Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Revelational Epistemology Defined and Defended: an Introduction to Revelational Epistemology

This is the last video in my series on revelational epistemology.  It is recommended that you watch PART 1 and PART 2 before you view this one.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

GREAT series, brother!

I have pointed several friends to your blog for an explanation on Revelational Epistemology.

Also, many Christian apologists are planning on joining the site LessWrong.com.
The goal is to create Sequences on the Christian worldview and its philosophical foundations. Perhaps you would consider battling the unwaranted and assumed natuarlist assumptions of this community?

Blessings,

Dylan Miller

Mike Felker said...

Hey Dylan, I really appreciate that! At this point, i'm not sure how I feel about getting involved in discussion forums. My hands are already pretty full as it is. But feel free to link others to my blog on that site if its relevant.

Resequitur said...

Great introduction! Very easy to follow and engaging. We definitely need more introductory level material for Presup.


Awesome tat, by the way! =D

Justin said...

Mike, I just uploaded a recent talk on presuppositional apologetics where I address some significant problems I see with it. I would love if you might take a listen and offer any criticisms. Did I represent the thorough-going presuppositionalist fairly?

The Apologetic Front said...

Hey Justin, i'd be happy to take a listen and thanks for thinking of me :-)

Yahweh or Myweh said...

Thanks Mike.

Anonymous said...

the question comes as to how reliable are the copies of the scriptures. We do not have the original copies. Also the manuscript copies themselves have been corrupted.

The Apologetic Front said...

@anonymous,

Corrupt in what way? Can you be more specific?

Paul Baird said...

Hi Mike - my response.

As stated, you're more than welcome to discuss this on our podcast (we are nice people honest).

Paul Baird said...

Damn - missed the link off.

http://patientandpersistant.blogspot.com/2011/06/mike-felker-and-revelational.html

The Apologetic Front said...

Paul, though I found most of your response completely non-substantive, I'll see about responding if I can find the time.

Otherwise, I appreciate your suggestions on the visuals, even though I found it to be quite rude (so much for convincing me you are "nice").

Lastly, thanks for the invite to be on your program. If my schedule ever gets to be more open and flexible, I will probably take you up on that.

Paul Baird said...

Ok, rude ? We're definitely two nations seperated by a common language then. I thought I was being polite.

My response was substantive -

1) you readily conflate a generic god and the christian god with no validation for doing so.

2) you provide no argument for an exclusively christian revelational epistemology.

The offer to come onto our programme stands, equally if you want to have a chat over Skype then let me know.

Mike Felker said...

Paul, maybe across the pond you folks have a different meaning of "nice" and "polite." But we southern gentlemen (a.k.a. rednecks) over here would usually avoid words like "suck" to describe another's presentation in this sort of context.

As to your program, I don't want to give the impression that i'm avoiding the opportunity, because i'd be happy to do it. I just have a lot of personal things going on right now that would prevent me from doing such. If you want a PA on your show that would exhibit far more intellectual credibility than myself, i'd highly recommend the folks over at choosinghats.com. If you listen to Chris Bolt's debates, I think you'll find him to be a good candidate for discussion.

Paul Baird said...

Ok, Mike, thanks for the response.

Chris has changed his comments policy over at Choosing Hats so that only Christians can post but before he did I posted a comment on his brief note on the second debate.

I've heard nothing since and I do check back quite often as he is put forward as a bit hitter on the Presupp side and I would value his view.

Not only has Chris been suggested by also Dr Oliphint.

After a couple of months off I'm ok to look at the subject again.

As a final point - without revelation, what is the basis of your faith ?

The Apologetic Front said...

Paul,

You should be able to contact Chris in ways other than by leaving comments on the blog. You could probably do so through the "contact" section. Also consider Jamin Hubner, who has open invitations on his site to do debates: realapologetics.org

As to the basis of my faith, I cannot consistently claim any basis for what I believe outside of revelation. Of course, I can posit plenty of supporting evidence which confirms my worldview; but these can only make sense consistently in light of the presupposed truth of my worldview.

Paul Baird said...

Thanks Mike.

Paul Baird said...

By the way my blog address has changed. The mis-spelling of persistent has been corrected.

RazorsKiss said...

Just a small note; our comment policy was changed not "so that only Christians can post" but so that only those comments commensurate with the purpose of the site (teaching the method, specifically) are made.

Further, Chris is one of the three main members of CH, along with Brian and myself; so it wasn't Chris alone that changed it, nor was it a unilateral decision. (I actually implemented it, as I'm the head webmaster, if you want specifics ;)

Note, also, that there is a "Contact" link on the site, as well as the chat channel mentioned in the site rules as well as linked to on the main page.

Thanks!

-Joshua