Context: before answering this question, I highly recommend reading the answers to [Is Christianity testable?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/105659/66156) and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97877/61679 . --- Some Christians believe that Christianity is testable. At least John Lennox [does](https://youtu.be/fSYwCaFkYno?t=2687) . According to such Christians, what is a step-by-step guide on how to perform such a test? I'm putting on my scientific hat here. Specifically, I'm interested in the following points: 1. Is there a set of clear, specific, measurable, non-ambiguous conditions that need to be satisfied for the test to become successful? 2. Is there a set of clear, specific, non-ambiguous steps that need to be carried out in sequence for the test to become successful? 3. Are there clear time frames for each step of the test, or for the test as a whole? 4. Are there clear, specific, non-ambiguous, measurable standards for evaluating the success or failure of the test? 5. Is [falsifiability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) on the table? That is, if the conditions of the test are perfectly satisfied and the steps are performed precisely as instructed, and yet the expected outcome of the test fails to take place, would that falsify the hypothesis underlying the test?

If a Christian considers that the [burden of proof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)) has not been adequately met by any known theological doctrines about God's nature, including mainstream ones such as Trinitarianism, Binitarianism, Unitarianism and Modalism, and in the absence of sufficient evidence they decide to withhold judgement and declare themselves to lack a definite position, would any official label apply to them? Candidate labels I have in mind at the moment include *"neutral"*, *"undecided"*, *"uncertain"*, *"still researching"*, *"skeptical but open-minded"*, and even *"agnostic with respect to God's nature"*, but I'm curious to know if there is anything close to an "official" label out there. _______ #### Appendix: examples of questions evidencing the existing debate - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/49022/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/18043/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2622/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/33246/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62297/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/40799/50422

Within Protestantism there is no universal definition of theology or how to understand the Bible: Anglicans have one definition, Lutherans another, Calvinists another, (insert name here), etc. So **upon what basis** can Protestants insist that some teaching contradicts the Bible objectively, and not only according to their own personal understanding of the Bible (which most would admit could be wrong)? And if all you have is your personal interpretation, upon what basis does anyone call anything a heresy, and those who hold it "heretics"? One has to be surer than 'I interpret it this way' in order to start condemning contrary interpretations with any note of seriousness. ----------------------- I've heard a lot responses things like 'His sheep hear His voice,' which in the first place is able to be claimed by two contradictory sides of a matter and not be falsifiable (it essentially is saying 'well, God knows who's right, and I think it's me!'), and secondly, circularly assumes that 'His sheep hear His voice' is to be interpreted specifically in a way which means that it pertains to the interpretation of the Bible. Similar are claims of having the 'personal guidance of the Holy Spirit,' which is similar or identical to the argument above. But again, this, while helpful to someone personally, doesn't provide a basis for say, calling others heretics based on that interpretation. Something that the New Testament says is possible. Worst of all, I've even heard things like 'I don't even interpret the Bible,' ('I skip the stage where I have to account for my interpretation objectively altogether') which is impressive ... in a bad way. None of these are impressive to me, and they do not withstand the most basic scrutiny. Can any Protestant provide a sola scriptura epistemology which *doesn't* rely on such dubious, unfalsifiable arguments?

From [Bayesian epistemology (SEP)](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/) : > ### Bayesian Epistemology > *First published Mon Jun 13, 2022* > > We can think of belief as an all-or-nothing affair. For example, I believe that I am alive, and I don’t believe that I am a historian of the Mongol Empire. However, often we want to make distinctions between *how strongly* we believe or disbelieve something. I strongly believe that I am alive, am fairly confident that I will stay alive until my next conference presentation, less confident that the presentation will go well, and strongly disbelieve that its topic will concern the rise and fall of the Mongol Empire. The idea that beliefs can come in different strengths is a central idea behind Bayesian epistemology. Such strengths are called *degrees of belief*, or *credences*. Bayesian epistemologists study norms governing degrees of beliefs, including how one’s degrees of belief ought to change in response to a varying body of evidence. Bayesian epistemology has a long history. Some of its core ideas can be identified in Bayes’ (1763) seminal paper in statistics (Earman 1992: ch. 1), with applications that are now very influential in many areas of philosophy and of science. > > [...] > > ### 4.2 Objective Bayesianism > *Objective Bayesians* contend that, in addition to coherence, there is another epistemic virtue or ideal that needs to be codified into a norm for prior credences: freedom from bias and avoidance of overly strong opinions (Jeffreys 1939; Carnap 1945; Jaynes 1957, 1968; Rosenkrantz 1981; J. Williamson 2010). This view is often motivated by a case like this: > >> Example (Six-Faced Die). Suppose that there is a cubic die with six faces that look symmetric, and we are going to toss it. Suppose further that we have no other idea about this die. Now, what should our credence be that the die will come up 6? > > An intuitive answer is 1/6, for it seems that we ought to distribute our credences evenly, with an equal credence, 1/6, in each of the six possible outcomes. While subjective Bayesians would only say that we may do so, objective Bayesians would make the stronger claim that we ought to do so. More generally, objective Bayesians are sympathetic to this norm: > >> **The Principle of Indifference**. A person’s credences in any two propositions should be equal if her total evidence no more supports one than the other (the *evidential symmetry* version), or if she has no sufficient reason to have a higher credence in one than in the other (the *insufficient reason* version). Consider a person who subscribes to *Objective Bayesianism*. According to the principles outlined above, such a person would strive to eliminate bias and avoid overly strong opinions in their priors. They would also adhere to the principle of indifference, assigning equal credence to propositions in the absence of reasons or asymmetries in the evidence to justify favoring one over another. Within these epistemological constraints, can an Objective Bayesian epistemologist become a Christian while remaining consistent with Objective Bayesianism? Can belief in God, miracles, angels, demons, the resurrection, souls, an afterlife, and similar doctrines be justified within the framework of Objective Bayesian Epistemology? Have any Christian authors written about this?

