28 Jun 05
Originally posted by NordlysI basically agree with vistesd's definitions, although I am not entirely sure about the second meaning of "knowledge". I think I sort of understand what he means, but not entirely.
Well, it's always good to wait - someone else will give an answer which is better than what I could have come up with myself. 😉 I basically agree with vistesd's definitions, although I am not entirely sure about the second meaning of "knowledge". I think I sort of understand what he means, but not entirely. I wonder if that may be the type of knowledge ...[text shortened]... it only means my belief is false.
If I now have some knots in my brain, it's your fault. 😉
You might check the following thread for Coletti’s and my disagreement about experiential knowledge (which was in the context of a discussion of the Greek words episteme and gnosis.) I think I describe a little better what I mean by that second sense of “know;” Coletti explains why he thinks that is not knowledge.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=24857&page=1
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by vistesdIt may just be your wording here (or I may simply not recall correctly), but this does not seem to jibe with your comments elsewhere about knowledge entailing only propositional truths, and knowledge requiring certainty.
[b](Sorry about the long answer - the direct answer is in the last paragraph.)
No problem! I’m just trying to make sure I understand you, even if my questioning is critical questioning. So here are some long questions….
In effect I am saying the knowledge is belief in the truth, which is in effect the same as faith.
It may just be your ...[text shortened]... an determine one’s salvation status—or does that salvation status require “saving knowledge?&rdquo😉
[/b]
I do say that all knowledge is propositional. I do not think knowledge requires certainty. At least as I understand certainty, it is a feeling of doubt, so it is not propositional. But belief can be true or false, it is what we think is true, and we hope is knowledge. If it is true, it is knowledge. To believe is to give intellectual accent to some proposition. For a belief to be knowledge, it must be a true proposition that one can account for (justify). Faith is the same as belief. Some demand that faith is the unjustified belief in a proposition - but I disagree. One can not believe anything that one can not account for either deductively from axioms or inductively from a combination of axioms and evidence.
On your view, the “saving knowledge” is given a priori to whomever God has selected, without regard to anything that person does or may do in their life (although you may take a person’s actions as signs that such election has been given)—is that correct?
Essentially, yes. This is the Reformed Christian worldview. Other's may differ on this as a matter of the issue of "free will" and predestination.
Can one be given that “saving knowledge” and 1) not know it, or 2) by rejecting it actually undo God’s election?
1) One will know it. You may feel uncertain at times, you may question it, but in truth you will know it.
2) I do not believe one can reject it. If one can reject it, then this would make your personal will subservient to God's will. God's will can not be altered or made subject to mans will.
(That seems to be what you’re implying about Judaism; but that would imply that one’s actions/decisions can determine one’s salvation status—or does that salvation status require “saving knowledge?&rdquo😉
This is a good point. It is the difficult part of the Reformed Christian worldview. While God does hold individuals responsible for their actions, including rejecting the gospel, that does not necessarily mean that the person could have accepted the gospel against the will of God. God chooses whom he chooses. It would make me feel good if God choose me because I'm generally a good person, but this would lead to contradictions at several points - including God's omnipotence and omniscience. It would also contradict scripture at many points. Any worldview the entails internal contradictions can not be completely correct. Nor can a person believe (know) both of two contradictory propositions once the person understands the contradiction. The Reformed Christian worldview is systematic. It is a comprehensive philosophy that can account for knowledge, metaphysics, ethics, etc without internal contradictions. It is the only one that I know of that can do this.
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloi think you are a master of redistributing responsibility and burden of proof. world views do not become established through unsupported claims. your argument is that unless someone explicitly disproves your world view, then you are justified in its implications. actually, however, if you want anyone to respect anything you say, you need to offer your own proof of your world view.
i think you are a master of redistributing responsibility and burden of proof. world views do not become established through unsupported claims. your argument is that unless someone explicitly disproves your world view, then you are justified in its implications. actually, however, if you want anyone to respect anything you say, you need to offer your ...[text shortened]... unless you start offering some justification for your world view. bbarr is an atheist; so am i.
