...But then we have the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They had been with Jesus for over 3 years. They knew him intimately, or thought they did. How was it that they walked with him for several hours, engaged in a vigorous discussion and had no idea who they were talking to? Did they have such terrible memories? Were their eyes so dim? These things must needs be explained if we are to believe that knowledge (justified, true belief) comes via the senses.
Scripture tells us: "... their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him." (Lk 24:16)
And: "...Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight." (Lk 24:30-31)
And later: "...He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures" (v.45).
Not only did Jesus tell them to know him by seeing and touching him (vv.36-39), "He was known to them," Luke says, "in the breaking of bread" (v.35).
So they had knowledge of Christ when God saw fit to give it to them by Christ's appearance, body, actions, and teaching. This kind of reminiscence is mentioned elsewhere in Scripture, and is related to God disclosing special information about himself and his plans.
I'll repost an old blog I wrote on this where I cite several passages of Scripture touching on this subject.
In Luke 24 we read, "But their eyes were holden that they should not know him....And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight."
Are we to suppose that the "opening of their eyes" was physical? Surely they were not going about with their eyelids closed. Is this language not metaphor as when we say to someone when we gain understanding of what they tell us "Oh, I see what you're getting at now."?
The passages from Genesis 27 and Luke could be interpreted as demonstrating the unreliability of the senses, (Isaac's senses deceived him) and the necessity of being taught by the Lord as in places like John 1:9 "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." This would be apriorism, not senses, giving us knowledge.
"He was known to them," Luke says, "in the breaking of bread" (v.35)."
Seems like their memories were jogged - an intellectual function rather than sensual. They remembered how he had broken bread with them before, put 2 & 2 together and realised who was standing there. The following context tells us this as, using more metaphorical language (their hearts burning within them), they understood the Scriptures He was explaining to them.
"And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. v.31
And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" v.32
Jesus was opening the scriptures to them, but they were dull of hearing, but not due to any wax in their ears, but because of unbelief (slow of heart).
If we are to gain knowledge through our senses, then we could never know God, since he cannot be seen, touched, etc. Isn't there some rule of logic that we cannot derive a greater from the lesser?? Because we can see the world around us does not imply that it was made by one god or many gods - A mistake made by some from the creationist movement. There is not enough sensual information to draw that conclusion.
"Not only did Jesus tell them to know him by seeing and touching him (vv.36-39)"...well, let's look further at what is written....
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
44 And he said unto them, These are The WORDS WHICH I SPAKE UNTO YOU, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 THEN OPENED HE THEIR UNDERSTANDING, THAT THEY MIGHT UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES, (sorry, could not figure out how to highlight, hence the CAPS)
Seems like a slam dunk for the senses giving knowledge....showing them his hands/feet, eating with them.......Until we get to verse 44, where we see it is all about words. These words are the words He had received from His Father and which were hidden from them until he opened their understanding. Tim Kauffman has written and excellent series on just this point recently in his mini-series Last to Know, particularly in parts 2 to 5 of the series. (https://www.whitehorseblog.com/2021/12/29/last-to-know-part-1/).
Your example of the disciples with Jesus on the road to Emmaus is a good one. Also, it's bizarre that Hiram concludes "Isaac was not deceived because his senses were not reliable, but because they were reliable." Huh, he just explained how Isaac's remaining senses deceived him. Hardly trustworthy guides. Plus, even if he could see better that's no argument in favor of his assertion that senses are reliable, much less a tool of cognition. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously bad for any number of reasons. Plus, now with the advent of AI you can't believe anything you see.
If anything the account of Isaac is another great example of why sensation is not a source of knowledge. Hiram is asserting what he needs to prove, i.e., he's begging the question.
Regarding the unreliability of Isaac's senses, where in the text do you get that? The only sense mentioned here that isn't functioning properly is that of eyesight. Isaac correctly identifies the voice of Jacob as Jacob's. He correctly views - no pun intended - the hands as not feeling like Jacob's.
Isaac's senses didn't deceive him. Jacob deceived Isaac by creating a complex of sensations mimicking those belonging uniquely to Esau. But as time passed, the illusion created by Jacob, not by Isaac's senses, dissipated.
Isaac was also deceived because of his love for stew. The parallel with Esau in Gen 25:29-34 is evident, and seems to point to a character flaw in Isaac (e.g. he was willing to give up that which was of greater value in order to satisfy his immediate physical desires).