To the best of my understanding, Christianity lacks a unified theory or epistemology. Instead, each denomination proposes its own framework (though calling these "theories" may be controversial; see [here](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/118294/80226) and [here](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/119181/80226)) that combines practical/experiential and non-practical/abstract elements. There are significant disagreements between denominations, each having its own epistemological basis—either explicitly defined or implicitly assumed—by which they often critique or reject the perspectives of others. To illustrate, here are some prominent examples: - **Jehovah's Witnesses** receive skepticism from other denominations because of their rejection of the Trinity, unique eschatological beliefs, and exclusive claim to doctrinal truth. - **Latter-day Saints (Mormons)** face skepticism for their additional scriptures like the Book of Mormon, beliefs in continuing revelation, and doctrines about God and the afterlife that differ from mainstream Christianity. - **Catholicism** includes beliefs such as Marian apparitions and Eucharistic miracles, which other denominations often view skeptically as unbiblical or exaggerated. - **Pentecostals and Charismatics** are critiqued for their emphasis on spiritual gifts like speaking in tongues, healing, and prophecy, which some see as lacking biblical or historical support. - **Calvinists** hold strong views on predestination and the lack of human free will in salvation, which others find incompatible with notions of divine justice and human responsibility. - **Eastern Orthodox** theology and practice differ from Western Christianity in areas like the Filioque controversy, the veneration of icons, and the concept of theosis, which others sometimes dismiss as overly mystical or traditionalist. Suppose an outside, non-Christian observer sympathetic to Lakatos' concept of [Scientific Research Programmes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Research_programmes) examines the landscape of deep Christian disagreements. Each Christian group is skeptical of every other group, with no shared research project advancing toward the truth—each simply holding its own beliefs regardless of what others believe. **What reason does Christianity offer this skeptical observer not to doubt all denominations simultaneously?** If there are *N* denominations, and each is already skeptical of the other *N-1* denominations, why would it be unreasonable for a skeptical observer to extend this skepticism to all *N*? After all, it’s merely adding one more denomination to the list. Alternatively, does Christianity present its own version of a progressive research programme (in line with Lakatos' definitions of *progressive* and *degenerative* programmes, as explained [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Pseudoscience)) ? Could such a programme offer a pathway for an outside observer to eventually converge on certain truths that might align with one denomination or another? ----------------------------- Additional clarifications: * If an answer merely focuses on listing a minimal set of Christian tenets as the theoretical *hard core* of Christianity (in Lakatosian terms), that would still leave unanswered **why an outside skeptical observer would have any reason whatsoever to accept these hard core tenets in the first place** in light of the fact that (1) even within Christianity there are smaller groups that do not accept them, and (2) a simple listing of tenets doesn't explain how these tenets are useful to *make progress* in our understanding of reality. * Related to the previous point, it's important to keep in mind that a key concept that Lakatos retains from Popper is *falsifiability*, which means that a scientific research program has to make *falsifiable predictions* which are so in virtue of being testable empirically. Thus, **does Christianity share this scientific appreciation for the empirical testability of its claims to any extent whatsoever?**

[Leonard Susskind - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind) : > Leonard Susskind (/ˈsʌskɪnd/; born June 16, 1940) is an American theoretical physicist, Professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University and founding director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. His research interests are string theory, quantum field theory, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum cosmology. He is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, an associate member of the faculty of Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and a distinguished professor of the Korea Institute for Advanced Study. Susskind was interviewed for the program [Closer to Truth](https://closertotruth.com/video/susle-002/?referrer=8041) , where he explained his reasons for *agnosticism* regarding the question of God’s existence. The video lasts 7 minutes (you need to click on the *Long Video* option in the *FORMATS* section), but below is my attempt to summarize the essence of his reasons for being agnostic: > Susskind is agnostic about God because, if God exists, He remains hidden behind a metaphorical "curtain" of knowledge. In front of this curtain lies all the scientific understanding we have accumulated from studying nature, while behind it are open questions we have yet to answer—such as the origin of the universe, what happened before the Big Bang, and so forth. Susskind believes we currently have no way to investigate these mysteries, including the concept of God. For him, God is a hypothesis that cannot be confirmed or falsified by any known scientific means. Since the question of God remains undecidable and beyond our current ways of acquiring knowledge, Susskind remains agnostic. Are there Christian responses to this agnostic perspective, which views God as a mysterious hypothesis hidden "behind a curtain" and beyond the reach of scientific investigation? What might Christians suggest to someone like Susskind, a theoretical physicist, as a meaningful way to "investigate" God beyond the limits of scientific inquiry?

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism#Apathetic_agnosticism) defines *apathetic agnosticism* as follows: >### Apathetic agnosticism >A view related to apatheism, apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans; therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs. This view has also been called *Pragmatic Agnosticism*. The Wikipedia article also provides a reference to a [source](https://web.archive.org/web/20070807021506/http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/ourchurch/faith.html) which further elaborates upon the concept: >### Commentary on the Articles of Faith > This section contains all that is really important. All the rest of this extensive website is mere expansion on these fundamentals, or filler and amusements. (That is not intended to imply that you would not find it interesting to explore some of the other sections.) If you understand and accept these Articles of Faith, then you are an Apathetic Agnostic, whether or not you can be bothered to actually join the Church. > > **1. The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.** > > To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know. > > **2. If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.** > > All events in our Universe, including its beginning, can be explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants. > > **3. We are apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.** > > If there is a God, and that God does not appear to care, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not a Supreme Being exists, nor should we have any interest in satisfying the purported needs of that Supreme Being. However, our apathy to the question of God's existence does not necessarily mean we are apathetic about promoting agnosticism. What reasons does Christianity offer to reject one or more main tenets of *apathetic agnosticism*? For instance, are there compelling reasons to *care* about (rather than remain apathetic toward) the question of a Supreme Being's existence? Or, are there reasons to reject agnosticism (*we don’t know*) in favor of a more definitive stance on either side (*theism* vs. *atheism*)?

