Atheism and Religion

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Where you
think I've been inconsistent you'll have be a little more specific if possible.

Again, where I believe you have been shamelessly inconsistent is in the application of your skepticism. You sort of just blanketly assert that one cannot hold knowledge on a matter such as this. But if pressed to explain why, you only ever give reasons t ...[text shortened]... thing to the competing explanations pool that is subject to falsification.[/b]

"You seem to want to use 'faith' to describe anything, just willy-nilly. You even said that "walking across a park" is a matter of faith, whatever exactly that means."

We do things or don't do things because of what we believe, we act on faith, we
trust our beliefs about reality our foundational views that we use to judge right
and wrong, and our abilities to interact with the universe around us. With matters
of faith as far as walking across the park I draw upon personal experience while I
was in the Aleutians islands. A friend of mine and I were walking up a mountain
and the ground collapsed underneath me, I had stepped on a piece of ground that
the tundra grown over this hole about 20 feet deep hiding it. I caught the side before I
went completely down, after that we decided it was to dangerous and went back.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Where you
think I've been inconsistent you'll have be a little more specific if possible.

Again, where I believe you have been shamelessly inconsistent is in the application of your skepticism. You sort of just blanketly assert that one cannot hold knowledge on a matter such as this. But if pressed to explain why, you only ever give reasons t thing to the competing explanations pool that is subject to falsification.[/b]

"And I disagree that just because someone like you can enter the fray and say that Goddunnit, that somehow means that it is all just "faith" for everyone and now nobody can hold knowledge or justified belief."

You have never seen me say, that anything isn't true by saying God did it as part
of my argument. I stick to those things we can agree on and attempt to reach
people like that! I stick to those things like what are you saying and doing when
you use only rates and distances to come up with age by pointing out you are
assuming a great deal, by doing that that requires faith that you have knowledge
about how it got there and how long its been doing on.

When I talk about God did anything, it is mainly when that is the topic or someone
presses me to describe my beliefs, I imagine so they feel justified about their
disagreeing with me.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
....that requires faith that you have knowledge....

I have no objections to the claim that we can never be sure about anything. I do object to the claim that all reasons for believing things are equal.
I also object to your claim that belief about thing past is somehow less likely to be true (or more a matter of faith) than belief about things present.
I still maintain that my knowledge of the approximate age of the earth is no different from my knowledge of the existence of the Eiffel tower. Both are based on the same types of evidence. Yet you frequently imply that one is a matter of faith based on assumptions, whereas the other is accepted fact.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have no objections to the claim that we can never be sure about anything. I do object to the claim that all reasons for believing things are equal.
I also object to your claim that belief about thing past is somehow less likely to be true (or more a matter of faith) than belief about things present.
I still maintain that my knowledge of the approxima ...[text shortened]... ly imply that one is a matter of faith based on assumptions, whereas the other is accepted fact.

When you see someone make the claim that all reasons for believing are equal
I suggest you talk to them about that. My claims are not that they are "less likely"
to be true, but less likely to be proven. I disagree with you about the age of the
earth and the Eiffel tower, since one we can visit the other we can only take our
best guesses with the current data as it is viewed today, since man has been
making educated guesses about the age of the earth for some time, and todays
man always believe they know better.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
When you see someone make the claim that all reasons for believing are equal
I suggest you talk to them about that. My claims are not that they are "less likely"
to be true, but less likely to be proven.

But when I asked you how that is relevant, you remained silent on the matter. And what does 'proven' mean anyway? I thought we were agreed that nothing can be proven. If things can be proven then I claim that the age of the earth is proven.

I disagree with you about the age of the earth and the Eiffel tower, since one we can visit the other we can only take our best guesses with the current data as it is viewed today, since man has been
making educated guesses about the age of the earth for some time, and todays man always believe they know better.
Kelly
Yet it is quite possible that neither of us will visit the Eiffel tower in our lifetime. So I ask again: why does the possibility of visiting it make a difference to my current knowledge regarding its existence?
If the topic under discussion was the moon, or the far side of the moon, which I am 99% certain nether of us will ever visit, would it it be equivalent to the age of the earth?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess when you start on me about my motives and style I assumed you were
talking about me.
Kelly

I think I understand. Sorry. I'll try to do better not to give you that impression.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"You seem to want to use 'faith' to describe anything, just willy-nilly. You even said that "walking across a park" is a matter of faith, whatever exactly that means."

