrews 10:34). Our faith helps us be humble and patient when discussing contentious issues (Ephesians 4:2-3). It is our faith, not science, that overcomes fear and brings hope. God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble (Psalm 46:1).

[JimFoxvog]

I always have been a bit puzzled by Jesus saying that His sheep know His voice and the voice of another they will not follow. How do you understand this when we have so many varying views on what the voice of Jesus is saying to His sheep ? Your thoughts Jim ?

What are the logical alternatives?
1) Jesus was mistaken and made a false statement.
2) Our understanding of what Jesus said is mistaken.
3) Some who believe they are Jesus' sheep in actuality aren't.
...

I omitted another logical possibility as it's another one I discount. The gospel writer might have not quoted Jesus accurately.

[PetrChelcicky]

Hello Wayne,

I also think that Bootstrap's problems are not really problems of epistemology, so Josh's answers to Bootstrap cannot be more apt to your questions. So let's go back to your questions. Epistemology was part of my studies, so my answers will be quite un-original; I simply follow the ideas of Karl Popper.

Your questions:
What are our sources of knowledge? What sources can we trust and why? What if the knowledge we gain from these sources contradicts other sources? How can we "know".
1. Our knowledge is a net of assumptions, so there is no difference between knowledge and assumptions.
2. The source of our assumptions is our brain. But assumptions lead to practical attempts which can succed or fail; so our assumptions clash with reality. in that sense, reality is a source of knowledge, too.
3. Science is about testing assumptions. We can trust a scientist if he is prepared to replicate his test for us - or at least we must know that he has indeed tested his assumption against rivaling assumptions and the test ended in favour of his assumptions.
4. If there are contradictions, the most normal solution is to allege different preconditions. Newton's physics worked well in the normally visible world, but not so well in astronomy and atomic science, because Newton's physics was bound to particular presuppositions which only worked for the normally visible world.
5. We don't need to know what is true in the end. We only need to know what has failed. And we ought to prefer assumptions which are sharply tested and are "better" (less failures, more successes) than their rivaling assumptions.

[PetrChelcicky]

For the record: A basic distinction is theoretical vs. historical sciences.
In theoretical sciences the number of tests is infinite.
In historical sciences the number of tests is finite; at one point, men have studied all matters by which their assumptions can succed or fail. Thereafter kmowledge cannot be improved further but stays imperfect, which we have to accept.
My addition: The most developed of all historical sciences is philology or linguistics. Scientifical theologiy is identical with the philology of "sacred" texts.

[Sudsy]

I always have been a bit puzzled by Jesus saying that His sheep know His voice and the voice of another they will not follow. How do you understand this when we have so many varying views on what the voice of Jesus is saying to His sheep ? Your thoughts Jim ?

What are the logical alternatives?
1) Jesus was mistaken and made a false statement.
2) Our understanding of what Jesus said is mistaken.
3) Some who believe they are Jesus' sheep in actuality aren't.
...

I omitted another logical possibility as it's another one I discount. The gospel writer might have not quoted Jesus accurately.

Thanks Jim and others who shared on this.

Here are my current thoughts - I think #2 and #3 are most likely true.

For #2, this could mean that we have heard Jesus voice when He called us to salvation. He called and we began to follow Him. But as sheep are prone to do, we go astray and ignore the Shepherd's voice calling us to follow Him. Things outside the fold are attractive to our independent nature and off we go in areas of danger. The Shepherd comes after us to draw us back to the fold. So, I take it that what Jesus is saying is about mature sheep that don't give ear to other voices and other pastures where the Shepherd is not leading them into.

For #3, the sheep and the goats parable comes to mind. It would appear that the sheep didn't even know that their treatment of others was the works of a true follower of Jesus. We are not saved by works but good works are the result of those who are saved. The Pharisees, highly religious, would appear to be goats as they did not have a changed heart to serve others. They actually took pride in not being like who they viewed as sinners. This is a warning to me that we might be living a religious way of life but have little concern for the lost and our works are not the works of being born again.

Knowing truth about what truths we need to know is related to our relationship with God. Do we walk hand in hand with God as a close friend, guided by the Spirit or do we live more according to what our intellect tells us listening to various sources as to what the Bible means ? Obviously what were considered spiritual leaders to listen to have gone astray (I.e. John Yoder, Jim Baker, Jim Swaggart, etc, etc.) So we best be careful what voices of man or woman we trust. Especially those of the unsaved and what they believe as truth. Satan is the great deceiver and current god of this world. We live as sheep amongst wolves and need to stay close to the Shepherd.

[Valerie]

When I consider the agendas of the government and big pharma, the power and the money versus the Christian microbiologist, scientists, doctors, and nurses who are swimming against the current ...

