posted
I wanted to touch more on this in Glenn's sauerkraut thread, but I didn't want to hijack that conversation.
This, I think, could be an interesting and perhaps more productive conversation than some others we’ve had as it seems to me this is precisely the point at which most religious and nonreligious folks, on Hatrack at least, tend to hit a brick wall in epistemological and theological debates.
So what are your requirements for "knowledge?" Is it your belief that the concept of knowledge itself is flexible and subjective, dependent on perspective? Would you say it is possible for you to "know" that something exists when in fact it does not? Or is objective truth a requirement? If so, how do you verify that objectivity? How do you know that something is true?
My thoughts: This approaches the idea of philosophical skepticism, a concept I think most of us agree is just not pragmatic in the reality in and with which we interact, regardless of whether or not that reality objectively exists. Yet, when pressed hard enough about pretty much anything we think we “know,” most of us, I think, would eventually concede that it is at least possible we are wrong, as preposterous as such a scenario may be. We still say, act, and believe as though we “know” these things because, for most intents and purposes, it’s just the most productive and, well, practical way to go about our everyday lives. This approach is fine and universally agreeable when it comes to most claims of knowledge. What we are really talking about when we say we “know” something is relative consistent reliability. I know the shirt I’m wearing is blue, but something could be affecting my brain’s ability to process the proper color. I know I am currently on Earth, but I admit this could all be some Truman Show style hoax and I’m really on Planet X in some other galaxy. I know there is a computer screen in front of me, but I suppose I could just be a brain in a vat or hooked into the Matrix. And so on.
Problem is, knowledge of this kind is only of what can be verified, either externally via our senses or internally a priori, as consistent within our perceived reality. But when a theist claims to “know” that God (an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent entity for the sake of this discussion, but this can be amended if necessary) exists, he/she cannot be talking about the kind of knowledge I’ve described because God, by definition, does not conform to our perceived consistently reliable reality.
So, as far as I can tell, this brings us to the conclusion that those making this claim must be using an inherently different concept of knowledge, assuming of course that they are being honest with themselves and others, that their beliefs are justified (another discussion), and that they are as realistically confined as we are (that they aren’t, for instance, god-like themselves).
Now, I realize this may sound like a biased position right from the start. And I guess it is. I’m coming at this from an atheistic/agnostic standpoint. I don’t believe there exists a god-like entity/creator, and I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to “know” that one exists (or doesn’t exist). But let me emphasize that I’m not saying I “know” these things aren't possible - they're certainly possible. I do think it’s quite possible for my concept of knowledge to be flawed and/or limited, and I’d love to hear from others on this, particularly those with more contrasting ideas of what can be known.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Problem is, knowledge of this kind is only of what can be verified, either externally via our senses or internally a priori, as consistent within our perceived reality. But when a theist claims to “know” that God (an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent entity for the sake of this discussion, but this can be amended if necessary) exists, he/she cannot be talking about the kind of knowledge I’ve described because God, by definition, does not conform to our perceived consistently reliable reality.
Could you try to explain the bolded statement in a different manner? I don't understand what you mean by "perceived consistently reliable reality".
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most people who say they know God exists say this because they know God in the way that we know any person we have encountered in our lives and communicated with. We get a picture of who God is from the Bible, and then we find He does actually make Himself manifest in our lives, if we want Him to. Sometimes He lets us know He exists anyway. Anyone who says there is no God has to do a lot of denying throughout their lives.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that he/she means we cannot percieve an omniescant entity through our senses as we percieve them.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: and then we find He does actually make Himself manifest in our lives, if we want Him to.
So you make him real through your faith? Is that what you mean?
Also people who do believe in a higher power have to do alot of denying (denying what we have proved were natural)
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone who says there is no God has to do a lot of denying throughout their lives.
Could you provide a few specific examples of the sort of denying that you think must happen so often for a nonbeliever?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Most people who say they know God exists say this because they know God in the way that we know any person we have encountered in our lives and communicated with.
Unless you're using very different definitions of 'know', 'encountered', and 'communicate' this is not true.
Science can independently verify if I'm talking to another human being. It's a measurable action. It's also repeatable at will.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmmmm But if there is a higher power he can exist around the parameters of what we call reality.
