I have been following apologetics for quite some time and have run into many claims that certain epistemological methods typically associated with non-theism (for example, empiricism and logical positivism) do not handle things like the infinite regress and evil demon problems.
- What epistemological methods are currently thought of as successfully handling the infinite regress (bonus points for evil demon problems)?
- I've never been exactly sure how it would tangibly effect my life if my epistemology didn't successfully handle what I take to be thought experiments (especially in the case of evil demon problems). In other words, if I will eventually meet an unanswerable "Why?" or face the fact that if a superior evil demon is creating an illusion that is indistinguishable from a real world -- should I care?
- Lastly, in my brief examination of reformed epistemology and foundationalism, the core aspects simply seem to be that because one has a "profound sense of X being true, X is a justified belief." Thus, it strikes me as "dealing" with these problem simply by writing things that way into the rules. Is this an accurate read or am I missing something more profound about why these two systems are said to handle this issue (and Wiki does list foundationalism as a response to the regress problem).