1. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    17 Oct '11 10:11
    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.
  2. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    17 Oct '11 16:44
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    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.
    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.
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    17 Oct '11 22:24
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    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.
    This is the philosophy of Satanism. Its the other side of the coin,
    with truth on one side and lies on the other.
  4. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    17 Oct '11 22:25
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    This is the philosophy of Satanism. Its the other side of the coin,
    with truth on one side and lies on the other.
    Nope Satanism is part of Christianity, Secularists have nothing to do with it.
  5. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    17 Oct '11 22:30
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    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.
    The 'other side' as you put it (assuming you mean secularist, atheist, free thinking, skeptics.)
    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.
  6. Standard membersumydid
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Not of this World
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    38013
    17 Oct '11 22:47
    technically ii) is mostly true.
  7. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    17 Oct '11 22:50
    Originally posted by sumydid
    technically ii) is mostly true.
    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.
  8. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    18 Oct '11 07:45
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    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.
    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 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.
  9. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    18 Oct '11 08:541 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    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.
    Please see my post above in reply to tomtom232. Plato's definition of knowledge as justified true belief appears good enough.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Oct '11 09:25
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    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.
    How are those axioms?
  11. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    18 Oct '11 09:39
    Originally posted by sumydid
    technically ii) is mostly true.
    Skeptics 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.
  12. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    18 Oct '11 10:14
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    How are those axioms?
    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. 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.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Oct '11 11:30
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    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.
    Actually neither correctly fits the definition of 'axiom'.
    Neither is known to be 'a true belief' and both have justification (contrary to your claims).
  14. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36544
    18 Oct '11 12:16
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Actually neither correctly fits the definition of 'axiom'.
    Neither is known to be 'a true belief' and both have justification (contrary to your claims).
    I am talking about the Nature of Light.
    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.
  15. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    18 Oct '11 16:382 edits
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    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.
    Exactly. I've stated such before on this forum.

    It all really depends on your definition.

    It all goes back to language.
Back to Top