What do you mean, "where did I get that?" He was deceived. In a discussion of epistemology knowledge is knowledge of the truth. It is justified true belief. You haven't even begun to demonstrate that sensations, whatever they may be, are a source of knowledge. Instead, you simply ignore all the arguments demonstrating the failure of empiricism and assert they are a source of knowledge from a story of an old man being duped. Very strange.
Hello Hiram, for further consideration on the passage from Genesis 27....
The skins on Jacob's hands actually deceived Isaac. Isaac wrongly concluded that what he was feeling were the hands of Esau. His touch deceived him.
Same for the smell of the clothing. Yes, it was the smell of Esau, but again, he drew the wrong conclusion, that therefore this is Esau... no it wasn't.
Isaac had conflicting ideas from his senses. He heard the voice of Jacob, he touched and smelled "Esau". He also knew that the time taken for the arrival of the stew was incredibly quick. Yet Isaac doesn't hear any alarm bells ringing. What could he have done to resolve the tension? We see, just a few verses later, that there were others about, called witnesses, he could have called upon them to answer his initial question "who art thou, my son?" For we are told the wives of Esau were around (v.46), Isaac could have asked them what was happening, or perhaps some trustworthy servants. By the mouth of two or three witnesses the thing would have been established....But alas, Isaac believes at least two of his senses and ignores a conflicting one and his belly gets the better of him. His senses deceived him. His senses gave him not truth, but confusion.
Seems very similar to what happened in Genesis 3. Both Adam and Eve knew the command of God. When the serpent came whispering lies, instead of looking at the fruit and desiring it they should have called for other witnesses to decide the matter. Who could they call upon? Perhaps, the Father and the Spirit, pretty reliable witnesses. Eve's eyes did not deceive her in one aspect, the fruit was really beautiful. But even Snow White gets what's really happening. It may look good on the outside, but it bites like a serpent inside. Eve was deceived by the words of Satan, and her senses (which, by the way, were perfect) gave her no pause.....the senses gave her no opposing proposition. Her senses were not what she should have relied upon (just like Isaac) to decide between God's words and the serpent's. Only propositions deliver truth. PERFECT senses do not deliver truth. Truth comes from the mouth of God, Thy Word is truth.
Jesus walked amongst the Jews for 30 years. Yet even his own family never realised who he was (Mark 3:20-31). They had not been taught by the Father. When the penny finally drops for Peter, Jesus explains to him what had happened. It was revealed to Peter from the Father who Jesus was, he did not get that understanding from flesh and blood, nor from his senses.
The point is, we as men are dealing with a very clever and deceitful enemy. From Genesis 3 we must understand that he will stop at nothing to undermine the truth of God's Word, even using God's Word against itself as we see with Eve and later with the temptation of Jesus. The devil appeals to Jesus' senses..."Aren't you hungry? Look, turn some stones to bread to satiate your hunger, Don't you want some luxury instead of this wilderness...Look here are all the pleasures of the world"...and so on. The sensations were real, but the battle is decided by God's word, not by any other external factors.
Truth is propositional. Sounds trite perhaps, but smells and bells and tasty Irish Stew do not give us propositions. Only words do. In His temptation, Jesus does not resort to the most amazing sensations of seeing heaven opened, hearing the Father's voice and seeing the Spirt descend on Him like a dove (Luke 3), though these all happened just before his temptation six weeks later. He only resorts to the Word of His Father. He does not trust His senses or experiences to deliver truth.
Hiram, two lectures that summarise Clark's view, and the Scriptures, on this subject of epistemology are
These lectures are the best summary I have found in defence of revelation alone providing knowledge. They also demolish the empiricism brought up in your essay.
I usually don't comment at all on blogs, but I thought this is something that at least needed to be challenged and debated. "Those of you who have followed my writing for some time can see that my epistemological position has changed quite a bit." Yes, it has. Let's see if that can be changed again.
OK, so what if they're reliable sometimes and clearly not at other times. Senses dim and change over time and often deceive us. You've never experienced an optical illusion or mistaken identity? Besides, my dog can smell and hear better than I can, so I hardly think you can dress up like me and fool my dog the way Jacob fooled Issaac. Then you say, "Isaac could not see, so he relied upon his other senses." Well, how that work out for him and his plan to give Esau his rightful inheritance?
You say, "Objects, including persons, are known to us as a complex of sensible properties with repeatable patterns of modification . . . . " Clearly, they're not. Issaac didn't recognize Jabob and the disciples on the road to Emmaus didn't recognize the complex of sensible properties we call Jesus.