Since everyones worldview is based on axioms, and axioms can not be proven, then no one can truly prove any worldview. However, I think mine accounts for all the most fundamental issues of epistemology (knowledge), metaphysics, ethics, etc. It is completely comprehensive and without internal contradiction.
So I do not expect you to prove anything - but if you are going to challenge my worldview, you should be able to present an alternative that is more sound and also lacks internal contradictions. This means you should be able to account for knowledge, morality, and even existence.
You are free to reject mine if you wish - but you should at least provide a solid alternative. I don't think you can. And so by your definition of faith - you are much more faithful than I am.
28 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysI think it is possible to suppress the knowledge you have - to lie to yourself so that "feel" like you believe something that you don't. That is why I do not tie knowledge to emotional certainty. I also do not think atheist are intentionally trying to deceive anyone. But I think they have convinced themselves that they do not know something that, if they could be perfectly honest with themselves, they would acknowledge they already know - that there is a God.
I am sure bbarr can answer this far better than I can. I am not a philosopher. But I'll think some more about it and may come back to you tomorrow (really need to go to bed now). But I'll ask you a question, too - is it possible to have k ...[text shortened]... rtainly don't have conscious knowledge of the existence of a god.
That is my belief - what I think is true. I do not expect all these self-proclaimed atheist to sigh with relief and admit what they have suppressed. But I hope they will give it consideration - to consider that if there is a God, then that God would be able to make himself known to them. And so if true, then it is a least possible that He has made himself know to them and they have suppressed this knowledge. It is my belief that this is indeed the situation.
The Bible says that no one knows the heart of man except God. (And there is no distinction between heart and mind in scripture.) Basically, a person does not understand himself - but God does.
Believe it, or not.
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiThank you for your detailed answer, Coletti. I was going to ask you about axioms, and I see that you've already partly addressed that in your post to Nordlys. So I only have one comment and one question:
[b]It may just be your wording here (or I may simply not recall correctly), but this does not seem to jibe with your comments elsewhere about knowledge entailing only propositional truths, and knowledge requiring certainty.
I do say that all knowledge is propositional. I do not think knowledge requires certainty. At least as I understand certainty, ...[text shortened]... thics, etc without internal contradictions. It is the only one that I know of that can do this.[/b]
Comment: You state that axioms cannot be proven. The way I have always heard that is that the axioms of a system cannot be proven within that system, but that does not mean that axioms are unchallengeable per se. (Of course, "wordlview" seems to imply an pretty all-encompassing system.)
Question: What do you identify as the basic axioms of the Reformed Christian worldview?
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiAnd I certainly hope that one day you will sit down and seriously consider the possibility that you are indeed a Satanist, and that your apparent commitment to Christianity is merely a ruse you have unintentionally adopted so as to better serve your Dark Lord. After all, I have a book that says you are a Satanist, so it must be true!
I think it is possible to suppress the knowledge you have - to lie to yourself so that "feel" like you believe something that you don't. That is why I do not tie knowledge to emotional certainty. I also do not think atheist are intentionally trying to deceive anyone. But I think they have convinced themselves that they do not know something that, if th ...[text shortened]... pture.) Basically, a person does not understand himself - but God does.
Believe it, or not.
29 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Colettino one can truly prove any worldview.
i think you are a master of redistributing responsibility and burden of proof. world views do not become established through unsupported claims. your argument is that unless someone explicitly disproves your world view, then you are justi ...[text shortened]... your definition of faith - you are much more faithful than I am.
if you are going to challenge my worldview, you should be able to present an alternative that is more sound and also lacks internal contradictions.
the above two remarks outline precisely why you are a creature of faith and i am not. on the one hand, you assert that no worldview can be proven, and on the other hand you assert that one must at least have a worldview that describes everything. so you have already admitted to yourself that your worldview is at best uncertain. it's worse than that though. you also rely on a supernatural being that is unknowable to you by definition. this magical being, which you cannot characterize because he is limitless and incomprehensible, supposedly dishes out the truths that you seek like the Good Humor guy on a hot sweaty summer afternoon. how convenient and comfortable for you! thus your worldview is not only uncertain, it is also completely arbitrary.