Specifically, I'm interested in works (articles, books, etc.) explicating the philosophical dimensions and implications of the idea that the law is written upon our hearts. That seems to me to suggest a certain kind of epistemology, and I would greatly appreciate resources that would help me learn more about it. Thanks in advance!

It’s possible that I may be proposing a false trichotomy, but when considering belief in God, I identify at least three distinct possibilities: - **Belief as a Choice**: Belief in God might be a decision of the will, subject to one’s volitional control. This perspective makes sense if libertarian free will exists, allowing individuals to freely choose whether they believe in God. In philosophy, this view is known as [Doxastic Voluntarism](https://iep.utm.edu/doxastic-voluntarism/) . - **Belief as a Gift**: Alternatively, belief in God could be viewed not as an arbitrary choice but as a consequence of receiving the gift of faith, presumably from God. Here, God, rather than human will, is the source of faith. - **Belief as a Result of Reason and Evidence**: Another possibility is that belief in God is neither an arbitrary choice nor an arbitrary gift but a natural result of sound reasoning applied to available evidence. Thus, a person who honestly examines the evidence and uses reason should naturally conclude that God exists. It seems to me that fields like [natural theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology) and [Christian apologetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics) are premised upon this assumption. It's possible that I may be overlooking additional possibilities and that the three options I've outlined might not be mutually exclusive. Moreover, I might be conflating *belief* with *faith*, and I welcome any corrections on this point if that’s the case. With all that said, **what is an overview of Christian perspectives on how belief in God arises?** Specifically, I'm interested in the following subquestions: - **Choice of the Will**: Are there specific theological traditions or denominations that view belief in God as a volitional choice? - **Gift from God**: Are there theological perspectives or denominations that consider belief in God a gift from God? - **Result of Reason and Evidence**: Are there groups that see belief in God as a result of reasoned analysis of evidence? - **Other Views**: Are there other theological views on how belief in God comes about that do not fit neatly into the three options I’ve suggested? --- **Clarifications** > I think it's better if the Q clarifies the *cognitive content* of "belief in God" that you're asking about. Even demons believe in the existence and the power of God and they shudder (James 2:19). But then you don't seem to ask about "faith" which demons don't have. Or is "belief in God" in the OP simply refers to the existence of the first mover? The first chapters of *Mere Christianity* talk about moving carefully step by step from mere existence, to awareness of God in the conscience, to dread of what this God might do, to theism (but no relationship), and finally to Christian theism. I like this comment. It emphasizes the distinction between *belief* as mere *intellectual assent*, which the demons possess, and *saving faith*, leading to *relationship with God*, which the demons do not possess. I would very much appreciate answers that split the analysis into these two aspects. > This misses the most common case. Most people grow up believing what they do because that's what their family (and others in their society) believe. It would be crazy not to. This is a good point, although I think this case can be reinterpreted as and reduced to a more primitive version of belief based on "reason + evidence", even if the reasoning process is arguably fallacious or flawed. The potential fallacies involved in this reasoning process might include [*argument ad populum*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) , [*argument from authority*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) , and [*appeal to tradition*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition) , whereas the evidence might take the form of "my parents told me so", "my culture told me so", "my tradition told me so", and so on. One example is how children develop a belief in [Santa Claus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus) , because their parents told them so and they regard their parents to be reliable authorities conveyors of truth. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all beliefs based on tradition or authorities are necessarily comparable to belief in Santa Claus or fallacious (e.g. if all medical institutions and laboratories around the world agreed that certain vaccine is safe and effective against certain virus, I wouldn't necessarily consider trusting their expert judgement to be fallacious). Believing something because X said so is not necessarily a bad reason if X is, for instance, an [expert witness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness) or a [credible witness](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/credible_witness) .

