Stuffing A Turkey Through The Beak: Leading With Doubt

[wenglund]

Your superb logic has convinced me. /s

Just saying that they're false, then providing no reasoning is ludicrous.

False. Responding sans reasoning to an off-topic declaration that was made sans reasoning, is not only entirely warranted, but respectful to the author of the thread.

They're obviously contradictory. X exists and X does not exist are contradictory. I can't even comprehend how you think you can argue this.

Fallacious and misconstrued. There are different meanings, senses, and usages of the words "exist" and "God" in this context such that it doesn't necessitate a contradiction. Nor, did my statement have your misconstual in mind. However, I can accept that such nuanced notions may not compute in your seemly mono-dimensional, black/white mind. Oh well...

But, again, this is off topic, so I shan't say more.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[PoisonWell]

So many people here seem to think that if they just layer some nonsensical pseudo-intellectual philosophical phrases over their absolutely ludicrous claims they can still come off as correct. It shows a complete lack of intellectual honesty.

False. Responding sans reasoning to an off-topic declaration that was made sans reasoning, is not only entirely warranted, but respectful to the author of the thread.

Oh, so you're just trying to not deviate from the thread topic? Oh, yeah. Sure.

Also, look up the word fallacious, because you're betraying your foolishness by throwing the word around like that.

Fallacious and misconstrued. There are different meanings, senses, and usages of the words "exist" and "God" in this context such that it doesn't necessitate a contradiction. Nor, did my statement have your misconstual in mind. However, I can accept that such nuanced notions may not compute in your seemly mono-dimensional, black/white mind. Oh well...

But, again, this is off topic, so I shan't say more.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You shan't say more, because you know you're wrong. You cannot argue this. X can not be both true and false.

Please stop trying to say you're just trying to stay on topic to save face. You've obvously a weak argument and mind if you can't admit you're claim is illogical.

Stop trying to talk trash because you've made an absolutely nonsensical claim. You can try to fool yourself to save ego, but you're obviously being a fool.

Edited April 12, 2013 by PoisonWell

[canard78]

Yes you misunderstand me. I have nowhere declared that I don't believe there is a God. I am doing the honest and rational thing of giving the atheists their due and sincerely and honestly studying THEIR writings, logic, and analysis, kinda like Mormons want outsiders to study Mormonism by studying MORMONS, so I do so with atheists.

Thanks for clarifying. As others have mentioned, I'd be interesting in a few highlights in a new thread of their arguments.

All of my faith position and engagement with Mormonism is based on the premise that "there is probably a God."

To return to the OP of Elder Holland's talk. I suppose I believe there's a God, but I don't know it. I build from that simple belief in His existence and character and add things from there. In that sense, I lead with belief.

But I agree that to have someone like Givens answer a well thought out Atheist argument would be interesting. His intro to The God who Weeps gives a few of his arguments in favour but also admits there is no conclusive proof either way which therefore leads to us making a choice.

It would be interesting if someone claimed to have established conclusive proof and removed that choice. My established beliefs makes me presume that the 'evidence' still leaves room for belief if chosen. But then I've not read them. I'm not even sure I want to. Not because they are not interesting, I'm sure they are. But because, with all the things I've changed perspective on, I'm not sure I even want to challenge my somewhat fragile belief in God.

But don't let that stop you starting the thread to discuss it. I can always choose to ignore it.

[wenglund]

So many people here seem to think that if they just layer some nonsensical pseudo-intellectual philosophical phrases over their absolutely ludicrous claims they can still come off as correct. It shows a complete lack of intellectual honesty.

Oh, so you're just trying to not deviate from the thread topic? Oh, yeah. Sure.

Also, look up the word fallacious, because you're betraying your foolishness by throwing the word around like that.

You shan't say more, because you know you're wrong. You cannot argue this. X can not be both true and false.

Please stop trying to say you're just trying to stay on topic to save face. You've obvously a weak argument and mind if you can't admit you're claim is illogical.

Stop trying to talk trash because you've made an absolutely nonsensical claim. You can try to fool yourself to save ego, but you're obviously being a fool.

Now that you got this emotive and projective reaction out of the way, let's please get back on topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[teddyaware]

Now that you got this emotive and projective reaction out of the way, let's please get back on topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

LOL! As the Bard of Avon once said, brevity is the soul of wit...

