Originally posted by DelmerHuh? 'Knowledge' is traditionally construed as justified true belief. That is, in order to know P, you must believe P, be justified in believing P (this is what distinguishes a case of knowledge from a lucky guess), and P must be true ('cause you can't know something that is false). One can have really really good reasons to believe P (think of all the reasons that support your belief that you have a pair of hands, or that you are now reading text on a computer, or that your phone number is xxx-xxxx). But even though you have really really good reasons for these beliefs, it is possible (though wildly implausible) that you are mistaken. But if it is possible that you are mistaken, then you cannot be absolutely certain that these beliefs are correct, and hence you cannot know them with absolute certainty. But you certainly do know that you have a pair of hands, etc. etc. In short, you can know any number of things without being absolutely certain of them. In fact, try to think of some belief you have of which you are absolutely certain. It's pretty hard.
Isn't "know" an absolute?
Originally posted by bbarrOkay, BB. So then it is correct to use "almost know", "nearly know", and other such expressions?
Huh? 'Knowledge' is traditionally construed as justified true belief. That is, in order to know P, you must believe P, be justified in believing P (this is what distinguishes a case of knowledge from a lucky guess), and P must be true ('cause you can't know something that is false). One can have really really good reasons to believe P (think of all the ...[text shortened]... t, try to think of some belief you have of which you are absolutely certain. It's pretty hard.
Originally posted by DelmerIt depends on the context of use. The point is that knowledge does not require certainty, which is why I was asking whether strong atheism a la Rwingett was committed to knowledge requiring certainty.
Okay, BB. So then it is correct to use "almost know", "nearly know", and other such expressions?
Originally posted by bbarrUnderstood. Does it make sense to to you for someone to claim he has the knowledge of the non-existence of something? Perhaps such a statement does make sense, but it leaves me with the uneasy feeling that something is incorrect, or perhaps incomplete.
It depends on the context of use. The point is that knowledge does not require certainty, which is why I was asking whether strong atheism a la Rwingett was committed to knowledge requiring certainty.
If I believe there is no god, then my belief is that there is no god. Thus, atheism isn't a lack of belief. It is simply a belief that there is no higher power. Last time I checked, thats still a belief.
Second, agnostic atheism isn't "weak atheism." Agnosticism, which is a different belief system then atheism, is simply one who believes that is impossible to tell. An agnostic believes in the possibility of a deity as well as the possibility of no deity. There is a big difference between being an atheist and an agnostic.
In addition to my previous post:
Let's look at this know = strong and believe= weak.
You can apply this to people of any religionw here they believe in a deity. Let's take Christianity because it is one of the more familar religions. A strong atheist knows that god does not exist, while a strong christian knows that god does exist. If I know something, I, myself possess it as a truth. Like all truths, I must believe it. For a simple analogy, 2+2=4. That is true because we believe it to be true, we believe it to be true so much that we know it is true.
Using this, it is easy to see that believing something doesn't put you into a new category (i.e. weak christians are still christian).
This of course is just my point of view, and I have found that most people are accepting of this point of view and explanation. If you are not, I ask that you please explain yourself.
Originally posted by bbarrThese are good questions your raise. I'm afraid I could stand to brush up on my epistemology a bit, and that my use of 'knowledge' and 'certainty' may not be rigorous.
It depends on the context of use. The point is that knowledge does not require certainty, which is why I was asking whether strong atheism a la Rwingett was committed to knowledge requiring certainty.
You claim to 'know' that god does not exist. On what basis can you make this knowledge claim? Here I'm using 'god' with a small 'g' to denote any god as opposed to a specifically Christian God. I do not see how you can claim to know this, whether it is with certainty or not. The most I will allow myself is that I suspect very strongly that no gods exist. For the claim 'no gods exist' to qualify as knowledge, it would have to be a 'justified true belief', as you stated. The most I can see for the claim is that it is a 'justified, most probably true belief'. How can you establish the truth quotient?
It seems to me that you are wandering perilously close to confirming the theist's claim that 'atheism is a belief' and thereby commiting yourself to sharing their burden of proof.
If you are claiming that you cannot know with certainty your own phone number, or whether you have two hands, then it seems you are essentially claiming that nothing at all can be known with certainty. Or that nothing can be known with certainty a posteriori at least. In that case, to claim that strong atheism required knowledge with certainty would necessarily be incorrect. So I will (for the sake of argument) revise my previous definition of a strong atheist to be: One who claims to know (even without certainty) that god does not exist.
Originally posted by bbarrBy saying there is no proof you are AGREING with the christians. They also say there is no proof. Thats the point. If there was there would be no faith or religion there would just be fact.
Speak for yourself. The complete lack of evidence for the existence of an omnimax deity coupled with the evidence against the existence of such a deity suffices for the belief that there is no such deity to be justified. If you're going to be an atheist, why not be a take no prisoners, ass-kicking atheist?
Originally posted by bbarrIf knowledge has to be about something which is true, then no one is aware of whether they know something or not (except for a couple very specific things). To say you know anything is arrogant and unjustified because you don't know that you know - umm...you aren't aware of whether or not you know something. You can say "I probably know" with justification maybe.
Huh? 'Knowledge' is traditionally construed as justified true belief. That is, in order to know P, you must believe P, be justified in believing P (this is what distinguishes a case of knowledge from a lucky guess), and P must be true ('cause you can't know something that is false). One can have really really good reasons to believe P (think of all the ...[text shortened]... t, try to think of some belief you have of which you are absolutely certain. It's pretty hard.
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19232
Originally posted by telerionWOW! Are we ever so closed minded. I can see that having any rational discussion with you is hence forth a superstition. But, if you dare, I'll pose one last question. If one were to be able to prove to you beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is a God in the Judeo-Christian sense, would you consider it a possiblity?
Wrong forum. This question belongs in Superstitions (Formally entitled 'Spirituality'😉. If you place it in the correct forum, your question will get careful attention and, I suspect, a severe drubbing.
1 edit
Originally posted by LangtreeDo I detect the Atheist-Chat-O-Matic at work?
WOW! Are we ever so closed minded. I can see that having any rational discussion with you is hence forth a superstition. But, if you dare, I'll pose one last question. If one were to be able to prove to you beyond any reasonable doubt, ...[text shortened]... in the Judeo-Christian sense, would you consider it a possiblity?
Sure. c If you could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then I would believe, but for me to really believe I would have to be the judge of what a reasonable doubt is. I have a pretty strong suspicion, given your opening question, what pieces of evidence you plan to present. If these are in fact all you have, then I guarentee you now that you're wasting your time.
Sure though. I would be more than happy to hear proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Yahweh really exists. Proceed.
WOW! Are we ever so closed minded.
The spirit is strong, but the flesh is weak, Lang. Have a care with your witness.