The question you raise is about epistemology. You've moved away from Clark, but I have no idea where you ended up.
I agree. Sometimes they function properly and are, therefore, reliable; and sometimes they malfunction and are, therefore, unreliable. That they're unreliable at times, and under certain conditions, however, is not the issue at hand. Like you said, we're talking about epistemology. So, in an indirect way, we are also talking about ontology and teleology. We have sensory apparatuses; and they have functions.
Ultimately, God is Sovereign over whether or not our senses do what he created them to do (cf. Ex 4:11), but that does not negate the fact that they have a created purpose. We have been given eyes to see what can be visually apprehended. We have been given ears to hear what can be audibly apprehended. We have hands to touch, etc.
Isaac used his other senses, but he did not think properly. I'm not saying that's all he relied on. Rather than reasoning properly, he simply accepted Jacob's self-identification as Esau as true. This is why I pointed to Isaac's three questions. Isaac knew something was wrong. He knew that Esau felt and sounded a certain way. He knew that the person who was talking to him only had one of those properties (viz. hairiness). He knew from previous experiences that Esau hunting, killing, butchering, and cooking savory stew took a certain amount of time; and he knew that the person speaking to him had done those things way too quickly.
Isaac was not wrong about how Esau felt vs. how Jacob felt.
He was not wrong about how Esau sounded vs. how Jacob sounded.
He was not wrong about how long it would take Esau to make the stew vs. how long it took the person who was speaking to him.
Isaac didn't recognize Jacob because Jacob disguised himself as Esau. But that doesn't mean Isaac's senses, besides his sight, are not reliable. It means that because his senses are reliable, he can be deceived by someone pretending to feel and smell and act like someone else.
This is why I stated that objects, including persons, are known to us as a complex of sensible properties with repeatable patterns of modification. Isaac did not recognize Jacob, but the text does not tell us that he is fully convinced that Jacob is Esau. He asks Jacob three times to verify his identity because the hairiness, voice, and pattern of behavior are inconsistent with another.
Isaac didn't think that Jacob was Esau because his senses were unreliable. That's not contained explicitly or implicitly in the text. What is contained in the text is Isaac's repeated questioning of Jacob regarding his identity, and his, i.e. Isaac's, eventually acceptance of Jacob's self-identification. So why did he accept Jacob's word for it?
I think the answer here is simple: He loved stew, and knew that he only had a short time to live. That's why I mentioned the parallel between Esau being supplanted by Jacob via the offering of a bowl of stew, and Isaac being taken advantage of by Jacob via the offering of a bowl of stew.
The disciples didn't recognize Jesus because God caused them to not recognize him. I don't see the problem with acknowledging this while also maintaining that their senses normally were reliable. God is Sovereign. He can do what he wants.
As far as your dog goes, if he can smell better than you, such that he can differentiate between you and another person pretending to be you, this implies that you and he identify others by means of sensory experience. He's just better at it. I don't see how that causes a problem for what I've been saying.
Also, I'm not a pure empiricist. I'm closer to Plato and Augustine in my understanding of epistemology. I affirm that we are created with a variety of knowledge items/believed propositions which we come to have justification for as we discursively reason (e.g. God is our creator, the laws of logic, we are morally accountable creatures, etc). I also deny that induction precedes deduction. This is logically and ontologically impossible. Induction rests upon a previous deduction that takes the form:
All property sharing entities constitute a set.
x and y are property sharing entities.
Therefore, x and y constitute a set.
Inductive reasoning is a secondary form of reasoning more akin to guessing, but still valid within the sphere of its proper domain.
I'm not even sure where to begin, but I do sense I'm not getting anywhere. Yes, "God is Sovereign over whether or not our senses do what he created them to do. . . ." What you haven't done is shown that God created any of our five senses as a means of cognition, i.e., as a means by which we might come know the truth. You certainly are miles away from deducing any such think from the account of Isaac and Jacob. I would recommend you go back and read Clark's reply to George Mavrodes. Regardless, I'm glad you don't consider yourself a "pure empiricist." https://www.trinityfoundation.org/new_article.php?id=1
...But then we have the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They had been with Jesus for over 3 years. They knew him intimately, or thought they did. How was it that they walked with him for several hours, engaged in a vigorous discussion and had no idea who they were talking to? Did they have such terrible memories? Were their eyes so dim? These things must needs be explained if we are to believe that knowledge (justified, true belief) comes via the senses.