Edited April 12, 2013 by teddyaware

[PoisonWell]

Now that you got this emotive and projective reaction out of the way, let's please get back on topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wow, you really are stubborn. It's nice to know that you don't even want to acknowledge or know the truth. From now on I can make sure to ignore you.

[Tacenda]

So you don't see a morally deprived motivation here? A guy has tremendously important conclusions he has made and he charges big bucks to share them? You can have the lot of them. Nobody's mind is worth that much money!

We all have a direct, inseverable connection to "God", so nobody's "conclusions" are worth a dam to anybody else, so they might as well be free.

Did you ever ask an atheist why or how existence Is instead of nothing? That fact is called the Necessary Cause. I like to call the NC "God", but YMMV. Nevertheless, it doesn't take any theology, any dogma, to get the inescapable logic that Existence requires a Necessary Cause....

Bingo!

ETA: I didn't know there was a label for what's kept me from becoming an Athiest in my faith wavering, thanks QB.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Tacenda

[canard78]

So many people here seem to think that if they just layer some nonsensical pseudo-intellectual philosophical phrases over their absolutely ludicrous claims they can still come off as correct. It shows a complete lack of intellectual honesty.

Oh, so you're just trying to not deviate from the thread topic? Oh, yeah. Sure.

Also, look up the word fallacious, because you're betraying your foolishness by throwing the word around like that.

You shan't say more, because you know you're wrong. You cannot argue this. X can not be both true and false.

Please stop trying to say you're just trying to stay on topic to save face. You've obvously a weak argument and mind if you can't admit you're claim is illogical.

Stop trying to talk trash because you've made an absolutely nonsensical claim. You can try to fool yourself to save ego, but you're obviously being a fool.

You've just started a thread to announce your departure from the boards and complained you keep getting locked out of threads. Even here, when you directly call Wade a fool you've not been kicked off the thread.

So where are these biased thread locks of yours?

I guess you've gone back to the other board by now. Oh well. We were all really interested to see what you'd contribute next.

Edited April 12, 2013 by canard78

[Bikeemikey]

Excellent talk as usual (Elder Holland is my favorite speaker...he reminds me a lot of Elder Bruce R. McConkie). His remarks on doubt and how some (especially many on this very board) tend to look as doubt as a strength even a virtue, he hit it right on the mark. Doubt is the opposite of faith, not the steps to obtaining faith. He also was not advocating ignoring doubts, on the contrary he was saying we should do something about them by increasing our faith. We don't do that by our reading Anti-Mormon propaganda or listening to the ravings of the critics of the Chuch or the pride of the worldly. But we humble ourselves and listen to God and study what He has revealed to us. Only then can the seeds of faith grow. Allowing God to touch our hearts instead of hardening it against the spirit of God like Laman and Lemuel did. The writing of faithless critics has a predictable outcome, loss of the spirit, and stirring up to anger against the truth. When one reads "faith promoting" things it does just that, it invites the spirit. Why do you suppose no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God? The converse is true, when we draw near to the spirit of God then evil and darkness flees from us. Of course what Elder Holland said is not pleasing to the carnal mind or the natural man, because it rejects the forbidden paths of darkness and calls for repentance and following the Lord.

Doubt and faith are virtually the same thing...

They are the void left by the absence of knowledge.

They differ only in action.

Doubt causes inaction.

Faith causes action.

The idea that either is a purely intellectual or esoteric internal matter is not congruent with our doctrine.

As such, the constant conflation of doubt with questioning is a red herring.

If Holland was talking about faith then he was stating the important value of action over inaction, even in the absence of knowledge. Simple as that.

If however he was conflating the idea of doubting with questioning, and I don't think he was, then he was misusing the religious ideas pf faith and doubt.

I can spend 99.99% of my time critically questioning and still be 100% faithful, all I need to be doing is acting on my hopes. I find many people struggle to understand this.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[bcuzbcuz]

Maybe it would help if you thought of "knowing" simply as being absolutely certain about something, to the point where you don't have any doubts about what you claim to know. It doesn't mean you can't be wrong. There is something I refer to as false knowledge, which is to be absolutely certain about something while being wrong about what you claim to know.