Within the context of 14-18 >14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. Q: What, if any, significance is conveyed by the appellative "our beloved brother Paul?"
Q: What wisdom is given to Paul?
Q: What are "these matters" Paul speaks of?
Q: What things are hard to understand?
Q: Who is ignorant and unstable?
Q: From the statement "knowing this beforehand," what "this" do we know?
Q: What is the error of lawless people?
Q: Is parsing this passage so granularly an example of twisting things to our destruction, i.e, is self-awareness dead?
Q: Does the remainder of the chapter 3 (or the first two chapters) provide additional context for understanding the final words in verses 14 to 18? **Chapter 3** >1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. >8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. >11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Reliabilism is defined by several sources as follows: > Reliabilism is an approach to the nature of knowledge and of justified belief. **Reliabilism about justification, in its simplest form, says that a belief is justified if and only if it is produced by a reliable psychological process, meaning a process that produces a high proportion of true beliefs**. A justified belief may itself be false, but its mode of acquisition (or the way it is subsequently sustained) must be of a kind that typically yields truths. Since random guessing, for example, does not systematically yield truths, beliefs acquired by guesswork are not justified. By contrast, identifying middle-sized physical objects by visual observation is presumably pretty reliable, so beliefs produced in this manner are justified. Reliabilism does not require that the possessor of a justified belief should know that it was reliably produced. Knowledge of reliability is necessary for knowing that a belief is justified, but the belief can be justified without the agent knowing that it is. > > Source: https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/reliabilism/v-1 > One of the main goals of epistemologists is to provide a substantive and explanatory account of the conditions under which a belief has some desirable epistemic status (typically, justification or knowledge). **According to the reliabilist approach to epistemology, any adequate account will need to mention the reliability of the process responsible for the belief, or truth-conducive considerations more generally**. Historically, one major motivation for reliabilism—and one source of its enduring interest—is its naturalistic potential. According to reliabilists, epistemic properties can be explained in terms of reliability, which in turn can be understood without reference to any unreduced epistemic notions, such as evidence or knowledge. > > Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reliabilism/ > A broadly reliabilist theory of knowledge is roughly as follows: > >> One knows that p (p stands for any proposition—e.g., that the sky is blue) if and only if p is true, one believes that p is true, and one has arrived at the belief that p is true through some *reliable* process. > > A broadly reliabilist theory of justified belief can be stated as follows: > >> One has a justified belief that p if, and only if, the belief is the result of a reliable process. > > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliabilism Do any Christians adopt a reliabilist approach to their belief in God and Christianity? That is to say, are there any Christians who believe that there is a *reliable process* through which one can reliably arrive at the conclusion that God exists and that Christianity is true? --- NOTE. There is a similar question concurrently asked on Philosophy Stack Exchange: [Can a reliabilist have a reliably justified belief in God?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/113311/66156)

Young Earth Creationism postulates two main theses: - **Creationism/Intelligent Design**: the thesis that the universe was created by a divine entity. - **Young Earth**: the thesis that the Earth is approximately 6000 years old. Now, let's imagine we compile the strongest arguments and evidence for competing secular theories, such as [Common Descent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent) , [Abiogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) , and the widely accepted old-Earth model supported by mainstream [geology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology) and [cosmology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology) . Similarly, suppose we gather the most compelling arguments and evidence for competing theistic views, like [Theistic Evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) and [Old Earth Creationism (OEC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism) . Suppose we also collect the best peer-reviewed papers and books from respected apologists for each position, essentially creating a comprehensive library of material for each view. Now, imagine X, an unbiased, sincere, honest, open-minded, and neutral truth seeker with plenty of time on their hands. They are about to dive into studying all this material in detail, even if it means dedicating an entire decade to study, with many hours devoted each day. Is it the position of Young Earth Creationism that X should inevitably conclude that YEC is true? If so, does this imply that anyone who disagrees with YEC, whether theist or non-theist, has not diligently, honestly, sincerely, and open-mindedly studied the evidence and arguments hard enough? --- *Bonus* This question intrigues me, especially in light of public declarations by Christian apologists who have relinquished their former Young Earth Creationist beliefs, such as the following: > A few weeks ago, astrophysicist Dr. Luke Barnes (Western Sydney University) published an excellent article in Premier Christianity Magazine, in which he gives his story of changing his mind about the age of the Universe, revising his view from being a young earth creationist to embrace an old earth. I resonated with much of Barnes’ story, since my own intellectual development on this topic has followed a similar trajectory. More than a decade ago, as an undergraduate student, I too would have identified as a young earth creationist. However, the more I have come to understand of science and epistemology, the more implausible young earth creationism has seemed to me. I now see the antiquity of our earth, and indeed our cosmos, as being supported by an avalanche of data, spanning multiple scientific disciplines. While I do not doubt the sincerity of young earth advocates — and am often quite inspired by their piety — it is my considered opinion that young earth creationism has, regrettably, done more damage than good to the public perception of Christianity. > > Source: https://jonathanmclatchie.com/a-response-to-jim-masons-defense-of-young-earth-creationism-in-premier-christianity-magazine/ > I sometimes describe myself as a “disappointed young-earther.” By that I mean I started out holding to the young-earth position, but the shortcomings of most of the YEC arguments and the shenanigans of certain YEC proponents forced me to the old-earth position. > > ... > > As you can probably tell, my decision to move from YEC to OEC was motivated strongly (but not exclusively) by a reevaluation of the empirical evidence. However, I recognize that everyone approaches the empirical evidence with presuppositions. Facts are not self-interpreting nor do facts “just speak for themselves.” The question before me—indeed, before all of us—is how, when, and how much should the empirical evidence cause me to adjust or change my operating presuppositions. What should I do since the scientific data seems to clash strongly with my presuppositions? > > Source: https://peacefulscience.org/prints/confessions-disappointed-young-earther/

In a [previous question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101109/61679) addressing skeptical analogies aiming to cast doubt on the evidential worth of testimonies for extraordinary claims, I cited [this source](https://youtu.be/MEEEJ0SrC60?t=525) which I'd like to revisit here with a different focus: > *Stephen Meyer*: And then that there were reports that he had been, that he had appeared to many after being resurrected. So there's a whole ... > > *Joe Rogan*: Right, but there's reports of Bigfoot. > > *Paulogia*: Right again Joe, but at least for Bigfoot we have first-hand reports. For Jesus's resurrection all we have are **reports of reports**. At best. More likely, **reports of reports of reports of reports**. Bigfoot is in higher evidential standing. Suppose I pick up a modern Bible, say, a contemporary King James Version, and peruse the four gospels. How can I ascertain that I'm indeed delving into a reliable eyewitness account sourced directly from about 2000 years ago? How do I know I'm not just perusing a 'report of a report of a report of a report' that might have undergone significant manipulation and alteration over time due to tradition, vested interests pushing certain agendas, and so forth? What lines of evidence and arguments should persuade any rational, neutral, and open-minded individual into believing that the gospels we possess today genuinely preserve trustworthy eyewitness testimonies, and aren't merely dismissible as 'reports of reports of reports of reports' as Paulogia seems to suggest in the quote?

