Falsificationism

I edited this a bit. Just FYI. 

At another blog, there was some interesting, and at times a bit heated discussion about epistemology. Here are some thoughts. First, it will be obvious that I don’t have a background in science, mathematics, or philosophy. These are just my impressions of the kinds of arguments that were being made. 

1. It seemed to me that 3 of the guys were trying to marry a kind of philosophy of science to their Reformed theology. It got pretty strange, really. 

2. It seemed to me that said marriage was not made in heaven. 

3. The problem I saw was that said “marriage” led to their making at least one heretical statement. For me, that one statement was the test case to see if their epistemology based on a philosophy of science was compatible with their confession of faith. 

4. The specific example that I glommed onto and would not let go was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. One of the interlocutors said that someday the body of Jesus Christ might be found. 

5. Say what? Now, a skeptic would say that, or could say that. I have never heard an orthodox Christian of any stripe make that statement. He said it more than once as well. I thought maybe the first time was a typo, but then he repeated it. 

6. So, I bird dogged that particular bit of information. If their epistemology in any way cast doubt for a Christian on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, then it had to be flawed. Now, they seemed to say that allowing for human error is not the same as having doubts. That may be, but it still didn’t quite add up. 

7. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the key Gospel event. The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 states that the Gospel is “Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the 3rd day.” Christianity stands or falls on that event. 

8. Skeptics of all kinds are free to deny or question the resurrection of Jesus Christ, at least for now. In fact, most who are now Christians at one time or another did have doubts about that event. A real Christian might have doubts from time to time as well. 

However, any Christian who claims to be orthodox gets into trouble if his epistemology leads him to say that the body of Jesus might now be found.  It is a self contradictory position to take. It is like saying, “I believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead, BUT it is possible to find His dead body.” The two ideas cancel themselves out. 

If - or since - Jesus Christ rose from the dead, His dead body cannot ever be found because there is no dead body of Jesus at this point in time. He was dead for 3 days, and then alive from the dead. 

That is the orthodox position. It always has been. It always will be. Anyone who claims orthodoxy knows that. 

9.  The 3 guys constantly appealed to the principle of falsification in order to defend their epistemology. It seems to me that they were probably falling into the error of what is  called “falsificationism.”  It is taking the concept of “falsification” from the philosophy of science and stretching it beyond its usefulness. While that concept may be useful for certain hard sciences, it does not explain all kinds of knowledge - science - nor does it explain all kinds or levels of knowing. 

10. My 3 friends had to finally admit that they did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ because it  is falsifiable. They believe because it is part of our common faith. They don’t really think that the body of Jesus might be found someday.  One even stated that he had certitude - which is the highest level of certainty. IOW, he has no doubt about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They believe by grace through faith. Faith is a gift of God. (see Ephesians 2:1-10) That gift and that grace is available to anyone who will receive it. Sure. The evidence for the resurrection is presented, so faith does not destroy human reason and our need to know based on facts. 

I knew that they really do not doubt the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I’m not sure what they were trying to prove. They kept saying that no human being is omniscient. Any human being might be wrong. 

No one denies that. However, a person doesn’t have to be omniscient to be able to know stuff. Sure. Any given individual might be wrong about any number of things. 

The problem comes when a person claims to hold to the common faith that all Christians confess - Jesus Christ rose from the dead. 

11. The starting point for our common Christian faith is God, who is omniscient. He really does know everything. He is the one who reveals Gospel truth in such a way that a person can know and believe. It really doesn’t matter what a person is able to know. What matters is God’s ability to reveal truth such that a person can be enabled by God to believe. 

It surprised me that these guys were starting with their own human inability instead of God’s total ability. Calvinists especially emphasize God’s total ability in contrast to man’s total inability to know spiritual truth. That is one thing I have appreciated about Calvinism. Yet here were 3 calvinists arguing articles of faith in a way that  I thought was backwards according to their own theology. 

It is very possible, even probably that I didn’t understand their arguments entirely. I don’t have a background in science and math. They do. I am just presenting my reactions to the arguments. Nothing more. I have no authority over anyone to impose anything at all on anyone else. It seemed to me that they were working too hard to try to refute Catholicism. In the process, I think that they were doing damage to their own theology. There is such a thing as protesting too much. 

That’s how I see it, for what it’s worth.  

Now, my friend TVD’s head will hurt if he tries to read this. My apologies to anyone else’s heads as well. The way I summarized the arguments might be flawed, but I think the basic idea is right. 

In summary:

If a person claims to be orthodox, and then says that the body of Jesus might be found, then “ something" is messed up. Isn’t that kind of like having your cake and eating it, too? Isn’t it kind of like wanting an escape clause in a marriage contract just in case things don’t work out? 

That “something” seems to be “falsificationism.”  

See Popper’s Falsification

What I really appreciate about such discussions is the fact that I learn so much myself.