So, to summarize, faith is to be sure/certain about something you are aware of, while still not being absolutely sure/certain, and in either case you chose to either believe or not believe something pertaining to what you feel sure/certain about. And in any case, you could still be wrong about what you claim to feel sure/certain about.

Thus the phrase "I know this is true and I have no doubts about it" equates to "I am absolutely sure/certain this is true and I have no doubts about what I am claiming to be absolutely sure/certain about".

I see your point and agree. "Knowing" by that definition makes sense to me because it wholly and completely stays in the realm of a conviction, a state of believing based upon experiences that confirm to the point of being absolutely sure.

[bcuzbcuz]

I'm always interested in these arguments. Person A, who has thought about things carefully, says, "You can't know." To this, Person B retorts, "But I do know, and you can't tell me that I don't." Which is true enough. I'll invoke Adam Smith now and say that the typical human sympathy rests with Person B, for we all resent when someone else presumes to tell us what we believe, think, know, or feel. It's as if the blind were to rebuke the seeing for claiming the existence of color!

I think that's why atheism doesn't spread through these arguments; they just aren't persuasive.

In systems of epistemology, there are different standards that measure when knowledge is justifiable. Some people subscribe to one system, other people prefer another. Of course, we rarely think of ourselves in terms of belonging to one epistemic school or another, rather we might categorize people based on how they come to accept or reject claims about reality. Ultimately, knowledge is a personal thing. Only the subjects themselves can say whether or not they "know," and we can only measure another's claim according to our own system of epistemology which we can't force other people to adopt. If we are wise, we realize that we can't question another's claim to knowledge; we may only question whether or not we think it justified.

Now, it appears that Bcuzbcuz is a reliabilist. For reliabilists, subjective evidence is insufficient to justify knowledge, even if the evidence has been obtained and validated by multiple subjects. Suppose the fact of your "remarkable epiphany" is undisputed, or even if the reliabilist has a vision or miracle of his or her own, that still isn't good enough! Reliabilists are bound to say that there is a class of unknowable things because reliability is thought to increase to the extent that things can be sensed and measured outside of the human experience. Reliabilists know that people argue about contradictory subjective evidence, including religious witness. Religious experiences are very diverse, very powerful, and also inconsistent with regard to what they say about reality. Therefore, these experiences can't make part of the set of things that constitute "Knowledge" for reliabilists.

Against the reliabilists, some philosophers will get really nit-picky and question whether or not it's possible to be truly objective, or point out that everything ultimately reduces to subjectivity (which is essentially true), but the reliabilists seem to operate on a continuum and are unconcerned if pure objectivity can ever be achieved or not. True reliabilists generally admit to a basically agnostic position of not knowing "for sure".

I finally understood reliabilism when I encountered an ex-Mormon Catholic who had received a very powerful spiritual manifestation that led her out of the LDS church and into the Catholic church. Then I found there were many others just like her, and I asked myself, "wait a minute, isn't it supposed to happen the other way around?" You see, I thought the Holy Ghost only confirmed Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the reality of the restoration--and and other things that are compatible with those truths. I didn't think the Holy Ghost would suggest that those things were actually false. Then I found an agnostic who received the Holy Ghost, and then an atheist, of all people! These were all confirmed by a deep, sublime "remarkable epiphany" in their own, divergent paths. Whose revelation is legitimate? How can I know that my Holy Ghost was the real Holy Ghost without begging the question? If there is only one truth, then only one "knowledge" is justified, and there ought to be a reliable way to find out which it is.

It turns out that, if you seek with real intent (nothing wavering!) and fear not, only believe; you can get a testimony of the Mormon Church. And the Catholic Church. And the tenets of spiritual agnosticism. And whatever else you can think of! I've done it. These principles of "real intent" and so forth are very useful in establishing "plausibility structures" around allegedly true narratives. These are the strategies that hypnotherapists use, by the way. When we yield to those strategies, we can enter the narrative and it will become very real. In fact, realer than real. Even the empirical senses can participate in this reality that our stories create for us.

The human mind is tractable. Human experience is not reliable. This is the importance of reliabilism, and I should like very much to read some apologia that deals with these plausibility structures, narratives, mental states, evidentialism, and divergent spiritual experiences. After all, the witness of the Holy Ghost is our claim to knowledge. Reliabilism is a direct challenge to that. What is our answer to it?