Scripture tells us: "... their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him." (Lk 24:16)
And: "...Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight." (Lk 24:30-31)
And later: "...He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures" (v.45).
Not only did Jesus tell them to know him by seeing and touching him (vv.36-39), "He was known to them," Luke says, "in the breaking of bread" (v.35).
So they had knowledge of Christ when God saw fit to give it to them by Christ's appearance, body, actions, and teaching. This kind of reminiscence is mentioned elsewhere in Scripture, and is related to God disclosing special information about himself and his plans.
I'll repost an old blog I wrote on this where I cite several passages of Scripture touching on this subject.
Thx Hiram. Look forward to reading the old blog.
In Luke 24 we read, "But their eyes were holden that they should not know him....And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight."
Are we to suppose that the "opening of their eyes" was physical? Surely they were not going about with their eyelids closed. Is this language not metaphor as when we say to someone when we gain understanding of what they tell us "Oh, I see what you're getting at now."?
The passages from Genesis 27 and Luke could be interpreted as demonstrating the unreliability of the senses, (Isaac's senses deceived him) and the necessity of being taught by the Lord as in places like John 1:9 "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." This would be apriorism, not senses, giving us knowledge.
"He was known to them," Luke says, "in the breaking of bread" (v.35)."
Seems like their memories were jogged - an intellectual function rather than sensual. They remembered how he had broken bread with them before, put 2 & 2 together and realised who was standing there. The following context tells us this as, using more metaphorical language (their hearts burning within them), they understood the Scriptures He was explaining to them.
"And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. v.31
And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" v.32
Jesus was opening the scriptures to them, but they were dull of hearing, but not due to any wax in their ears, but because of unbelief (slow of heart).
If we are to gain knowledge through our senses, then we could never know God, since he cannot be seen, touched, etc. Isn't there some rule of logic that we cannot derive a greater from the lesser?? Because we can see the world around us does not imply that it was made by one god or many gods - A mistake made by some from the creationist movement. There is not enough sensual information to draw that conclusion.
"Not only did Jesus tell them to know him by seeing and touching him (vv.36-39)"...well, let's look further at what is written....
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
44 And he said unto them, These are The WORDS WHICH I SPAKE UNTO YOU, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 THEN OPENED HE THEIR UNDERSTANDING, THAT THEY MIGHT UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES, (sorry, could not figure out how to highlight, hence the CAPS)
Seems like a slam dunk for the senses giving knowledge....showing them his hands/feet, eating with them.......Until we get to verse 44, where we see it is all about words. These words are the words He had received from His Father and which were hidden from them until he opened their understanding. Tim Kauffman has written and excellent series on just this point recently in his mini-series Last to Know, particularly in parts 2 to 5 of the series. (https://www.whitehorseblog.com/2021/12/29/last-to-know-part-1/).
Anyway Hiram, one thing that this has stimulated me to do, is to re-read Augustine's Concerning the Teacher (https://www.trinitylectures.org/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=Concerning+the+Teacher&x=0&y=0). It's been years since I read it. Time to dust it off again.
And we should all keep our eyelids open whilst it is day.
Your example of the disciples with Jesus on the road to Emmaus is a good one. Also, it's bizarre that Hiram concludes "Isaac was not deceived because his senses were not reliable, but because they were reliable." Huh, he just explained how Isaac's remaining senses deceived him. Hardly trustworthy guides. Plus, even if he could see better that's no argument in favor of his assertion that senses are reliable, much less a tool of cognition. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously bad for any number of reasons. Plus, now with the advent of AI you can't believe anything you see.
If anything the account of Isaac is another great example of why sensation is not a source of knowledge. Hiram is asserting what he needs to prove, i.e., he's begging the question.
Hey Sean.
Regarding the unreliability of Isaac's senses, where in the text do you get that? The only sense mentioned here that isn't functioning properly is that of eyesight. Isaac correctly identifies the voice of Jacob as Jacob's. He correctly views - no pun intended - the hands as not feeling like Jacob's.
Isaac's senses didn't deceive him. Jacob deceived Isaac by creating a complex of sensations mimicking those belonging uniquely to Esau. But as time passed, the illusion created by Jacob, not by Isaac's senses, dissipated.
Isaac was also deceived because of his love for stew. The parallel with Esau in Gen 25:29-34 is evident, and seems to point to a character flaw in Isaac (e.g. he was willing to give up that which was of greater value in order to satisfy his immediate physical desires).