Anyway, have you encountered "God", have you shaken his hand, played a game of texas hold'em? Can you truly say that you have "met" him?
But what would you consider "meeting" an omniescant being? If you truly believe he is everything then when you meet a person on the street then do you count that as meeting god?
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Problem is, knowledge of this kind is only of what can be verified, either externally via our senses or internally a priori, as consistent within our perceived reality. But when a theist claims to “know” that God (an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent entity for the sake of this discussion, but this can be amended if necessary) exists, he/she cannot be talking about the kind of knowledge I’ve described because God, by definition, does not conform to our perceived consistently reliable reality.
Could you try to explain the bolded statement in a different manner? I don't understand what you mean by "perceived consistently reliable reality".
God is supernatural. The nature of his existence and what he is capable of are not natural - not consistent with what we perceive as realistic. But more than that, what I meant is simply that his existence is not verifiable by any natural means. Verifiability by one of the means I mentioned is necessary to have knowledge according to the definition I've proposed; thus, God's existence cannot be known in this way.
Sorry if that was worded awkwardly.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Unless you're using very different definitions of 'know', 'encountered', and 'communicate' this is not true.
Yes, they are using different definitions of those words, which I think was kinda the point of this thread. I often see conversations between people who believe in God and people who don't, where the believer says "I know God... I've encountered Him and you can't tell me he's not real," and the unbeliever says "Well, prove it!"
Then the believer says "Do you know your mother? Prove that." And the unbeliever rolls their eyes because obviously, that's not the same thing.
Except to the believer it really IS the same thing. Or at least something very similar. They've had experiences that make God feel real to them on the same level that the unbeliever's mother feels "real" to them.
I'm an atheist. I spent close to a decade arguing religion with a Christian friend of mine (I spent most of that time being an agnostic, becoming an atheist basically when the argument ended). For most of that time, we made absolutely no headway because we were completely speaking different languages. Until I was able to wrap my head around what it must feel like to really believe in God, everything I said was pretty meaningless.
At the same time, my friend was making a lot of statements like this:
quote:Anyone who says there is no God has to do a lot of denying throughout their lives.
Which is also completely not true, but my friend had absolutely no idea what not believing in God was like because he had never done so.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. I think that there is a form of etymology -- a "religious" etymology, if you will -- that is fundamentally distinct from other etymologies in that it relies upon both the concept of authoritative, instinctual "knowing" and the premise that one or more secondary sources can be safely considered authoritative. Once these things are granted -- that it is possible to experience something and "know" that you are experiencing something True, and that are interpreting that Truth correctly; and that your preferred interpretation of a given book or individual or tradition is another vehicle to Truth -- then other epistemologies (like logic, the scientific method, etc.) become useful only insofar as they are able to reconcile observed reality with assumed Truth.
I think it is a fundamentally different way of looking at the world, one which has benefits for the individual and the society but also carries with it great costs.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Most people who say they know God exists say this because they know God in the way that we know any person we have encountered in our lives and communicated with. We get a picture of who God is from the Bible, and then we find He does actually make Himself manifest in our lives, if we want Him to. Sometimes He lets us know He exists anyway. Anyone who says there is no God has to do a lot of denying throughout their lives.
Pft... ok.
If it is in this kind of empty rhetoric that you find comfort, have fun.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a couple of threads about epistemology a while back. You could try running a search, if you're really interested in knowing what folks on here have said before.
Then again, I haven't even read the sauerkraut thread because it seemed like a manifestly dumb question.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure. I think that there is a form of etymology -- a "religious" etymology, if you will -- that is fundamentally distinct from other etymologies in that it relies upon both the concept of authoritative, instinctual "knowing" and the premise that one or more secondary sources can be safely considered authoritative
If I understand you*, I think what you're talking about isn't really a religious epistemology, but rather a revealed one.
Many types of religious thought/knowledge do not fit under a revealed epistemology whereas many types of non-religious thought/knowledge do, so I don't think that it's really accurate to conflate religious with revealed there.
---
* you meant epistemology where you wrote etymology, right?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then the believer says "Do you know your mother? Prove that." And the unbeliever rolls their eyes because obviously, that's not the same thing.