I'm glad you have identified me as a "reliabilist". That must mean that the questions and answers I pose are dependable and well grounded because, after all, I am reliab.................Waidaminut, I don't know what I'm talking about.

But I do agree with your conclusions. Religious convictions can come in many shapes and colours. People all around the world, in many different religions, are not only devoted to their line of thinking, but actively proselytize and are fully engaged in good works to help their fellow man. They don't believe in Mormonism, some don't believe in any religion at all, but they are convinced, beyond merely a rational conviction of thought, but a "burning in their bosom" that they are engaged in the good fight. Some talk about having an epiphany of sudden understanding, others about a visitation (from Mary, mother of Christ, among others). Some say they have been guided by the Holy Spirit, one I met talked in tongues for an extended time. He seemed almost in a trance. I didn't know my own church history well enough, at that time, to know that in the Kirkland temple days that talking in tongues was very common.

Each of these person "know" that they are doing the right thing. I am convinced that our senses cannot be trusted. But I cannot deny that once these people feel they are "pushed" in a certain direction, that they throw themselves wholeheartedly into the effort.

So I come to the same place you talk of, "Whose revelation is legitimate?"

[bcuzbcuz]

1)Each of the revelations may be legitimate in their own right.

2) The Holy Ghost may have been real in each case.

3) There may not be "one truth," or rather their may be multiple "truths" that are justified in our finite state.

Then what is the first vision to Joseph Smith all about? Doesn't it state in Hebrews 13:8, Mormon 9:9 and DnC 20:12 that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? If so, how come he says different things to different people? Why should anyone pray and expect the Holy Ghost to respond with guidance when it appears that the advice leads in many directrions?

[bcuzbcuz]

Suppose we answer this question by first assuming there is a God who is able and willing to communicate/guide all of his children. A big presumption of course, but important for exploring the question of apparently conflicting "remarkable epiphanies."

A traditional Mormon view of your ex-Mormon now-Catholic example would perhaps assume that she had been deceived. The Holy Ghost would only lead towards more light, not away from it.

But there's a problem with this though, because it then makes every "remarkable epiphany" wrong if it contradicts yours. Some will say we should call on the scriptures for clarification, but even within the Mormon faith tradition there are divergent strands based on the same sources (scripture and spirit). Even the brethren disagree and reach conflicting conclusions.

So does that simply mean that the opening assumption is wrong? The fact that people receive "remarkable epiphanies" that contradict means it really is "all in our head" and there is in fact no God. Or at least not one that communicates with His creations. Are we little more than the apes, but with a little more intelligence. Perhaps still created by a supreme being, but left in isolation to work through our turn unaccompanied.

I can't accept that conclusion either (even though I recognise I reached that conclusion through my own personal, subjective "remarkable epiphanies").

So I reach a different one. I believe in a God that communicates and guides. I believe in a God that is such a perfect teacher that every one of His children has a personalised curriculum. Perhaps even personalised in part by the student not the teacher.

My children moved from an elementary school of 30 per class with one teacher and a fixed curriculum (optimised for the majority but imperfect for all of them) to a school with maximum class sizes of 12, 2 teachers per class and a personalised 'student lead learning' approach to the curriculum.

Given God's omnipotence, he goes one step further. While keeping us in a setting of interaction with other students he offers a ratio of 1 student:1 teacher and a fully personalised curriculum. Even within Mormonism we are reminded to not run faster than we have strength, line upon line etc. 'Cafeteria Mormonism' has become a dirty word. But I certainly see and embrace plenty of 'personally adapted Mormonism.' And it works beat that way.

My wife is not active and no longer considers herself Mormon. She would go as far to say she is a 'non-believer' in any interactive deity. Certainly Mormonisms understanding of such.

And here's the strange reality I've come to terms with and am trying to help her extended family to accept: she is tangibly better off that way. Emotionally, socially, spiritually. Her life has changed for the better because she has left Mormonism. She is certainly more able to be a 2+2 or 5+5 student and is more sheep than goat in her treatment of others (see Matt 25). Some may point out that there is another parable in the chapter and may assume she is foolish not wise. From my perspective her lamp is well trimmed and she is not short of oil. Although she may not use the same name, she still knows the master. And what, after all, is in a name.