What do you mean, "where did I get that?" He was deceived. In a discussion of epistemology knowledge is knowledge of the truth. It is justified true belief. You haven't even begun to demonstrate that sensations, whatever they may be, are a source of knowledge. Instead, you simply ignore all the arguments demonstrating the failure of empiricism and assert they are a source of knowledge from a story of an old man being duped. Very strange.
I was asking about the unreliability of the senses. Where in the text do you get the idea that Isaac's senses are unreliable?
Isaac was not deceived by his senses, but by a person. I don't see how one can validly infer from the text that Isaac's senses were unreliable.
Hello Hiram, for further consideration on the passage from Genesis 27....
The skins on Jacob's hands actually deceived Isaac. Isaac wrongly concluded that what he was feeling were the hands of Esau. His touch deceived him.
Same for the smell of the clothing. Yes, it was the smell of Esau, but again, he drew the wrong conclusion, that therefore this is Esau... no it wasn't.
Isaac had conflicting ideas from his senses. He heard the voice of Jacob, he touched and smelled "Esau". He also knew that the time taken for the arrival of the stew was incredibly quick. Yet Isaac doesn't hear any alarm bells ringing. What could he have done to resolve the tension? We see, just a few verses later, that there were others about, called witnesses, he could have called upon them to answer his initial question "who art thou, my son?" For we are told the wives of Esau were around (v.46), Isaac could have asked them what was happening, or perhaps some trustworthy servants. By the mouth of two or three witnesses the thing would have been established....But alas, Isaac believes at least two of his senses and ignores a conflicting one and his belly gets the better of him. His senses deceived him. His senses gave him not truth, but confusion.
Seems very similar to what happened in Genesis 3. Both Adam and Eve knew the command of God. When the serpent came whispering lies, instead of looking at the fruit and desiring it they should have called for other witnesses to decide the matter. Who could they call upon? Perhaps, the Father and the Spirit, pretty reliable witnesses. Eve's eyes did not deceive her in one aspect, the fruit was really beautiful. But even Snow White gets what's really happening. It may look good on the outside, but it bites like a serpent inside. Eve was deceived by the words of Satan, and her senses (which, by the way, were perfect) gave her no pause.....the senses gave her no opposing proposition. Her senses were not what she should have relied upon (just like Isaac) to decide between God's words and the serpent's. Only propositions deliver truth. PERFECT senses do not deliver truth. Truth comes from the mouth of God, Thy Word is truth.
Jesus walked amongst the Jews for 30 years. Yet even his own family never realised who he was (Mark 3:20-31). They had not been taught by the Father. When the penny finally drops for Peter, Jesus explains to him what had happened. It was revealed to Peter from the Father who Jesus was, he did not get that understanding from flesh and blood, nor from his senses.
The point is, we as men are dealing with a very clever and deceitful enemy. From Genesis 3 we must understand that he will stop at nothing to undermine the truth of God's Word, even using God's Word against itself as we see with Eve and later with the temptation of Jesus. The devil appeals to Jesus' senses..."Aren't you hungry? Look, turn some stones to bread to satiate your hunger, Don't you want some luxury instead of this wilderness...Look here are all the pleasures of the world"...and so on. The sensations were real, but the battle is decided by God's word, not by any other external factors.
Truth is propositional. Sounds trite perhaps, but smells and bells and tasty Irish Stew do not give us propositions. Only words do. In His temptation, Jesus does not resort to the most amazing sensations of seeing heaven opened, hearing the Father's voice and seeing the Spirt descend on Him like a dove (Luke 3), though these all happened just before his temptation six weeks later. He only resorts to the Word of His Father. He does not trust His senses or experiences to deliver truth.
Hiram, two lectures that summarise Clark's view, and the Scriptures, on this subject of epistemology are
https://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/Propositional_Revelation,_Part_1.mp3
and
https://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/Propositional_Revelation,_Part_2.mp3
These lectures are the best summary I have found in defence of revelation alone providing knowledge. They also demolish the empiricism brought up in your essay.
I usually don't comment at all on blogs, but I thought this is something that at least needed to be challenged and debated. "Those of you who have followed my writing for some time can see that my epistemological position has changed quite a bit." Yes, it has. Let's see if that can be changed again.
Cheers
OK, so what if they're reliable sometimes and clearly not at other times. Senses dim and change over time and often deceive us. You've never experienced an optical illusion or mistaken identity? Besides, my dog can smell and hear better than I can, so I hardly think you can dress up like me and fool my dog the way Jacob fooled Issaac. Then you say, "Isaac could not see, so he relied upon his other senses." Well, how that work out for him and his plan to give Esau his rightful inheritance?