Bigfoot was brought up by Joe Rogan during his interview with Stephen Meyer, as discussed in Paulogia's review of the interview in [this video](https://youtu.be/MEEEJ0SrC60?t=525) : > **Stephen Meyer**: And then that there were reports that he had been, that he had appeared to many after being resurrected. So there's a whole ... > > **Joe Rogan**: Right, but there's reports of Bigfoot. > > **Paulogia**: Right again Joe, but at least for Bigfoot we have first-hand reports. For Jesus's resurrection all we have are reports of reports. At best. More likely, reports of reports of reports of reports. Bigfoot is in higher evidential standing. Another [atheist source](https://www.atheistrepublic.com/gallery/bigfoot-has-more-eyewitness-claims-jesus-christ-s-resurrection) similarly asserts: > Bigfoot Has More Eyewitness Claims Than Jesus Christ’s Resurrection Indeed, according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot#Sightings) (which in turn cites other sources): > **Sightings** > > According to Live Science, there have been over 10,000 reported Bigfoot sightings in the continental United States. About one-third of all claims of Bigfoot sightings are located in the Pacific Northwest, with the remaining reports spread throughout the rest of North America. Most reports are considered mistakes or hoaxes, even by those researchers who claim Bigfoot exists. > > Sightings predominantly occur in the northwestern region of Washington state, Oregon, Northern California, and British Columbia. According to data collected from the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization's (BFRO) Bigfoot sightings database in 2019, Washington has over 2,000 reported sightings, California over 1,600, Pennsylvania over 1,300, New York and Oregon over 1,000, and Texas has just over 800. The debate over the legitimacy of Bigfoot sightings reached a peak in the 1970s, and Bigfoot has been regarded as the first widely popularized example of pseudoscience in American culture. To provide additional material for consideration, here is a two-part interview with a Bigfoot eyewitness that a Reddit user recommended [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/bigfoot/comments/16mdj38/sharing_my_favorite_witness_video_interview/) : [part one](https://youtu.be/TsDM4b5SqaQ) and [part two](https://youtu.be/aROJHXkSm64) . (It's interesting to note there's a whole Reddit community dedicated to Bigfoot.) So, the atheistic argument from analogy goes something like this: Given the multitude of eyewitness reports supporting Bigfoot's existence, with many still alive and accessible for interview today, it's still deemed rational by most people to dismiss Bigfoot's existence, because most people consider the evidence weak and uncompelling given such an extraordinary claim (i.e., the well-known *"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"*). Thus, if we use the same epistemology consistently, says the atheist, shouldn't we also dismiss claims about Jesus' resurrection? After all, this is similarly an extraordinary claim, and the evidence available is arguably even weaker, as the number of purported witnesses is far fewer, and none are alive today for interrogation (and as Paulogia remarks in the video linked at the beggining, it's quite likely that what we have is not even reports of reports, but reports of reports of reports of reports). How do Christians break the symmetry? How is this atheistic argument from analogy invalid? --- **Note**. There is a similar purported analogy between Jesus' resurrection and the golden plates. The following is a very thought-provoking discussion: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84581/61679