So would God give people "remarkable epiphanies" that contradict? Yes, I'm very comfortable that he would.

I am moved today, as I have been in the past, by your remarkable and graceful story. Your acceptance of your wife's reality displays, to my way of thinking, amazing comprehension and trust. Your willingness to stand by her demonstrates all that I find good in the Mormon community.

I was fortunate, when I stepped away from activity in the church and to my questioning of doctrine, that my wife was willing to stand by me. She also stepped back from active membership and found, first of all, that her Sunday's became an actual day of rest, for the first time. Some of our experiences were comforting, some involved heart rending trials, but foremost was providing a secure and learning environment for our children.

I wish for the both of you, all the best, no matter where your paths lead you.

[bcuzbcuz]

Using one's spiritual witness as a rhetorical bludgeon or as an implement to force polemical checkmates is most certainly counterproductive to dialogue and discusions on religion; in some ways it defeats the whole purpose of a forum like this one. Even so, there is no denying that lying at the very heart of the religion of the Latter-day Saints is the principal of divine revelation. Revelation is everything in Mormonism, with living apostles and prophets at the foundation, and revelation considered an absolute necessity at every level of ministration and administration -- yet it is considered poor form to appeal to personal revelation when validating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on this board. I wonder what Paul, Nephi and Joseph Smith would have to say on the subject?

Exquisitely written! Thank you. I enjoy your use of language. And yes, it is poor form to appeal to personal revelation when validating the church because, given this media, there are neither time restraints nor lack of pages to fully develope a reasoned response. Reflection of and to one's own thoughts, when given room to explore, can be clarified, cleared of cobwebs, examined. That provides growing room both for the expounder and the reader.

[canard78]

I am moved today, as I have been in the past, by your remarkable and graceful story. Your acceptance of your wife's reality displays, to my way of thinking, amazing comprehension and trust. Your willingness to stand by her demonstrates all that I find good in the Mormon community.

I was fortunate, when I stepped away from activity in the church and to my questioning of doctrine, that my wife was willing to stand by me. She also stepped back from active membership and found, first of all, that her Sunday's became an actual day of rest, for the first time. Some of our experiences were comforting, some involved heart rending trials, but foremost was providing a secure and learning environment for our children.

I wish for the both of you, all the best, no matter where your paths lead you.

Thanks for your kind words. Being a part of this online community (and a few others) and seeing that multiple faith expressions can be meaningful and impactful has been part of what has helped us make it work.

You asked "Why should anyone pray and expect the Holy Ghost to respond with guidance when it appears that the advice leads in many directions?" As mentioned in my previous message, 'personalised curriculum.'

[bcuzbcuz]

Did you ever ask an atheist why or how existence Is instead of nothing? That fact is called the Necessary Cause. I like to call the NC "God", but YMMV. Nevertheless, it doesn't take any theology, any dogma, to get the inescapable logic that Existence requires a Necessary Cause....

Now that's just plain 'fighting dirty'! You replaced ID with NC. It's "I exist, therefore there is a God". My atheism doesn't need a "why", or a "how". They are misplaced questions that lead to a foregone conclusion. Does your NC have a home phone that works or some form of contact?

[teddyaware]

Exquisitely written! Thank you. I enjoy your use of language. And yes, it is poor form to appeal to personal revelation when validating the church because, given this media, there are neither time restraints nor lack of pages to fully develope a reasoned response. Reflection of and to one's own thoughts, when given room to explore, can be clarified, cleared of cobwebs, examined. That provides growing room both for the expounder and the reader.

Thanks for the compliment. Perhaps my story is yours in reverse: I was once a hardcore atheist -- a quite arrogant and self-assured one too -- who now (PREPARE FOR DETONATION!!!) knows the LDS Church is true. During my atheistic days, I would often bemusedly ponder the impossibility of being converted into a believer, but here I stand. It was the beauty and logical consistency of the doctrines and theology of the restored gospel that turned me around; and boy oh boy did I get turned around. it just made such perfect sense of the twin mysteries of existence and life. And I'll have you know I'm not just spiritually conviced, I'm intellectually conviced as well.