You say, "Objects, including persons, are known to us as a complex of sensible properties with repeatable patterns of modification . . . . " Clearly, they're not. Issaac didn't recognize Jabob and the disciples on the road to Emmaus didn't recognize the complex of sensible properties we call Jesus.
The question you raise is about epistemology. You've moved away from Clark, but I have no idea where you ended up.
I agree. Sometimes they function properly and are, therefore, reliable; and sometimes they malfunction and are, therefore, unreliable. That they're unreliable at times, and under certain conditions, however, is not the issue at hand. Like you said, we're talking about epistemology. So, in an indirect way, we are also talking about ontology and teleology. We have sensory apparatuses; and they have functions.
Ultimately, God is Sovereign over whether or not our senses do what he created them to do (cf. Ex 4:11), but that does not negate the fact that they have a created purpose. We have been given eyes to see what can be visually apprehended. We have been given ears to hear what can be audibly apprehended. We have hands to touch, etc.
Isaac used his other senses, but he did not think properly. I'm not saying that's all he relied on. Rather than reasoning properly, he simply accepted Jacob's self-identification as Esau as true. This is why I pointed to Isaac's three questions. Isaac knew something was wrong. He knew that Esau felt and sounded a certain way. He knew that the person who was talking to him only had one of those properties (viz. hairiness). He knew from previous experiences that Esau hunting, killing, butchering, and cooking savory stew took a certain amount of time; and he knew that the person speaking to him had done those things way too quickly.
Isaac was not wrong about how Esau felt vs. how Jacob felt.
He was not wrong about how Esau sounded vs. how Jacob sounded.
He was not wrong about how long it would take Esau to make the stew vs. how long it took the person who was speaking to him.
Isaac didn't recognize Jacob because Jacob disguised himself as Esau. But that doesn't mean Isaac's senses, besides his sight, are not reliable. It means that because his senses are reliable, he can be deceived by someone pretending to feel and smell and act like someone else.
This is why I stated that objects, including persons, are known to us as a complex of sensible properties with repeatable patterns of modification. Isaac did not recognize Jacob, but the text does not tell us that he is fully convinced that Jacob is Esau. He asks Jacob three times to verify his identity because the hairiness, voice, and pattern of behavior are inconsistent with another.
Isaac didn't think that Jacob was Esau because his senses were unreliable. That's not contained explicitly or implicitly in the text. What is contained in the text is Isaac's repeated questioning of Jacob regarding his identity, and his, i.e. Isaac's, eventually acceptance of Jacob's self-identification. So why did he accept Jacob's word for it?
I think the answer here is simple: He loved stew, and knew that he only had a short time to live. That's why I mentioned the parallel between Esau being supplanted by Jacob via the offering of a bowl of stew, and Isaac being taken advantage of by Jacob via the offering of a bowl of stew.
The disciples didn't recognize Jesus because God caused them to not recognize him. I don't see the problem with acknowledging this while also maintaining that their senses normally were reliable. God is Sovereign. He can do what he wants.
As far as your dog goes, if he can smell better than you, such that he can differentiate between you and another person pretending to be you, this implies that you and he identify others by means of sensory experience. He's just better at it. I don't see how that causes a problem for what I've been saying.
Also, I'm not a pure empiricist. I'm closer to Plato and Augustine in my understanding of epistemology. I affirm that we are created with a variety of knowledge items/believed propositions which we come to have justification for as we discursively reason (e.g. God is our creator, the laws of logic, we are morally accountable creatures, etc). I also deny that induction precedes deduction. This is logically and ontologically impossible. Induction rests upon a previous deduction that takes the form:
All property sharing entities constitute a set.
x and y are property sharing entities.
Therefore, x and y constitute a set.
Inductive reasoning is a secondary form of reasoning more akin to guessing, but still valid within the sphere of its proper domain.
I'm not even sure where to begin, but I do sense I'm not getting anywhere. Yes, "God is Sovereign over whether or not our senses do what he created them to do. . . ." What you haven't done is shown that God created any of our five senses as a means of cognition, i.e., as a means by which we might come know the truth. You certainly are miles away from deducing any such think from the account of Isaac and Jacob. I would recommend you go back and read Clark's reply to George Mavrodes. Regardless, I'm glad you don't consider yourself a "pure empiricist." https://www.trinityfoundation.org/new_article.php?id=1