I've identified several potential pathways for why someone may embrace Christianity: - Option 1: Influence of birthplace, culture, and upbringing, possibly resulting in a 'cultural Christian'. See related discussion: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100901/61679 - Option 2: Conversion influenced by interpersonal relationships or community dynamics. This could involve being inspired by the faith of friends, family, or mentors, or finding belonging and conviction within a Christian community. - Option 3: Just choosing to believe. Right now. Just believe. That's it. - Option 4: Persuasion through intellectual engagement, often via philosophical reasoning found in natural theology and apologetics. - Option 5: Personal religious, spiritual, or mystical encounters—a direct and intimate experience with the divine. Option 1 often draws criticism from skeptics due to its reliance on factors such as parental and cultural influence, which are heavily tied to one's place of birth. This means that individuals tend to adopt the religion of their parents and the prevailing culture in their geographical area. For instance, Muslims predominantly reside in regions where Islam is prevalent, Buddhists in areas where Buddhism holds sway, and Christians in societies where Christianity is dominant. However, the mere circumstance of birthplace lacks persuasive power in determining the validity of a worldview. Hence, we can disregard this option. Option 2 shares similarities with Option 1, yet it might appear somewhat more appealing, particularly on a psychological level, due to the perceived advantages of belonging to a supportive community. However, skeptics can readily question this option, as we can find people joining all sorts of religions around the world for similar psychological and sociological reasons. Relying on a worldview solely because the associated community offers a sense of belonging and support lacks convincing force. Therefore, we can discount this option. Option 3 is known in philosophy as *[direct doxastic voluntarism](https://iep.utm.edu/doxastic-voluntarism/)* . It's a highly contested view and I'm personally extremely skeptical of its existence. Option 4 stands as a huge philosophical battleground, characterized by a vast array of debates, arguments, and counter-arguments, along with an abundance of literature exploring every major claim of the Christian faith, from the existence of God to the resurrection of Jesus. Notable examples include debates such as: - [Ehrman vs Craig: Evidence for Resurrection](https://youtu.be/MW5_nJYSKyk) - [Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM) - [Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (William Lane Craig vs Richard Carrier)](https://youtu.be/akd6qzFYzX8) - [Is the Kalam Sound? Graham Oppy vs. Andrew Loke](https://youtu.be/a8NrTv-Durc) - [Can We "Prove" that God Exists? | Graham Oppy vs Ed Feser](https://youtu.be/XoVDutpB4Cw) - [Are There Any Good Arguments for God? Ed Feser vs Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/m-80lQOlNOs) - [Does Math Point to God? William Lane Craig + Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/8WE1y00bwCU) - [William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum](https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8) - [DEBATE: Theism vs Atheism | Jonathan McLatchie vs Alex O’Connor](https://youtu.be/rnIQFI1pYLM) - [Free Will, Souls, and the Problem of Evil | Richard Swinburne and Alex O'Connor](https://youtu.be/8Y3PtkyhOiU) - [Dave Farina vs. James Tour Debate (Are We Clueless About the Origin of Life?)](https://youtu.be/KvGdllx9pJU) - [REBUTTING atheist objections to the fine-tuning argument](https://youtu.be/bGbbWyd4l7Q) - [Why is God hidden? Cosmic Skeptic & Lukas Ruegger at Oxford University with Max Baker-Hytch](https://youtu.be/9nc0YT-WTnQ) - [Why I Am/Am Not a Christian, @CosmicSkeptic vs. @TheCounselofTrent // CCx22 Session 2](https://youtu.be/dFYrfKHSV2k) - etc. These discussions involve highly intelligent individuals representing various viewpoints. Some argue that evidence, reason, and arguments can prove the existence of God, while others disagree. Option 4 presents a double-edged sword. Some individuals may find certain philosophical arguments compelling, sufficient to ground their faith. Conversely, others may find arguments to the contrary more convincing. As an outsider, discerning which side holds the upper hand is challenging. The ongoing nature of these debates, spanning millennia, may suggest an epistemological stalemate where neither side manages to sway the other convincingly. This impasse might lead one to consider agnosticism as a more intellectually honest and humble stance ([Why Am I Agnostic?](https://youtu.be/YTsSW7UeZpY) by the *Majesty of Reason* YouTube Channel provides further insights). If we dismiss Options 1 and 2 due to their lack of persuasiveness, and Option 3 due to its profound philosophical controversies, we're left with Options 4 and 5. However, Option 4, despite being a fervent philosophical battleground, offers no clear path to resolution. Therefore, we'll also set it aside. This leaves us only with Option 5, which, in my humble opinion, appears to be the most promising avenue. After all, what better foundation for one's faith in God than a direct encounter with God? What better basis for faith in Christ than a personal encounter with Christ? The Apostle Paul's experience, vividly depicted in the ninth chapter of the Book of Acts, echoes this sentiment perfectly well. Which Christian theological perspectives would agree to a significant extent with this reasoning? Which Christian theological frameworks support anchoring one's faith in a direct encounter with God? --- **Clarifications on Option #5** The five options I have enumerated and described above have been criticized in the comments due to (purportedly) lacking "love". Quote: > What is completely absent from all of this is any trace of love whatsoever. We love him, because he first loved us. 1 John 4:19. Down-voted and voted to closure for lack of focus. The question has no heart. – NigelJ > The reason @NigelJ's comment is important is that all Christian religions embrace the idea of being touched by the love of Christ. If you're willing to include that in your option #5, then the question is trivial. You seemed to imply a "direct encounter with God," which would suggest standing face-to-face and talking to one another or (since you mention Paul) at least physically hearing a voice - which is a LOT different. Do you also include experiencing the Gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12)? In which case we're back to everybody agrees. BTW, having been a proselytizing missionary myself, options 1-4 make for a poor conversion (see Matt 13:3-8). My option #5 includes everything from standing in the presence of the Father, Jesus and/or the Holy Ghost to experiencing the Gifts of the Spirit to personal revelation - all of which, when combined with experience actually repenting and choosing to follow Christ, makes for a strong conversion. You don't seem to be interested in any of that as an option, however. – JBH If God pours out his love over a human being, and that human being experiences such supernatural love, that's a religious/spiritual/mystical experience by my lights. So experiencing God's love is definitely encapsulated by Option 5, and thus this specific critique is misplaced in my opinion. The same goes for experiencing the Gifts of the Spirit and receiving personal revelation, as suggested by @JBH. These are all examples of spiritual experiences. However, Cessationists would take issue with the suggestion that one can experience (certain) spiritual gifts today, thus challenging @JBH's assertion that "everybody agrees".

Latter-day Saints believe in the concept of 'gaining a testimony'. I provide supporting quotes in my previous question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99578/61679* . A quote worth reiterating here is the following: > This is the true, solid evidence of religious faith. Millions upon millions of Latter-Day Saints attest to the power of this principle: when you go to God in prayer, asking if this thing that purports to be from Him is true, he does answer. It is a distinctive and unmistakable experience, and once you have received a confirmation of the truth from God, any earthly evidence pales by comparison. **People can make mistakes, but the witness of the Holy Ghost is powerful and absolute**. > > Source: [According to Latter-day Saints, should every honest, rational, and well-informed individual be able to reach the conclusion that Mormonism is true?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/99550/61679) A Latter-day Saint asserts to have received a clear confirmation from the Holy Ghost affirming the truth of their faith. They describe an experience purportedly bestowed by God, which holds significant epistemic weight as it grants them certainty in their decision to join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Given the multitude of Latter-day Saints attesting to such personally revelatory encounters, it seems implausible that they must be all fabricating their stories. Surely, there must be genuine experiences underlying at least some of their testimonies. How do Christians not affiliated with the LDS faith interpret these accounts? --- **Note:** Additionally, I recently posed a more broadly formulated version of this question on Philosophy Stack Exchange: [Can religious, mystical, or spiritual experiences reveal truth?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/110745/66156) . Since asking this question here would likely be deemed off-topic, I extend a cordial invitation to anyone interested in the broader inquiry to contribute their insights via the provided link.