All the best, Ted

Edited April 12, 2013 by teddyaware

[Ares]

FYI - Poisonwell has not been banned from this topic.

[pmccombs1]

Pmc, you seem to be suggesting that Person B hasn't thought about things carefully. If I've misunderstood, I apologise.

No, I believe thoughtful people are to be found of every persuasion. It was just a poor choice of words on my part.

The witness of the Holy Ghost remains our reliable answer to it, on a personal and individual level.

This is probably not the right thread to discuss this, but my short answer would be: 1)Each of the revelations may be legitimate in their own right. 2) The Holy Ghost may have been real in each case. 3) There may not be "one truth," or rather their may be multiple "truths" that are justified in our finite state. More importantly, "truth" ought not be the end objective, but a means to the end (growth towards our very best selves). 4) Reliability, then, ought not be a gage of "truth," but rather a gage for what does or doesn't works in growing us towards our best selves. Also, the Holy Ghost isn't a lone gage of the "truth." In addition to Moroni 10, is Alma 32, the former often acting as the seed for faith, with the latter taking us through to fruition and thereby providing confirmation.

So would God give people "remarkable epiphanies" that contradict? Yes, I'm very comfortable that he would.

So I come to the same place you talk of, "Whose revelation is legitimate?"

Thanks for the comments, everyone! I think there's potential for further discussion on this topic, and maybe later on I'll start up a new thread with some points that could be discussed for those who have any further ideas about it.

Edited April 12, 2013 by pmccombs1

[Questing Beast]

Now that's just plain 'fighting dirty'! You replaced ID with NC. It's "I exist, therefore there is a God". My atheism doesn't need a "why", or a "how". They are misplaced questions that lead to a foregone conclusion. Does your NC have a home phone that works or some form of contact?

All tangential considerations are laid aside when discussing the core mystery of existence in the first place. That's because all tangential considerations are anthropomorphic, ergo dogmatic assertions in the end. Each one of us exists within our exclusive egocentric "universe". No touching beyond the five senses occurs in any demonstrable way. We hear constantly of asserted contact between people, and between individuals and the metaphysical, but none of these assertions is shown by any empirical method, i.e. no scientific study can show such assertions to be true or false, because they are not called up on demand, they simply occur when/where they will, and we have no control over it.

The core mystery is existence in the first place: for you, me, every "soul" that ever exists, in this world or another. Existence goes on, "before" I came on the scene, and "after" I leave this world. To ignore the Necessary Cause of Existence In The First Place just because you can't get beyond the first step of consideration, you can't define it for anyone else, is giving up the core consideration in order to argue causes. All things in the world are caused by something else. Only the world itself has no apparent cause, it just Is....

[volgadon]

No, I believe thoughtful people are to be found of every persuasion. It was just a poor choice of words on my part.

That is fine, I appreciate the clarification.

[wenglund]

Then what is the first vision to Joseph Smith all about? Doesn't it state in Hebrews 13:8, Mormon 9:9 and DnC 20:12 that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? If so, how come he says different things to different people? Why should anyone pray and expect the Holy Ghost to respond with guidance when it appears that the advice leads in many directrions?

Rather than continuing to derail this thread with this line of discussion, I have opened a new thread HERE. I look forwards to your comments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wow, you really are stubborn. It's nice to know that you don't even want to acknowledge or know the truth. From now on I can make sure to ignore you.

I have opened a new thread for just such a discussion (see the link above). Feel free to join in if or when you have composed yourself enough from your little meltdown and have decided to return to the board, or not, the choice is yours. I am more than happy to walk you step-by-step through the layers of false statements you have made and provide reasonably adequate substantiation thereof, though on a thread where it is on-topic. Well see just how genuine you are in your claim about seeking truth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 12, 2013 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

The belief that our sciences have reached the point that they can explain all human experience is a flawed article of faith.

This needs to be put up in letters about as big as the Hollywood sign with neon lights flashing all night and fireworks going off all day to draw attention to it, in the center of every city of the land.

[mfbukowski]

After all, the witness of the Holy Ghost is our claim to knowledge. Reliabilism is a direct challenge to that. What is our answer to it?

Antirealism a la Rorty.