Thanks for creating a forum with real debate!

[jstrodel]

First, you claim there is no universal standard as to what constitutes proper epistemic procedure. As a matter of fact, you appear to claim that this fact is self-evident. Then you attempt to construct an argument, which must by its nature appeal to shared epistemological assumptions, if not a universally shared epistemology, in order to be fruitful. This is fine if inconsistency is okie-dokie according to your epistemological assumptions, but if that's the case then our epistemological assumptions aren't shared and our meanings are incommensurate.

Without unfolding all the ramifications of this, it appears to be a case of you wanting to have your cake and eat it, too.

I don't think it is inconsistent. There are some universal principles, such as lying is wrong in all cultures and that there be some relationship between certainty of conclusions and evidence which is closely related to lying and exaggeration, which is a form of lying. Postmodern critiques of epistemology, at a certain point, become ridiculous. There are other values which are related to specific cultures, such as the scientific methods of modernity, which are related to specific cultures and are obviously not universal.

Not everything is black and white.

(Oh, and I'll stick this in here, since it's been weighing on my mind. My assessment of you is that you're essentially channeling other authors' arguments. This in itself might not be fatal, but you appear to have poor taste in authors, an inability to assess the credibility of the authors whom you choose to channel, an inability to profitably assess the merits of the arguments you read, and a general inability to faithfully represent those arguments without making them far less credible than they likely were in the original. You don't even appear fully capable of understanding them, period. As such, I have almost zero interest in substantively replying to your arguments because they aren't your arguments, and I would be replying to a ghost who isn't here.)

Maybe you are smarter than I am. That's ok. If you argue with me, maybe that would help me to understand the world better. I will admit, I do not understand it that well. I probably have above average intelligence, not much more than that. I could use all the help I could get. I could care less if other people are smarter than me. All I care about is whether I am doing good. If you can show me how I am wrong, I would change as I am eager to be more wise and more good. But your personal attacks can not affect this end in me and what does not belong to glorifying God I could care less about.

Your critique of my reliance on other authors seem to imply that the pursuit of genius weighs greater than other factors, such as fidelity to simple and readily discernible principles. I would encourage you to consider the fact that seeing wisdom as a creative process tends to result in severe distortions and is unfortunately linked to cults of personality in the academy that are deleterious to human understanding. I would urge you to refrain from critiquing knowledge from the perspective of genius and encourage creative talent as a means to prove how smart or creative you are and instead see the aim of learning is to love others. God did not give people brains to prove that they could be creative or original, God gave them to people so that they could love others and rely on the help of others as much as they can, which I am proud to say that I do.