Simple question: non-LDS Christians believe the testimonies of the apostles, yet they reject the testimonies of the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Witnesses) & (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses) witnesses to the golden plates. Why? *In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established* (2 Cor 13:1) -- why is this reason not enough? _____ EDIT: Why should they? From a Latter-day Saint perspective, because this is one of the positive arguments for the divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon -- which should be of the utmost importance if it happens to be the case. See [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83978/50422) and [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83904/50422) for example presentations of this argument. _____ Related: [Is there anything close to a consensus on how to assess the credibility of eyewitness accounts as supportive evidence for supernatural beliefs?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84551/50422) _____ For a defense of the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses (the opposite view), see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89274/50422

Note: I'm interested in the Christian perspective on the question [*Can God's existence be established through reason and publicly accessible evidence?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/107660/66156) that I recently asked on Philosophy Stack Exchange. Feel free to read that question and the answers that people have posted for a broader context. --- I am curious to understand the perspectives within the Christian community regarding the use of reason and publicly available evidence to establish the existence of God in general, and the existence of the Christian God specifically. Are there prevailing viewpoints or consensus among Christians on this matter? **What I already know** I'm aware that at least some Christians frequently cite passages like [Romans 1:18-25](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A18-25&version=NKJV) and [Psalm 19:1-3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+19%3A1-3&version=NKJV) as Biblical expressions of [teleological arguments](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/) for God's existence. This category of arguments has evolved in more contemporary discussions, adopting a renewed shape, notably through an emphasis on the intricate fine-tuning of the fundamental constants in the universe (see [fine-tuned universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument#Fine-tuned_universe)) , and an emphasis on the extraordinary complexity and specified information found in living organisms (see [intelligent design movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement)) . I'm also aware of the existence of disciplines such as [natural theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology) and [apologetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics) , which in one way or another attempt to argue for the rationality of the belief in the existence of God and posit that there is sufficient evidence in the natural world to confidently conclude that God must exist. **What I do not know** One aspect that intrigues me, and about which I seek more clarity, pertains to the widespread acceptance or not among Christians of concepts such as natural theology, apologetics, intelligent design, and philosophical/scientific arguments for God's existence that hinge on reason and evidence. Do a majority of Christians align with these disciplines and share the perspective that the existence of God can be established solely through the use of reason and publicly available evidence, in a manner that any reasonable person should be able to study and verify? If there are available statistics on this matter, I would greatly appreciate them, although it's not strictly required to answer this question. As a point of reference, in the realm of philosophy, there are statistics available such as the following: #### God: theism or atheism? |Option|2009|2020|Change|Swing| |-|-:|-:|-:|-:| Accept or lean towards: theism|14.61%|12.5%|-2.11|-1.76| |Accept or lean towards: atheism|72.82%|74.23%|1.41|1.76| |Accept a combination of views|2.47%|0.31%|-2.16| |Accept an alternative view|0.86%|2.78%| 1.92| |The question is too unclear to answer|1.72%|2.01%| 0.29| |There is no fact of the matter|0.54%|0.31%|-0.23| |Insufficiently familiar with the issue|0%|0.15%| 0.15| | |Agnostic/undecided|5.48%|6.94%| 1.46| | |Skipped|0.97%|0.31%| -0.66| | |Other|0.54%|0.46%| -0.08| | N (2020) = 648 N (2009) = 931 (Source: [2020 PhilPapers Survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/longitudinal)) --- **A case for consideration: Blaise Pascal** Blaise Pascal serves as an illustration of a Christian who contends that the existence of God cannot be conclusively established through reason alone. While his perspective is just one instance, it raises the possibility that others may share a similar viewpoint. > Pascal maintains that we are incapable of knowing whether God exists or not, yet we must “wager” one way or the other. Reason cannot settle which way we should incline, but a consideration of the relevant outcomes supposedly can. Here is the first key passage: > >> “God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? **Reason can decide nothing here**. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose… But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is… If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. > > (Source: [Pascal's Wager - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/)) --- **Another view for consideration: Reformed Epistemology** Reformed Epistemology is another viewpoint that exemplifies the rejection of evidence and intellectual arguments as necessary requirements for justifying belief in God. > Reformed epistemology is a thesis about the rationality of religious belief. **A central claim made by the reformed epistemologist is that religious belief can be rational without any appeal to evidence or argument**. There are, broadly speaking, two ways that reformed epistemologists support this claim. The first is to argue that there is no way to successfully formulate the charge that religious belief is in some way epistemically defective if it is lacking support by evidence or argument. The second way is to offer a description of what it means for a belief to be rational, and to suggest ways that religious beliefs might in fact be meeting these requirements. This has led reformed epistemologists to explore topics such as when a belief-forming mechanism confers warrant, the rationality of engaging in belief forming practices, and when we have an epistemic duty to revise our beliefs. As such, reformed epistemology offers an alternative to evidentialism (the view that religious belief must be supported by evidence in order to be rational) and fideism (the view that religious belief is not rational, but that we have non-epistemic reasons for believing). > > Reformed epistemology was first clearly articulated in a collection of papers called Faith and Rationality edited by Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff in 1983. However, the view owes a debt to many other thinkers. > > (Source: [Reformed Epistemology - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://iep.utm.edu/ref-epis))

My question is motivated by Eleonore Stump's video [Can Philosophy of Religion Find God?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4Qa1gAj7zY) , suggested by this [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100465/61679) . In the video, Stump elaborates on how philosophy of religion can be helpful in understanding facts about God, likening it to acquiring biographical information about a third person, from a rather distant perspective. This stands in sharp contrast with someone who possesses direct, intimate, one-on-one experiential knowledge of a person. [Some would even argue that God's existence can be established rationally using reason alone](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679) , which is a point of contention, but even if we concede it, knowing that God exists intellectually is unlikely to be the same as knowing God personally. What are Christian guidelines for making the transition from "knowing about God" to "knowing God"? --- **Note**: Having an intimate experiential knowledge of God resonates strongly with *Christian mysticism*, by my lights (see [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/98050/61679) and [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/98040/61679)) . However, I acknowledge my potential bias in this matter and remain receptive to insights from various Christian traditions, which might suggest different approaches to knowing God personally. Considering this, perhaps transforming this question into an overview of different viewpoints would be beneficial?

