Neutral Science?

Originally posted by dj2becker


I don't think so. How can you be claim to be absolutely sure about something that is not an absolute truth?

How can you be claim to be absolutely sure about something that is not an absolute truth?

you can claim anything you want. you just do it; you just make the claim. people make wild and crazy claims all the time. isn't that your forte?

on a more substantive note, i would argue that Skipper is correct on this issue. it seems to me that one can be 'absolutely sure that P' when in fact P is a false proposition. it just means that one is convinced beyond any doubt that P is true, when in fact he is wrong and P is false. that may be your whole belief system in a little nutshell. it may be a whole lot of belief systems in a little nutshell. who knows...?

i would imagine it depends to an extent on semantics: it would depend on what you mean by 'sure'. here, i am working under the premise that one's having no doubt is sufficient for saying that he is 'sure'. i think this is the context you have in mind.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Its how the scientific method works. Just because Einstein, had more of the universe to examine doesn't mean that all of Newtonian laws were invalid either. Newton might not have known about mass / energy equivalence, but his conservation of momentum law is valid even at relativistic velocities because its concept is based on the underlying mathematics.

This is precisely my point.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]How can you be claim to be absolutely sure about something that is not an absolute truth?

you can claim anything you want. you just do it; you just make the claim. people make wild and crazy claims all the time. isn't that your forte?

on a more substantive note, i would argue that Skipper is correct on this issue. it seems to me that o ...[text shortened]... ubt is sufficient for saying that he is 'sure'. i think this is the context you have in mind.[/b]

The Skipper said that when a person claims to know the absolute truth he is either a liar or ignorant.

What I am saying is that it is possible to know an absolute truth without being either a liar or ignorant.

Do you have any reason to suggest that my above premise could be wrong?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you have any reason to suggest that my above premise could be wrong?

1.) You could be a machine with AI; we have no way of determining that you are indeed alive.
2.) If you are alive, how are you sure that you will die? Just because billions of people have died before you, how do you know that you will? While highly unlikely, there is a chance you might be: lifted bodily into heaven, never to experience mortal death; be denied the ability to die through science, freak accident, or divine intervention; or not be alive in the first place, and therefore incapabile of dying.

Originally posted by echecero
1.) You could be a machine with AI; we have no way of determining that you are indeed alive.
2.) If you are alive, how are you sure that you will die? Just because billions of people have died before you, how do you know that you will? While highly unlikely, there is a chance you might be: lifted bodily into heaven, never to experience mortal death; be den ...[text shortened]... , or divine intervention; or not be alive in the first place, and therefore incapabile of dying.

So by your reasoning there are no absolutes, right?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So by your reasoning there are no absolutes, right?

Just death and taxes. 🙄

Originally posted by dj2becker
So by your reasoning there are no absolutes, right?

Ok, I'm starting to believe that I cannot communicate my thoughts on this matter in a way that makes sense. I'm going to try one more time and then give up.

My contention is and has always been that absolute truth exists but it cannot be known by us (humans). Aside from that I think it is irresponsible and arrogant to at any time suggest that one is in possession of absolute truth. Speaking in terms of absolutes generates hate and prejudice and violence and war.

To be absolutely sure about something is not the same because being absolutely sure does not account for the possibility that what you are sure of is false. In other words, you can be absolutely sure of something that is not true.

Again, I believe that absolute truth exists and I believe there are absolutes I just think we cannot ever know them we can only work toward them.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Ok, I'm starting to believe that I cannot communicate my thoughts on this matter in a way that makes sense. I'm going to try one more time and then give up.

My contention is and has always been that absolute truth exists but it cannot be known by us (humans). Aside from that I think it is irresponsible and arrogant to at any time suggest that one i ...[text shortened]... are absolutes I just think we cannot ever know them we can only work toward them.

TheSkipper

An absolute truth that we cannot know? Then this can be nothing but speculation on your part. Plus there would be no way to know if we had acheived it, or were even approaching it. What you are saying is that in effect there are no absolute truths.

Originally posted by rwingett
An absolute truth that we cannot know? Then this can be nothing but speculation on your part. Plus there would be no way to know if we had acheived it, or were even approaching it. What you are saying is that in effect there are no absolute truths.

We can know that we are approaching it by reducing the margin of error of each theory. But even when there is no apparent error, it doesn't mean that in specific conditions the theory might not hold.

There are absolute truths and it is conjecturable that we can known them. But to claim something as an absolute truth only serves defenders of dogma. We must always keep an open-mind if and when new evidence arises.

Originally posted by rwingett
An absolute truth that we cannot know? Then this can be nothing but speculation on your part. Plus there would be no way to know if we had acheived it, or were even approaching it. What you are saying is that in effect there are no absolute truths.

I think he is saying that the Christian is epistemologically justified in claiming to have a source of absolute truth - since the Christian world view is based on the source of absolute truth - the one and only omnipotent and omniscient God - aka the Almighty. How do we know? The Almighty gives that knowledge.

But the non-Christian has no epistemological justification for knowing anything. He may claim to know things, but he can not give a sound basis for that knowledge. All honest non-Christian epistemologies are left with subjective knowledge, possible right and wrong - but never any absolute truth.

Whether anyone is sure about anything is a matter of feelings. But if someone has a sound foundation for knowledge, a solid justification for knowing anything is a matter of epistemology - and that is the issue.

Originally posted by rwingett
An absolute truth that we cannot know? Then this can be nothing but speculation on your part. Plus there would be no way to know if we had acheived it, or were even approaching it. What you are saying is that in effect there are no absolute truths.