What makes you such an expert on the motivations of all the experts out there? What makes you so certain that the highly politicized narratives you promote don't reflect agendas we should be uncomfortable with? If I claimed to be an expert on your motives or the motives and agendas of others here, would you accept that? I sure wouldn't. I would hope people would pile on to say that's just not OK.

I am very reluctant to say that I fully understand anyone else's motives, especially people I do not know well, but I think it is possible to understand data and research designs. To me, it feels like there is a group that approaches this from the opposite perspective. They are quite confident they know the agendas and evil motives of anyone who disagrees with them, but data and research design and all that stuff scientists deal with is beyond them. At my age, I have been surprised by a good handful of people who seemed to have good motives but turned out to be abusing children or committing financial fraud. I have also been surprised by the integrity and intelligence of people I had misjudged. I suspect other people just might be equally fallible when they judge the motives of others, and I suspect we may all be just a little blind about who is trying to manipulate us and how.

Frances Collins is the author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief and founder of the BioLogos institute. I think these paragraphs capture my views on what we can know scientifically and why that is not the only factor we need to consider as Christians.

Scientists are not all-knowing and have biases like the rest of us. That’s why the process of scientific research has built-in steps for testing, vetting, and validation by the whole community. While any individual scientist may be biased, the community actively critiques each other’s work to reduce bias and errors until together they develop a consensus on what the data are saying. It’s not a perfect process and one can always find dissenters, but scientists working together are far more accurate than one person’s theory on YouTube. Scientists are trained to communicate where the consensus is uncertain and to not overstate conclusions. They may speak in sound bites in an interview, but if you listen a bit longer you will hear the caveats. So when Dr. Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, tells us what scientists have learned about this infectious disease, he should be listened to.

We need more than science alone to make good decisions. Invoking “science” is not a one-word rationale for public policy; many factors need to be considered. The economic losses and social hardships of the pandemic are painful, and thoughtful Christians will disagree on how to balance those needs with health needs. Even closer to our hearts is the impact of quarantine on church fellowship. As churches reopen, Christians need to balance God’s call to meet together with God’s call to protect the vulnerable among us. We need more than science to make these decisions; we need biblical faith to be wise and discerning (James 3:13-18). As Christians throughout history have shown during other pandemics, our faith is what moves us to deep compassion for the sick, the young, the old, and the vulnerable, as we follow Jesus’ command to care for the least of these (Matthew 25:31-36). Our faith calls us to sacrifice ourselves for others and accept temporary limitations on our freedoms because we have a permanent and complete freedom in Christ (Hebrews 10:34). Our faith helps us be humble and patient when discussing contentious issues (Ephesians 4:2-3). It is our faith, not science, that overcomes fear and brings hope. God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble (Psalm 46:1).

I understand where you're coming from, just not in agreement- you're also assuming evil about an awful lot of Christians, ascribing a lack of sacrifice & compassion from a great many Anabaptists. I think the way they discerned who & what to trust actually turned out well

[Sudsy]

Seriously, though... lately I've been harkening back to various huge decisions in my Christian walk. Marriage, job changes, church changes and the like. There were times that I really wanted something really, really bad, and went to lengths to justify it by my emotions, which I confused with God's will for me. Yeah, it worked out okay (most of the time) but was I really where God wanted me?

There have been other times that random circumstances got dropped in my lap: sometimes great, happy things. Many times, not so great and happy things. And it would become extremely clear, with time, that this is exactly where God wanted me and He had a defined reason for it. I would be quite unsure of myself and yet random (some not so random) people in my life encouraging me to pursue a cause or calling.

God works in mysterious ways, for sure

I agree that we often do not hear God's will plainly for ourselves. I'm a big believer in communities of discernment and in guided strategic discernment over time. We often don't hear God's will plainly for quite a while, we may need to wander in the desert for 40 years so that God can prepare us and make us ready for his will.

The founder of the Bruderhof communities strongly encouraged this communal discernment, and it is a principle in which I strongly believe and which fits hand -in-glove with Anabaptism's concept of collective discernment. If the brotherhood is seeking God's voice and everyone in the brotherhood is in a active relationship with God through Christ (or you might say, everyone in the brotherhood is actually filled with and influenced by the Holy Spirit), then the gathered brotherhood would hear the same voice speaking to each of them individually in the matter. The brotherhood then will come to complete unanimity because they have heard the same voice.

