I think this reply moves away from the argument and into personal insinuation.
When I said I’m not religious, I meant that I don’t presently adhere to a religion, religious doctrine, church authority, or institutional religious practice. I did consider myself a Christian for many years, including during my earlier years on Ephilosopher (around 2005). My views changed through research and study, especially around 2011. So there’s nothing hidden here.
You mention Geneva College. Yes, I attended Geneva College from 1978 to 1981. But attending a Christian college decades ago doesn’t establish that I presently hold Christian beliefs. You also mention my book, whose title is From Testimony to Knowledge: Evaluating Near-Death Experiences. But investigating NDE testimony isn’t the same as holding religious doctrine. The book is concerned with testimony, evidence, justification, and knowledge.
I’ve also written at length on why I think the resurrection of Christ is based on very little evidence and isn’t worthy of belief. So if the suggestion is that I’m smuggling in a Christian framework, that doesn’t fit my actual position.
But more importantly, none of this addresses the conceptual point. The question in this thread is whether distinctions such as belief versus knowledge, subjective certainty versus epistemic certainty, and existential importance versus justification are clear and defensible. Those distinctions don’t become false because of my biography, former beliefs, education, or book topic.
If you think I’ve misread you, then clarify the point. But moving from an alleged misreading to “biased unreliability” is a personal judgment, not an argument. It doesn’t advance the discussion.
So, I’ll put the distinction clearly. If by religious you mean presently committed to a religion, then I’m not religious. If you mean having once been religious, having studied at a Christian college, or being interested in questions about consciousness, then that’s a different use of the word.