Appeal to authority

[polymath257]

Here you're setting an axiom, which is a philosophical or metaphysical claim. You are taking as given the idea that knowledge is only gained by testable and -- I assume -- empirical input. And that to be reliable it must be verifiable -- again, I assume by empirical testing. 

You are aware, I'm sure, that the axiom you've given -- that all reliable knowledge must be obtained through empirical verifiable methods -- is not something that can be confirmed by empirical and verifiable methods. So it's a claim that needs to be argued in a philosophical way. 

Experts or authorities on theology or philosophy can be very helpful in analyzing the axiom you use here. Metaphysics in general is -- by definition -- not something that physics can test. Hence the name "metaphysics." Yet we all have positions on metaphysical ideas. E.g., your position that science is the best source of knowledge. 

Good authorities on theology, metaphysics, or other branches of philosophy make careful arguments concerning issues which can't be tested in the way you want knowledge to be tested. There are claims about theology and metaphysics which are foolish, and claims which are very hard to disprove. The authorities, as in any field, help us to understand these. 

Sometimes people begin with the same axiom as you and then just assume that anything a metaphysician argues must be stupid. This has led to some very bad philosophizing from non-authorities in the field. If they begin with the assumption that all theology is stupid, they assume they can knock it down easily. But its isn't always this easy.

Philosophy is best when it considers all possibilities and worst when it thinks it has the truth.

Most of metaphysics, as traditionally done, starts with faulty assumptions about how things 'must be' and proceeds to derive rather useless conclusions.

So, here's the question: what can justify a belief? At the very least, there is a requirement that when two differing views are offered, there is some way to resolve the disagreement.

In math, the axioms are accepted and any disputed proof or example ultimately has to derive from those axioms. A dispute can be resolved by seeing if any proposed proof can be reduced to those axioms

In the science, a disagreement is resolved by finding some observational test where the two views predict different results and then going and doing the test. At least one of the viewpoints will be shown to be incorrect (assuming correct experimental design, etc).

What is the dispute resolution procedure for philosophy or theology? How do two differing theological views get mediated? By which gives the best argument? According to whom?

And, in the case of theology, where the idea is to get information about a deity (as opposed to information about what people have *thought* about deities), what possible way of resolving disputes is there? So, if a Christian and a Moslem disagree about the nature of God, what procedure is there to resolve the dispute?

I think we agree that there is none. And that means there isn't any actual justification for the beliefs of theologians as regards to deities, which means there is no knowledge about such.

---

I'd point out that mathematical knowledge isn't based on empirical studies. It is based on having a set of axioms that everyone agrees to use. But, that is also why mathematics *alone* says nothing about the real world. To say anything about the real world requires observation.