Except to the believer it really IS the same thing. Or at least something very similar. They've had experiences that make God feel real to them on the same level that the unbeliever's mother feels "real" to them.
It doesn't take a degree of depth to see the difference. The Non-Believer could, instead of rolling his eyes, say, "Of course I can prove it," and take the Believer home to meet his mother. The Non-Believer's mother doesn't FEEL real, she IS real.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The movie "Contact" did this somewhat better. Joss asks Ellie "Did you love your father?"
"Yes"
"Prove it."
Love is, after all, just a feeling.
Not only did I like that movie because of the way it handled Ellie's atheism, I also like the fact that Ellie and Joss could still be in love despite the depth of his religion, and I particularly liked the statement at the end where Joss says he believes her because he knows that she is searching for truth.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bear in mind, I totally agree with you. But you're missing the point. You have sense experience that tells you your mother is real. Many people also have a different kind of sense experience that tells them God is real. That sense experience is a lot harder to share than taking your mother over for dinner, but it feels just as real to them.
When you dismiss that out of hand, it's essentially as if you said "Look, I see my mother every day, you can't tell me she's not real," and they say "Um, that's just a trick of the light. Your mind messing with you. There is no mother."
And as much as you might say "it doesn't take a degree of depth to see the difference," to a huge portion of the world (probably well over 50%) there is no difference, and whether you're right or not is irrelevant. They're going to ignore you, because you're obviously "blind."
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, no. It doesn't take a degree of depth to see the huge flaw in trying to make that particular argument in that particular way.
I believe in God. But the rhetoric people use when trying to explain/justify their beliefs to unbelievers is preposterously bad rhetoric.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:you meant epistemology where you wrote etymology, right?
Yes. And I'm okay with using the term "revealed" there, actually. It helps make the phrase a bit less fraught, perhaps. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, no. It doesn't take a degree of depth to see the huge flaw in trying to make that particular argument in that particular way.
I believe in God. But the rhetoric people use when trying to explain/justify their beliefs to unbelievers is preposterously bad rhetoric.
I agree. That particular set of advice applies specifically to atheists attempting to persuade believers that they are wrong. And it goes along with an almost identical set of advice for believers like Ron Lambert, who assume that because they see/feel signs of God everywhere, atheists must also be seeing those signs but ignoring them.
People find signs and feelings about things that are important to them. I've had experiences that feel very similar to what my Christian friend described, only they were about Zoroastrianism and trading card games.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
God, no. (It kinda bugs me that "God, no" is the only available response to conveys the precise level of emotion I'm feeling right now.)
The game in question was Magic. In a period of a month, I learned a bunch of valuable life lessons because of my devotion to the game.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone who says there is no God has to do a lot of denying throughout their lives.
Could you provide a few specific examples of the sort of denying that you think must happen so often for a nonbeliever?
Ron, I won't repeat the objections already made by others since they've expressed them at least as well as I would have anyway. But I would be very interested in hearing your response to this question and those objections. My ultimate goal when beginning this thread was for atheists and theists to attempt to gain some common ground, or at least a greater level of mutual understanding, in these kinds of discussions. So I hope you don't feel like you're being attacked or ganged up on. In fact, please feel free to critique everything I've proposed to your heart's content. I won't be offended as long as it's my words you criticize and not me personally.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: There was a couple of threads about epistemology a while back. You could try running a search, if you're really interested in knowing what folks on here have said before.
I have. I participated in a couple of them. However, I don't think any other thread was dedicated to this particular topic. Input provided here would be more contextually relevant and less likely to be misinterpreted. But also, like most philosophical study, while reading the thoughts of others can be wonderfully informative, nothing beats an actual conversation with someone who can respond, reiterate, and expand when the need arises.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beginning with the OP and prompt: "What is knowledge."
"To know" is used by myself and the majority of the population to mean that you are either aware of something, or exceedingly confident in the truth, reality, and verifiability of something. I think there is little argument about this definition. The disparity of understanding about saying "I know" seems to come when there is a difference in the evidence required to rationalize the use of "know" instead of "feel like" "think" "am pretty sure of" "not quite sure of" "think it's completely unlikely that" "BELIEVE(what a... sickening... twist that word takes on sometimes). I accept that people and brains are imperfect. This fact is important in this defining. Because people, and brains, are imperfect, mistakes are made.
