What is reliabilism?

Answer

Reliabilism is a subcategory of epistemological justification, which involves the philosophical examination of whether a belief is sufficiently reasonable to hold. This form of justification is completely distinct from the concept of justification concerning salvation. According to reliabilism, beliefs are considered reasonable only if they are obtained through a process known to generate truth. This characteristic is not influenced by the thinker’s opinion, making reliabilism a type of epistemological externalism, contrasting with internalism.

The easiest way to grasp reliabilism is by contrasting it with random guessing. While guesses may occasionally yield correct answers, they are not reliable or reasonable methods for forming beliefs. According to reliabilism, this principle applies across all levels of belief. Either one is utilizing a process known to yield truth, or the beliefs reached are not rational conclusions; they are essentially guesses and therefore unreasonable. Although the Bible promotes clear thinking and warns against self-deception (1 John 4:1;Proverbs 14:12), intricate philosophical concepts like reliabilism are neither inherently biblical nor unbiblical.

Consider other scenarios where the concept of reliabilism appears to be relevant:

• It is reasonable to calculate the total cost of a shopping trip using a calculator, while guessing or approximating the amount is unreasonable.

• Making a decision on whom to charge with a crime after interviewing witnesses and analyzing evidence would be considered “justified,” whereas relying on gut feelings would not. When faced with ten suspects, a person might guess correctly who committed the crime, but that does not validate such a process as the correct approach.

• An experienced auto mechanic listens to an engine and diagnoses a specific issue, based on years of training and hands-on experience.

Problem; that’s a justified belief. The layman who knows nothing about cars but haphazardly suggests the same diagnosis might be correct, but only by accident—it does not mean it was a good idea to let him assess the car.

In the study of knowledge, or epistemology, a distinction is made between whether something is true, whether it is believed, and whether it is justifiable to believe in it. Epistemological justification is an examination of the confidence one can have in expressing belief. The more justified a belief is, the more reasonable and confidently one can express belief that the idea is true. Reliabilism implies that, for a belief to be justified, it must come from a source that is “reliable,” which in this case means something known to be truth-determining.

Reliabilism is a subset of externalism, which is the opposite of epistemological internalism. According to internalism, beliefs are justified if the one who believes is aware of the reasons for the belief and of his perspective, and has no reason to think either is flawed. Externalism, on the other hand, implies that justification is determined independently of the thinker’s thought process. Reliabilism, then, is a specific form of externalism, attempting to provide a definition for what makes something external a legitimate justification for belief.

As with other externalist views, reliabilism presents some problems. For instance, it can become circular: if reliable means “leads to truth,” its related concept of justified is logically identical to true. Also, reliabilism could consider a person justified in believing something even if that person thinks his thought process is flawed. Neither is philosophically wrong, per se, but it defeats the purpose of considering justification as its own category. This is closely related to the differences between internalism and externalism: according to externalism, a person has no ultimate way to know if his thought process is reliable.

Other major concerns about reLiabilism poses the risk of an infinite regress and solipsism. One might assert that a certain process is reliable, then question, “Did I employ a reliable process to ascertain its reliability?” This cycle could continue indefinitely, at each level of scrutiny. Within reliabilism itself, there would be no definitive way to establish the reliability or unreliability of any claim. Similarly, reliabilism can potentially lead to solipsism, where one may question the truth of any experience or perception—given that one’s own observations do not offer justification within that framework.

Conversely, reliabilism offers valuable insights, or at the very least, prompts meaningful inquiries. An individual may believe they are employing a rational process and genuinely consider their justifications to be sound, yet still be mistaken—should we then consider that person’s belief justified? Not all truth-seeking methods are equally effective; some approaches are more successful than others. When we recognize these disparities, it is logical to rely on those methods that have been more thoroughly validated.

Scripture does not mandate a specific position on reliabilism. The Bible does not definitively endorse or reject it—similar to philosophy, it remains an open question that is subject to debate and reasonable disagreement.