We do things or don't do things because of what we believe, we act on faith, we
trust our beliefs about reality our foundational views that we use to judge right
and wrong, and our abili ...[text shortened]... I
went completely down, after that we decided it was to dangerous and went back.
Kelly

We do things or don't do things because of what we believe, we act on faith, we
trust our beliefs about reality our foundational views that we use to judge right
and wrong, and our abilities to interact with the universe around us.

Okay, but when we consider reasons that move us to act this way rather than that way under reflection and deliberation, we are basically talking about practical reason. I generally do not agree that "we act on faith" in this capacity (or perhaps I still do not really understand what that even means). I would probably say something more like we act on practical reasons in accordance with what we take as valuable. Again, this has to do with practical reason. But I was under the impression that we were predominantly discussing matters not of practical reason, but rather of theoretical reason. For instance, let us move back to the topic of the age of the earth/universe. If one studies the evidence in attempt to gauge the age of the earth/universe, I would argue that is an engagement with theoretical, not practical, reason. It is theoretical because her deliberations would be concerned with answering what are the descriptive facts of the matter and what is the best, most plausible explanation for them. They would not be concerned with matters of value or courses of action. So, even if I were to agree with you that "we act on faith" (although, as I said above, I think I generally do not agree with you on that), that still would not explain why I should think 'faith' permeates all of our theoretical deliberations on such issues as the age of the earth/universe. This last part is actually what I would like you to address.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"And I disagree that just because someone like you can enter the fray and say that Goddunnit, that somehow means that it is all just "faith" for everyone and now nobody can hold knowledge or justified belief."

You have never seen me say, that anything isn't true by saying God did it as part
of my argument. I stick to those things we can agree on and att ...[text shortened]... cribe my beliefs, I imagine so they feel justified about their
disagreeing with me.
Kelly

You have never seen me say, that anything isn't true by saying God did it as part
of my argument.

What I meant was you seem to want to imply that just because the discussion can be infused with many different and conflicting views on the topic, it somehow follows that whether one ends up with this view or that is simply a "matter of faith". For instance, here is something you did say, in your own words:

With these beliefs in play how we are to be
able to look at thing and draw our conclusions becomes important, just saying
God did it cuts out our gathering data on age with distances and rates, while
saying it started with whatever caused the Big Bang allows for it. You start
with a leap of faith as soon as you pick one.

So, here, you seem to be pointing out that there can be many competing views in play. Yes, that seems right so far. Then you curiously seem to jump to the conclusion that which view one "picks" is a matter of 'faith'. First, when belief forms through theoretical reasoning, it doesn't follow that the belief was "picked" or chosen. Such belief can (and typically does) arise passively, by which I mean it is a more a case of the agent being brought into belief by his evidential reading rather than the agent actively choosing a stance. Again, I think the discussion here could use clarification concerning the difference between practical and theoretical reasoning. If one acts on practical reason, that is of course an active process where you might say he "picks" or chooses, say, a course of action that accords with his values and commitments, desires, etc. But if one deliberates on some theoretical matter and belief formation results, the belief formation would typically be passive, and there may end up being no resemblance between what he finally understands to be the case and what he might otherwise desire to be the case. When you say that "You start with a leap of faith as soon as you pick one", I think you are failing to preserve this distinction. You seem to be simply ignoring the numerous cases in which belief on this topic arises passively under theoretical deliberation. By the way, I am not denying that one could "pick" a view (perhaps regardless of the evidence, or even in the face of countervailing evidence): one presumably could do that taking it on at least provisional acceptance, and that may well be an instance of or demonstration of what we should call 'faith'. Rather, what I am saying is that your argument seems to assume that everyone involved who does end up coming to some view on the matter must have come to his view through some such demonstration of 'faith'. But that assumption seems blatantly false, particularly when we consider that this is, again, predominantly a theoretical matter.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I think I understand. Sorry. I'll try to do better not to give you that impression.

No worries
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]You have never seen me say, that anything isn't true by saying God did it as part
of my argument.

