17 Oct 11
I was surfing the net recently and reading about Skepticism. Some findings there shocked me, some made me think that I must bring them to the notice of fellow theists for their comments. Of course, atheists are also welcome to comment and elucidate, but ,probably they already know this stuff by heart ! So, here goes !
i)" Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration-courage,
clear thinking, honesty, fairness and above all, love of truth "------H.L.Mencken.
Really ? A Dasa in reverse ? What do you say ?
ii) " Knowledge is impossible "---Philosophical Skepticism tenet. Really ? A one
stroke destroyer of Science and Religion both. What do you say ?
iii) " No truth was quite true "---F.H.Bradley
iv) " Truth is an ideal expression of the Universe; at once coherent and
comprehensive. It must not conflict with itself, and there must be no
suggestion which fails to fall inside it. Perfect truth in short must realize the
idea of a systematic whole "--- F.H.Bradley again ( unless it is Mark Alan
Walker of markalanwalker.com ) A holdall definition ? Do Scientific findings
answer this definition ? Do Theological findings answer this definition ?
I think that each of the above statements may require a separate thread. If you
think so, by all means form separate threads.
17 Oct 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoI find ii to resonate with some things I have said before; however, I believe knowledge doesn't equate to a visceral understanding of the "facts" we get from science.
I was surfing the net recently and reading about Skepticism. Some findings there shocked me, some made me think that I must bring them to the notice of fellow theists for their comments. Of course, atheists are also welcome to comment and elucidate, but ,probably they already know this stuff by heart ! So, here goes !
i)" Religion is fundamentally o ...[text shortened]... may require a separate thread. If you
think so, by all means form separate threads.
In other words, we can't know for sure if what we find is true but we can come to an understanding based on scientific facts.
17 Oct 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoThis is the philosophy of Satanism. Its the other side of the coin,
I was surfing the net recently and reading about Skepticism. Some findings there shocked me, some made me think that I must bring them to the notice of fellow theists for their comments. Of course, atheists are also welcome to comment and elucidate, but ,probably they already know this stuff by heart ! So, here goes !
i)" Religion is fundamentally o ...[text shortened]... may require a separate thread. If you
think so, by all means form separate threads.
with truth on one side and lies on the other.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
17 Oct 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoThe 'other side' as you put it (assuming you mean secularist, atheist, free thinking, skeptics.)
I was surfing the net recently and reading about Skepticism. Some findings there shocked me, some made me think that I must bring them to the notice of fellow theists for their comments. Of course, atheists are also welcome to comment and elucidate, but ,probably they already know this stuff by heart ! So, here goes !
i)" Religion is fundamentally o ...[text shortened]... may require a separate thread. If you
think so, by all means form separate threads.
Is a hugely diverse and non-homogeneous collection of people.
I for one would take issue with some of those points, ii) in particular I disagree with.
However i) looks ok, as does iv)
iv) in particular I like, and it is at the core of science.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
17 Oct 11
Originally posted by sumydidIt really depends on how you define knowledge,
technically ii) is mostly true.
I have argued, as have/do many others, that a definition of knowledge that relies on things
being known absolutely is useless and should be discarded in favour of a definition based on
some form of reasonable certainty.
Under such a definition it is very much possible to know things.
18 Oct 11
Originally posted by tomtom232Since I am newly armed with some rather haphazardly read ( but not yet internalized ) stuff on the net on skepticism, here I go ! Plato's definition of ' knowledge ' is ' knowledge is justified true belief '. The crux of the matter is what is acceptable as justification. While justifying the belief we consider as true, we run into Agrippa's trilemma. We are faced with a) an infinite regress of an endless no.of propositions each requiring a justification b) the option of circular reasoning by having to state the original belief as justification for itself c) the option of having to say that this particular belief need not and cannot be justified or it is an axiom. Science is based on a number of axioms which get refuted from time to time, for example the nature of light as a particle, then as a wave, then as both. The one reg.the speed of light being the maximum possible is in the danger of getting refuted. Theology faces the infinite regress of who created God. Hinduism relies on an axiom of God being a self creator.
I find ii to resonate with some things I have said before; however, I believe knowledge doesn't equate to a visceral understanding of the "facts" we get from science.
In other words, we can't know for sure if what we find is true but we can come to an understanding based on scientific facts.
18 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgePlease see my post above in reply to tomtom232. Plato's definition of knowledge as justified true belief appears good enough.
It really depends on how you define knowledge,
I have argued, as have/do many others, that a definition of knowledge that relies on things
being known absolutely is useless and should be discarded in favour of a definition based on
some form of reasonable certainty.
Under such a definition it is very much possible to know things.
18 Oct 11
Originally posted by sumydidSkeptics have always held the view that knowledge is impossible. They have always challenged the claims to knowledge, asking for justification for holding the particular belief as true. Skeptics have always tried to show that we may not know what we think we know.
technically ii) is mostly true.
18 Oct 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadNewton postulated that Light is composed of particles he called as photons. He had no way of knowing this. Yet the particle theory of light could alone explain the phenomenon of Refraction. It was a true belief lacking justification. Hence an axiom. Along came Christian Huygens. He postulated that Light is composed of waves. He had no way of knowing this. Yet the wave theory of Light alone could explain the phenomenon of Diffraction. A true belief lacking justification. Hence an axiom. Along came Modern Physics. It says that Light some times acts like particles and some times like waves. A true belief lacking justification. Hence an axiom.
How are those axioms?
18 Oct 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoActually neither correctly fits the definition of 'axiom'.
Newton postulated that Light is composed of particles he called as photons. He had no way of knowing this. Yet the particle theory of light could alone explain the phenomenon of Refraction. It was a true belief lacking justification. Hence an axiom. Along came Christian Huygens. He postulated that Light is composed of waves. He had no way of knowing this. ...[text shortened]... s like particles and some times like waves. A true belief lacking justification. Hence an axiom.
Neither is known to be 'a true belief' and both have justification (contrary to your claims).
18 Oct 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am talking about the Nature of Light.
Actually neither correctly fits the definition of 'axiom'.
Neither is known to be 'a true belief' and both have justification (contrary to your claims).
Is it not an axiom on the part of Newton, to think that it is composed of particles ?
Newton had to assume that it was so, although he did not know about the particulate nature of Light. But he did believe it was composed of particles.
Only after he started with this belief, he could correctly explain the phenomenon of Refraction.
It turned out that his belief was true but not justified.It, was, however, not required to be justified, because, it was seen that Refraction could only be proved by the particulate nature of Light. Hence it was an axiom that Light is particulate.
Similarly for Huygens and similarly for Modern Physics theory.
18 Oct 11
2 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoExactly. I've stated such before on this forum.
Since I am newly armed with some rather haphazardly read ( but not yet internalized ) stuff on the net on skepticism, here I go ! Plato's definition of ' knowledge ' is ' knowledge is justified true belief '. The crux of the matter is what is acceptable as justification. While justifying the belief we consider as true, we run into Agrippa's trilemma. We a ...[text shortened]... inite regress of who created God. Hinduism relies on an axiom of God being a self creator.
It all really depends on your definition.
It all goes back to language.