If someone dissents it means that either the dissenter is not hearing the Holy Spirit (which implies a spiritual disconnect from God), or the rest of the brotherhood is not hearing the Holy Spirit, or all of the members of the brotherhood, including the dissenter, are not "right with God" and are not able to hear what God is telling them. Of course the entire brotherhood might come to a unanimous decision and they might all have been led astray, by another spirit. The dissenter might be the "prophet", or might be an agent of the deceiver. Any dissent, especially if a brotherhood is divided into two or more factions, creates the need for repentance and renewal by the individual in such a church and requires extreme vigilance of the spiritual state of each member to prevent the loss of the ability to hear God's voice. It's not an easy thing to attempt to be governed by the Holy Spirit!

The basic point is: If "we" claim to be filled with and guided by the Holy Spirit, then we will hear the same Spirit telling "us" the same thing. God is not schizophrenic: He does not tell different individuals contradictory things on the same matter. If individuals are hearing contradictory voices of God then someone is, in fact, not actually hearing God.

This problem of course can be mitigated by an outside source of God's word, or by other sources of authority. As followers of Jesus who hold the scriptures as authoritative, the "still small voice" guiding us will not tell us something different from what Jesus told us, or what the Apostles discerned. We might also recognize the authority of "the church" in its earlier discernment (which is how we came to accept certain books as authoritative "scripture"!).

The voice of God might also be authenticated by events. If I hear God telling me to point to a mountain and tell it to move, and the mountain does in fact move, then I might very well have actually heard God's voice. But this is not a reliable authority, as magicians and spiritual charlatans are quite able to trick those who want to believe in magic or on the charlatan's gospel.

So, why do Mennonites split off into more groups than perhaps any other group of Christians by their numbers ? Each could say they are hearing the voice of God in how to go about living a Kingdom way of life when from the most liberal to the most conservative there is quite a difference in scriptural interpretation and application ? It doesn't seem that 'communal discernment ' is doing much to portray a unity in Christianity. It seems this was happening in the early Corinthian church as they began saying just what leader they chose to follow and Paul tried to point them back to just following Christ.

What are your thoughts on 'collective discernment' and why so many splits occur when we can't agree to disagree ?

[ohio jones]

I always have been a bit puzzled by Jesus saying that His sheep know His voice and the voice of another they will not follow. How do you understand this when we have so many varying views on what the voice of Jesus is saying to His sheep ? Your thoughts Jim ?

What are the logical alternatives?
1) Jesus was mistaken and made a false statement.
2) Our understanding of what Jesus said is mistaken.
3) Some who believe they are Jesus' sheep in actuality aren't.

For #2, this could mean that we have heard Jesus voice when He called us to salvation. He called and we began to follow Him. But as sheep are prone to do, we go astray and ignore the Shepherd's voice calling us to follow Him. Things outside the fold are attractive to our independent nature and off we go in areas of danger. The Shepherd comes after us to draw us back to the fold. So, I take it that what Jesus is saying is about mature sheep that don't give ear to other voices and other pastures where the Shepherd is not leading them into.

The SS lesson today was from John 10, and apparently the custom was for multiple shepherds to keep their sheep in the same sheepfold overnight (hence the reference to a doorkeeper, separate from the shepherds, in v. 3). At the beginning of the day, each shepherd would enter and call to each of his sheep, and they would follow him and go out to pasture for the day. Then the next shepherd would call his sheep, and so on. Responding to the shepherd's voice out in the pasture is part of it, but maybe not the primary meaning. Every day Jesus says "Hey Sudsy, come follow me today." Every day his voice becomes a little more familiar.

And then the sermon was from Matthew 6. When you give, when you pray, when you fast -- the hypocrites don't do those things in private, only in public. Practicing those disciplines regularly brings us close to Jesus and helps us hear his voice.

So we have a bunch of sheep all following Jesus. All of us with different personalities and gifts, so he talks to each of us individually (and if he does tell us different things, "What is that to you? You follow me"), but with the goal of following him together as one flock. That's a big job, but he is a good shepherd. It works if we listen to his voice.

Not so much if we listen to the other sheep, or to the wolves who try to distract us. Isn't that usually the source of splits?

[Ken]

So, why do Mennonites split off into more groups than perhaps any other group of Christians by their numbers ? Each could say they are hearing the voice of God in how to go about living a Kingdom way of life when from the most liberal to the most conservative there is quite a difference in scriptural interpretation and application ? It doesn't seem that 'communal discernment ' is doing much to portray a unity in Christianity. It seems this was happening in the early Corinthian church as they began saying just what leader they chose to follow and Paul tried to point them back to just following Christ.

What are your thoughts on 'collective discernment' and why so many splits occur when we can't agree to disagree ?

I've wondered this too. And I have multiple relatives (cousins) who have instigated their own splits. In those cases that I'm familiar with there is no small part of male ego at play.

In any event, such a desire to splinter isn't biblical. To the contrary: John 17:20-23 states:

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

And in 1 Corinthians 1:1-12 we have:

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”