Introduction: My Background and Purpose
I come from a Christian background, though I no longer identify as a Christian. I spent 35 years actively involved in the church, during which time I taught classes on Christian apologetics with theological questions. This means I'm not approaching Christianity as an outsider who's never understood its claims, I know the arguments intimately. I've defended them, taught them, and lived within that framework for most of my life.
I studied philosophy at Geneva College, a Christian institution where faith and reason were treated as partners in the search for truth. After graduating in 1981, I continued studying philosophy for over 45 years, with particular intensity during the last 20+ years of my retirement. I'm now 75, and I've spent this time focusing on three interconnected areas:
Epistemology (how we know what we know), approached through the lens of Ludwig Wittgenstein's later philosophy, especially his final work,
On Certainty. Wittgenstein's insights about language, meaning, and the foundations of knowledge have shaped much of what I've written.
Near-Death Experiences (NDEs), which led to my recent book
From Testimony to Knowledge: Evaluating Near-Death Experiences (available on Amazon). In that work, I developed a rigorous framework for evaluating testimonial evidence and applied it to one of the most contested areas of human experience. The framework I use, JTB+U (Justified True Belief plus Understanding) with three epistemic guardrails, applies universally to any knowledge claim based on testimony.
Wittgenstein's later philosophy, particularly his concept of "hinges," those bedrock certainties that make justification possible rather than requiring justification themselves. Understanding what genuinely functions as a hinge versus what merely claims hinge-status to avoid scrutiny turns out to be crucial for evaluating religious claims.
My Current Project
I'm now working on a second book that examines the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Christ. I'll be sharing my analysis of the testimonial evidence in this forum, applying the same rigorous standards I used for evaluating near-death reports. My approach will focus on what the historical evidence can and cannot support, examined through clear epistemic standards that apply to any historical claim.
My Intentions
I want to be transparent about my approach: I have no desire to engage in polemics or personal attacks. I'm not here to mock anyone's faith or treat sincere belief with contempt. I recognize that for many of you, Christianity isn't just an intellectual position, it's central to your identity, your community, and your understanding of reality. I take that seriously.
That said, I also recognize that some may find my arguments offensive simply because of their conclusions. This isn't my intention, but it's an unavoidable risk when examining claims that matter deeply to people. I can only promise to be as fair, clear, and rigorous as possible. Good arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, not on whether they make us comfortable.
If my analysis is flawed, I want to know. If I've misunderstood the evidence or applied standards inconsistently, I'm genuinely interested in correction. But if the evidence truly is as weak as I believe it to be, that's something we should be willing to acknowledge, even if it's uncomfortable.
Why Philosophy Matters
Before I present my epistemological framework, let me address something important: philosophy is inescapable. Whether you love it or hate it, you're already doing it.
Every time you evaluate a political claim, make a moral judgment, defend a religious belief, assess scientific evidence, argue for God's existence, or even decide how to raise your children, you're engaged in philosophy. You're making assumptions about what counts as evidence, what makes reasoning valid, how we distinguish truth from error, and what standards we should use to evaluate claims.
Even if you say "I hate philosophy" or "I just believe what the Bible says," you're making philosophical moves. You're claiming that some approaches to truth are better than others, that certain sources are more reliable than others, that some methods of reasoning should be trusted while others shouldn't. Those are philosophical positions.
The question isn't whether to do philosophy, we're all doing it already, whether we realize it or not. The question is whether to do it
well or
poorly,
clearly or
confusedly,
consistently or
arbitrarily.
What Good Philosophy Does
I agree with many people's assessment that much philosophy isn't worth the paper it's written on. Academic philosophy can become self-indulgent, unnecessarily obscure, and disconnected from the questions people actually care about. But that doesn't mean all philosophy is worthless, it means we need to distinguish good philosophy from bad.
Good philosophy does several things:
1. It clarifies concepts. When people argue past each other, it's often because they're using the same words to mean different things. Philosophy helps us see those differences and speak more precisely.
2. It examines assumptions. We all operate with unexamined beliefs, about what counts as evidence, what makes something true, how we should evaluate testimony. Philosophy brings those assumptions into the light where they can be tested.
3. It checks consistency. We often hold beliefs that contradict each other without realizing it. Philosophy reveals those contradictions and asks us to resolve them.
4. It evaluates arguments. Not all reasoning is equal. Some arguments are strong; others only appear strong until examined. Philosophy provides tools for telling the difference.
5. It distinguishes knowledge from conviction. We can feel absolutely certain about things that turn out to be wrong. Philosophy helps us understand when our certainty is justified and when it's just... certainty.
This last point, distinguishing knowledge from conviction, will be one of my central points. Because one of the deepest confusions in religious epistemology is treating strong conviction as if it were the same thing as knowledge.
What I'll Be Presenting
Over the coming posts, I'll lay out an epistemological framework that applies universally, to scientific claims, historical events, legal proceedings, and yes, to religious truth claims as well. I'll explain:
- What knowledge is and what it requires (JTB+U)
- The difference between believing you're justified and actually being justified
- How testimony functions as a route to knowledge
- What standards distinguish strong testimony from weak
- Why certain beliefs require justification while others can function as foundational
- How to recognize when circular reasoning is disguised as legitimate support
- How to recognize self-sealing arguments
Only after establishing this framework, and giving everyone a chance to engage with it, question it, and push back on it—will I apply it to Christianity's central historical claim: the resurrection.
My goal is to show my work. I want you to see not just my conclusions but the reasoning that leads to them. If the reasoning is sound and the standards are fair, the conclusions should follow. If either the reasoning or the standards are flawed, that should become clear through honest discussion.
An Invitation
I invite you to engage critically with what I present. Ask questions. Point out where you think I've gone wrong. Offer alternative explanations. Show me where my reasoning breaks down or where I've applied standards inconsistently.
What I ask in return is that we distinguish between two different kinds of responses:
Substantive objections: These engage with the actual argument, they show where reasoning fails, where evidence is misrepresented, where standards are applied unfairly.
Defensive moves: These avoid the argument itself, they question motives, appeal to faith as exemption from scrutiny, redefine terms to escape conclusions, or simply assert that the argument doesn't apply to religious claims.
I'm interested in the first kind of response. The second kind doesn't advance understanding; it just protects belief from examination.
If Christianity's claims are true, they should be able to withstand honest scrutiny. If they can't, we should want to know that. Truth has nothing to fear from careful thinking.
I look forward to the conversation.