my question is why do you think i (or you) must have a worldview that explains everything? my stance is that we should not abandon reason and start making wild claims that we cannot support (this method only takes our knowledge from uncertain to ridiculous). when have i ever claimed to have a worldview that explains everything? i do not even claim to know whether your god exists or not.
again: my stance is not that everything can be made perfectly known to me through reason; rather, my stance is that it is simply absurd to start making wild unsupported claims just so that we can lull ourselves into thinking that we actually have a worldview that explains everything. that is the essence of your faith that you use as a crutch.
you seem to be annoyed that i have not presented an alternate worldview to yours. i don't claim to have one -- i have knowledge stemming from my capacity for reason and i strive for obtaining said worldview, but i don't think i know everything. i am simply observing (and letting you know) that, as a theist, your world view is silly and founded on supernatural leaps of faith that you cannot support. that's what a weak atheist does. if you were able to provide more compelling arguments, i and others would take your worldview more seriously. also, your second statement above is wrong -- i can challenge your worldview without positing my own. that is the price you pay for making positive assertions that you cannot support. once you prove your assertions, i'll pipe down.
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiBelieve it, or not.
I think it is possible to suppress the knowledge you have - to lie to yourself so that "feel" like you believe something that you don't. That is why I do not tie knowledge to emotional certainty. I also do not think atheist are intentionally trying to deceive anyone. But I think they have convinced themselves that they do not know something that, if th ...[text shortened]... pture.) Basically, a person does not understand himself - but God does.
Believe it, or not.
not.
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by Colettiplease riddle me this:
I think it is possible to suppress the knowledge you have - to lie to yourself so that "feel" like you believe something that you don't. That is why I do not tie knowledge to emotional certainty. I also do not think atheist are intentionally trying to deceive anyone. But I think they have convinced themselves that they do not know something that, if th ...[text shortened]... pture.) Basically, a person does not understand himself - but God does.
Believe it, or not.
you claim that an atheist is not an atheist but rather a theist who denies his belief in god. thus, according to you worldview, an atheist is one who denies his own belief.
since your worldview is complete and free from internal inconsistency, would you please cut and paste the section of your worldview that explains what that means. specifically, how would a person deny his own belief? would that not mean that it is not his belief in the first place, and that your claim leads to contradiction and is self-refuting? since your worldview is both incorruptible and exhaustive, you can surely demonstrate why i am confused here.
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiI can partly relate to that. There was a time when I believed in God (or believed I believed in God, if you wish). During that time, I actively avoided asking difficult questions (to myself or others) or thinking about things I read, heard or experienced which might have shattered my worldview. So I know it's possible to suppress knowledge you have (plus avoid acquiring further knowledge which you know you could and should acquire) in order to keep a belief. But I disagree when you say that this means you don't believe what you believe you believe. I would say that I did believe in God during that "religious phase" of mine. I couldn't keep it up for very long though, and when the knowledge surfaced again, I stopped believing in God.
I think it is possible to suppress the knowledge you have - to lie to yourself so that "feel" like you believe something that you don't.
There's something else I wonder about in your argument. If you think that atheists suppress their knowledge of god, I assume that they must have a reason to suppress this knowledge. I can easily think of several reasons why I wanted to keep my belief in God during my "religious phase". Believing in God can make you feel less alone, it can make the thought of death more bearable (at least most people seem to prefer the thought that there will be an afterlife), it gives life a meaning which you otherwise have to find all by yourself, it takes off you some of the burden of responsibility and helps you deal with guilt (if you believe in the Christian God and believe you will be forgiven your sins if you confess), etc. So there are a lot of reasons for keeping up the belief in god. If my non-belief (believing that there might or might not be a god) is based on suppressing knowledge, as you say, there would have to be so strong reasons for keeping up that belief (or non-belief) that they outweigh all the reasons for believing in God (or a god). I would like to hear your thoughts about that.