Everything you said is true but if I were to suggest that there are no absolutes or absolute truths when arguing with Christians they would dismiss me out of hand. Look, trying to get a Christian that has grown up surrounded by other Christians and is either scared or disallowed from experiencing life outside of Christendom to think critically about their beliefs is a difficult task, I should know I was one once.

I have been trying to save Christians from themselves for quite a few years now and I have developed some fairly effective techniques. This is not to say that I'm not completely sincere in my statements, for instance, I do truly believe In some form of the Christian God and therefore must believe in absolutes...I just don't think they exist for our understanding. In order for their to exist a God that is anything like the one described in the Bible (I certainly hope it is not exactly like the one described in the Bible) there MUST be absolutes, whether or not we understand them is not a requirement of their existence. I understand you do not necessarily believe in a God and are therefore free of having to deal with the existence of things you cannot know...I envy you, seriously.

Anyway, my attempts to save Christians from themselves have been wildly successful. In my own real life friend group I have actually created a couple dozen intellectually curious people who tend toward liberal Christianity and have a vast understanding of their faith and its limits. The best part is that every one of them (with the exception of two) were fundamentalist nut jobs when I met them...I was too for that matter. I'm not suggesting I'm some sort of fundamentalist pied piper or anything, this was a journey all of us took together, but I did pick up a few insights into the fundamentalist mentality along the way.

When attempting to strip a fundy of their assumptions where you start will greatly determine where you end up and the question of whether or not there exists absolute truth is decidedly not the place to start. So I cheat a bit. 😉

It is a bit of a waste of time, however, to attempt this transformation online. It tends to be a rather intimate process and does not lend itself easily to a group atmosphere such as this. However, give me and a couple of my friends 6 months with dj2 and/or RBhill and I think you would notice a marked difference.

All people respond to friendship and reason eventually and the indoctrination that sometimes takes place on the young people in churches is only so strong.

TheSkipper

Geez...I'm pretty long winded today. Sorry.

Originally posted by Coletti
I think he is saying that the Christian is epistemologically justified in claiming to have a source of absolute truth - since the Christian world view is based on the source of absolute truth - the one and only omnipotent and omniscient God - aka the Almighty. How do we know? The Almighty gives that knowledge.

But the non-Christian has no epistemologic ...[text shortened]... a solid justification for knowing anything is a matter of epistemology - and that is the issue.

I agree completely, I would just replace Christian/non-Christian with theist/"atheist-agnostic. But note that the latter also have a solid foundation for knowledge.

Their foundation for knowledge is evidence and therefore whenever there is the possibility of new evidence arising (no matter how improbable) then there can be no claim for absolute truth, just highly probable truth.

PS: TheSkipper said he was a Christian, I believe. I don't know if you were aware of that Colleti.

Originally posted by Palynka
We can know that we are approaching it by reducing the margin of error of each theory. But even when there is no apparent error, it doesn't mean that in specific conditions the theory might not hold.

There are absolute truths and it is conjecturable that we can known them. But to claim something as an absolute truth only serves defenders of dogma. We must always keep an open-mind if and when new evidence arises.

Absolute truth can exist even if you are not religious, the mythical "Theory of Everythin", possibly M theory the physicists have been working on/hoping for for decades. I agree with Palynka, there can be absolute truth, but there is no way to know that you actually know the absolute truth and not just a facet of it.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Absolute truth can exist even if you are not religious, the mythical "Theory of Everything", possibly M theory the physicists have been working on/hoping for for decades. I agree with Palynka, there can be absolute truth, but there is no way to know that you actually know the absolute truth and not just a facet of it.

Precisely. The absolute truth must exist. The ability to know it, however, seems impossible. Just as we can never truly know if we are in a virtual reality ala Matrix even if we can predict everything about our world, we can never know if we know everything, or only a small part.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Everything you said is true but if I were to suggest that there are no absolutes or absolute truths when arguing with Christians they would dismiss me out of hand. Look, trying to get a Christian that has grown up surrounded by other Christians and is either scared or disallowed from experiencing life outside of Christendom to think critically about thei ...[text shortened]... le in churches is only so strong.

TheSkipper

Geez...I'm pretty long winded today. Sorry.

I think we are talking about two different things. There are Christians who claim to know better than others (other people, other Christians) and this can be annoying. Christians should know better than to make that claim. Having a source of perfect knowledge, and actually holding and understanding that knowledge are two different things. Christians should understand that they remain sinners - and so their understanding will remain flawed. That does not make the knowledge from God unknowable, but that there is always a chance we have it wrong.

Let me define absolute knowledge as true propositions, but not all true propositions. The "absolute" is redundant if one uses a standard definition of knowledge as true propositions. The point is the truth of the proposition is not a probability, or a possibility. It is true or false and nothing in between.

The question then is can a Christian have absolute knowledge. I say he can - simply because that knowledge comes from God - usually via scripture, but always with the power of the Holy Spirit. But not every proposition a Christian feels certain of is necessarily true. The Christian remains a sinner, and the noetic effect of sin is always present such that some of what he believe will be incorrect.

So insofar as the Christian understands the scripture correctly (by the power and grace of God), then what the Christian knows is absolute knowledge. It is not all knowledge, because only God knows all things (omniscient).

The test for truth is scripture. If a proposition agrees with scripture, or is inferable (deducible) from the propositions of scripture, then the Christian is justified in feeling confident that what they believe is a true proposition. If the chain of reasoning to a proposition is complicated, the Christian should feel less certain. If the reasoning leads to contradiction, the Christian knows there is an error. But the propositions of the Bible rarely lead to contradiction regarding significant issues.

In summary: there are absolute truths (knowledge), and yes the Christian can know some of them. But no Christian has all knowledge, and can be mistaken in what he believes.