What I meant was you seem to want to imply that just because the discussion can be infused with many different and conflicting views on the topic, it somehow follows that whether one ends up with this view or that is simply a "matter of faith". F ...[text shortened]... ly when we consider that this is, again, predominantly a theoretical matter.[/b]

Let me ask you something, if event X occurs in order of ABC does it matter what
we think? Will the truth of X always be ABC and our views can be anything at all
even ABC but the truth or reality will simply be what it is with or without our views
getting it right?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Let me ask you something, if event X occurs in order of ABC does it matter what
we think? Will the truth of X always be ABC and our views can be anything at all
even ABC but the truth or reality will simply be what it is with or without our views
getting it right?
Kelly

Will the truth of X always be ABC and our views can be anything at all
even ABC but the truth or reality will simply be what it is with or without our views
getting it right?

Generally, for these kinds of theoretical or scientific matters, I would say yes. (I think the question you ask touches on the topic of realism.) I would think for these sorts of matters there are facts or states of affairs that have a certain type of independence from what observers such as us may believe or think about them. I see what is actually the case as in principle a separate issue from what anyone takes to actually be the case. We can make claims that reflect our own beliefs, and these claims would purport to report the facts of the matter (and they may or may not actually succeed to that end); but, I would say that the actual facts of the matter enjoy an independence from our claims, beliefs, conceptual schemes, etc. And, relatedly, I think the truth values of claims on the matter enjoy an independence from attitudes we may hold toward them. What do you think about it?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Will the truth of X always be ABC and our views can be anything at all
even ABC but the truth or reality will simply be what it is with or without our views
getting it right?

Generally, for these kinds of theoretical or scientific matters, I would say yes. (I think the question you ask touches on the topic of realism.) I would think for thes ...[text shortened]... atter enjoy an independence from attitudes we may hold toward them. What do you think about it?[/b]

I agree with you if I'm reading you correctly that truth on matters is independent
from our take upon it. Now we can get it right, our views can indeed reflect
reality, but our views are just that, our views, which maybe something quite
different than the truth.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree with you if I'm reading you correctly that truth on matters is independent
from our take upon it. Now we can get it right, our views can indeed reflect
reality, but our views are just that, our views, which maybe something quite
different than the truth.
Kelly

Yet you frequently violate that view, for example just a few posts ago you suggested that the existence of the Eiffel tower could be 'proven' by visiting it.
Even with the view that we can never be certain that our views reflect the truth, we nevertheless can have varying levels of certainty based on the quantity and quality of evidence available to us.
You frequently imply that:
1. All views are equally likely to reflect reality. Thus your view is equivalent to mine regardless of what it is based on.
2. Views based on anything in the past are less likely to be true the further in the past the supposed 'fact' is.

I continue to dispute both claims and am yet to see you give any reasonable supporting argument for either. You tend to simply repeat them rather than provide argument.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree with you if I'm reading you correctly that truth on matters is independent
from our take upon it. Now we can get it right, our views can indeed reflect
reality, but our views are just that, our views, which maybe something quite
different than the truth.
Kelly

Right, I agree. So? I have never denied the possibility of being mistaken or in error in virtually any inquiry of this sort. Even if our abductive evidence toward some conclusion is very strong, there will still generally be some epistemic probability that the conclusion is actually false. As far as I can tell, that doesn't mean we cannot hold knowledge on such topics. Do you have some other take on it? I would like to hear your reasons for thinking such a consideration as what you touch on warrants your broad skepticism toward the possibility of knowledge.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you frequently violate that view, for example just a few posts ago you suggested that the existence of the Eiffel tower could be 'proven' by visiting it.
Even with the view that we can never be certain that our views reflect the truth, we nevertheless can have varying levels of certainty based on the quantity and quality of evidence available to us. ...[text shortened]... supporting argument for either. You tend to simply repeat them rather than provide argument.

You misrepresent me, I do not say that all views are equally likely to reflect
reality. I do say that when we are presenting a view that cannot be proven that
is what we are doing, it may be an accurate representation of reality, and again
it may not be. An educated guess is always an educated guess no matter how
educated you are! When discussing billions of years ago, I'd say yes that if you
want to start telling me what the universe looked a billion years ago as if you know
I'd say you are rather full of yourself. I also say that the more unknown you have
to deal with the more likely you could be be wrong.
Kelly