*Note*: For context, please see my recently asked question [*Can Reformed Epistemology be considered a special variant of mysticism?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/109913/66156) on Philosophy Stack Exchange. It includes many useful references and extensive quotes. --- In essence, [Reformed Epistemology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology) , primarily expounded by Alvin Plantinga, posits that humans can experientially know God in a *properly basic* manner, through some sort of built-in spiritual sense or [*sensus divinitatis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_divinitatis) , akin to how we form basic beliefs about the external world through the conventional five physical senses: touch, smell, taste, hearing, and sight. William Lane Craig, building on Plantinga's work, further specifies that this direct experiential knowledge of God occurs in Christians through the *inner witness of the Holy Spirit*. In a clarifying [3-minute video clip](https://youtu.be/cC3q3qYIhdI) , Craig elaborates on and defends this notion in a debate with an atheist. (I recommend watching the video.) Interestingly, the experiential nature of knowing God proposed by Reformed Epistemology bears resemblance to the knowledge-granting aspect of mystical experiences as described in [mysticism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/) . I'll quote a few paragraphs from that article to clarify what I'm talking about: > Under the influence of William James’ *Varieties of Religious Experience*, philosophical interest in mysticism has heavily focused on **distinctive, allegedly knowledge-granting “mystical experiences.”** Philosophers have dealt with such topics as the classification of mystical experiences, their nature, to what extent mystical experiences are conditioned by a mystic’s language and culture, and whether mystical experiences furnish evidence for the truth of mystical claims. > A more inclusive definition of “mystical experience” is: > >> A purportedly nonsensory awareness or a nonstructured sensory experience granting acquaintance of realities or states of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of ordinary sense-perception structured by mental conceptions, somatosensory modalities, or standard introspection. “Experience,” “consciousness,” and “awareness” are notoriously difficult to define and will be left unanalyzed here, but the other key terms in the definition can be understood as follows: > > 1. “Purportedly” allows the definition to be accepted without necessarily accepting that mystics ever really do experience realities or states of affairs in the way they described. > > 2. “Nonsenory awareness” includes content of a kind not appropriate to sense-perception, somatosensory modalities (including the means for sensing pain and body temperature, and internally sensing body, limb, organ, and visceral positions and states), or standard introspection. **Some mystics have referred to a distinct “spiritual” means of knowing appropriate only to a non-physical realm** (nous, intellectus, buddhi). A super sense-perceptual mode of experience may accompany sense-perception as in the cases of “nature mysticism” or “cosmic consciousness” (Bucke 1901), as when, for example, a person has an awareness of God while watching a setting sun. > > 3. “Nonstructured sensory experience” consists of phenomenological sensory content but lacks the conceptualization normally structuring sense-perception. > > 4. “Acquaintance” of realities in mystical experiences means the subject is putatively aware of one or more realities in a way that overcomes the normal subject/object duality: the “acquaintance” is “knowledge by participation” or “knowledge by identity” (Forman 1990, Introduction). Mystical experiences are allegedly “direct,” “unmediated” insights in that sense. > > 5. “States of affairs” include the impermanence of all reality and that God is the ground of the self. “Acquaintance” of states of affairs comes in two forms. In one, a subject is aware of either (one or more) realities on which (one or more) states of affairs supervene. **An example would be an awareness of God (a reality) affording an awareness of one’s utter dependence on God (a state of affairs)**. In its second form, acquaintance of states of affairs involves an insight directly, without supervening on acquaintance, of any reality. An example is coming to “see” the impermanence of all that exists in the phenomenal world. > > Hereafter “mystical experience” will be used in the broader sense, unless otherwise noted, not merely for unitive experiences. Correspondingly, the term “mysticism” will refer to practices, discourse, texts, institutions, and traditions associated with these experiences. The definition excludes paranormal experiences such as visions, voices, out-of-body experiences, and powers such as telepathy. All of these are “dualistic” acquaintance of subjects with objects or qualities of a kind accessible to the senses or to ordinary introspection. In the more specific context of Christianity, it's pertinent to quote the introductory paragraph of the article [Christian mysticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism) : > Christian mysticism is the tradition of mystical practices and mystical theology within Christianity which **"concerns the preparation [of the person] for, the consciousness of, and the effect of [...] a direct and transformative presence of God" or Divine love**. Until the sixth century the practice of what is now called mysticism was referred to by the term contemplatio, c.q. theoria, from contemplatio (Latin; Greek θεωρία, theoria), **"looking at", "gazing at", "being aware of" God or the Divine**. Christianity took up the use of both the Greek (theoria) and Latin (contemplatio, contemplation) terminology to describe various forms of prayer **and the process of coming to know God**. Thus, my question for Christians who sympathize with Reformed Epistemology: Do they see any overlap between Reformed Epistemology and Mysticism? Could the former be viewed as a special variant of the latter? Are they completely different views? Is the experience of God through the *sensus divinitatis* a special kind of mystical experience? Does the *sensus divinitatis* play any role whatsoever in mystical experiences in general?