We focus on some things more than others, we zone out others, we prejudge, we rationalize, and we try to make ourselves happy. It's undeniable, we like things that make us happy. Sometimes we forget if we win three games of pingpong in a row, but when you lose that fourth... oh you get so mad, but in reality you won most of the games. you might say "I know I'm playing so badly," when you're really not, you're playing well 75% of the time, at least. This tendency to think with our "gut" instinct, and to just trust what our brain tells us without further analysis has historically proven to give... terrible results.
Spontaneous generation, the flat Earth, Geocentricism, misunderstanding of the laws of physics(natural forces, among other things), misunderstandings of chemistry, medicine, thunder, rain... The list goes on. So many things our ancestors said "well maggots are always on rotting meat... They must come from rotting meat. Birds are in trees, then by golly they must start there" would be laughed at today, because they were asserted without proper basis.
To confront the imperfect assumptions we tend to make we collect data, we analyze the data, and make conclusions based on that. Now of course I am not saying that I have a complete list of EVERYTHING EVER in my entire life, but I literally do logically think about things that many people I feel may not give a second thought, and pass it off as "Duh." Know, remember is meaning "known to be incredibly strongly believed, well trusted, and pretty verifiable."
I may say "I know my table will support my glass of water" But I HONESTLY would not assert that there is NO WAY that my table could POSSIBLY fail to hold my glass of water, fly away, melt, vaporize, sprout claws and rip the glass from my hand while snarling at me. I wouldn't. Because it could, in the most minutely infinitesimally small way, do those things. It seems that this is a common argument, people say "well look, you CAN'T know." I get that. I think I can't know also, but I do think that I can be pretty danged sure of something, and I never, knowingly, asserted anything other than my strong evidence and belief that my table will VERY LIKELY hold up my glass of water. In the same way I might say "I know my mother." A lifetime of data has told me that the assumption that my mother exists is a helpful assumption, made with reliable data, the same which has preserved my life to this day(a mark toward its credibility). I again would not assert that it could simply be a giant collective hallucination in each of the people witnessing her presence. But that is so absurd that the other gives every semblance of being more reasonable.
Moving closer to the god example: I have never decided, unequivocally, that I love someone(romantically, I suppose, I like my family pretty well). So let's say "I find Jane romantically interesting." You say prove that she is romantically interesting, or that you are romantically interested in her. I would either retract my assertion, or more likely, temper it, while giving the best list of reasons I could think of to describe why I could be said to be romantically interested: better mood, irrational happiness, preferential treatment, fun brain chemistry things... all that jazz.
So when I ask someone "Is god real" And they reply "I know god is real" and I ask "how do you know god is real" and they give me a non-answer of "Trust me, I know." I am EXCEEEEEDINGLY unimpressed. I really do not care if your world view declares that things can be held to be true without reasonable evidence. I honestly do not. MY world view does say that any assertion of knowledge should be backed up by a thorough rationale, even if retroactive, to describe an action, and lacking the rationale, a concession that what I asserted to know I did not know, or that my action was illogical(if it was an action of mine that was being questioned). I extend this need for evidence to a belief in God, though my qualms with god do not arise in the belief, they arise when you do stupid things because you believe in something that, by my reasoning, you shouldn't even believe in in the first place. Or when your belief harms or hampers, or inconveniences or in ANY WAY negatively influences someone else.
I would also like to point out that when I see someone adopt what I feel is a flawed reasoning system to guide them in anything other than "woo I'm happy since I like god" it makes me question how good the reasoning system they are using to make other, more pragmatic decisions is. ___________________________________
quote:rollainm: God is supernatural. The nature of his existence and what he is capable of are not natural - not consistent with what we perceive as realistic.
I think you said you don't hold this assertion to be true, but can you explain what reason you would have to state this, in any case except to try to explain other people's thoughts?
Thanks if you read it all, and please remember through this thread that if I question your proclamations and claims that I am trying to get a better idea about them, and not trying to insult them. I will try to do the same.
posted
Starsnuffer, if you reread Threads' question I think you'll more clearly understand the context of my response.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmhmm. I get it. I guess I repeal the question until someone says that that is truly what they think in this thread.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
