The knowledge illusion

@sonship said
Some of what we pass on to others as knowledge is above the level of our own personal subjective attainment. Some of that can be useful for others as they will build on it.

Unfortunately you never talk about your religion in action. You only talk about doctrine, theory, doctrine, theory, doctrine, theory, doctrine, theory, for as long as I can remember. What is this Christian "attainment" you speak of? Just some additional doctrine and theory?

@FMF

Unfortunately you never talk about your religion in action. You only talk about doctrine, theory, doctrine, theory, doctrine, theory, doctrine, theory, for as long as I can remember. What is this Christian "attainment" you speak of? Just some additional doctrine and theory?

Spare me the "Suddenly I'm interested" act.

I have talked mostly about God's work in the believer.
I have talked about the God WORKING Himself INTO the believer that the believer may live out the indwelling God.

I have written about Christ as the Spirit - the life giving Spirit.

When Rajk999 howls about "mouth worship" I give a reasonable clarification and defense.

When Divegeester talks about " How come you love the lake of fire?" I feel to answer something.

When Divegeester talks about "Your Trinity is bogus up one side and down the other" I feel to make some defense.

Now, as much as I'd like to type more I cannot. Must travel.

@sonship said
When Divegeester talks about " How come you love the lake of fire?"
When Divegeester talks about "Your Trinity is bogus up one side and down the other"

You are misquoting me sonship, please don’t do that.

@fmf said
"We think we know a lot because even though individually we know very little because we treat the knowledge in the minds of others as our own." ~ Sloman and Fernbach

How much does the 'knowledge illusion' affect the stances you take on issues and topics here on this forum?

So the knowledge illusion cannot be an illusion?

Interesting.

@sonship said
Spare me the "Suddenly I'm interested" act.

I have been interested in what you believe and what you claim and I have been engaging you and discussing it with you - on a nearly daily basis - for 10-12 years. There is no "suddenly" involved.

@sonship said
When Rajk999 howls about "mouth worship" I give a reasonable clarification and defense.

When Divegeester talks about " How come you love the lake of fire?" I feel to answer something.

When Divegeester talks about "Your Trinity is bogus up one side and down the other" I feel to make some defense.

So, you almost never talking about your religion in action, is other people's fault?

@fmf said
Unfortunately you never talk about your religion in action. You only talk about doctrine, theory, doctrine, theory, doctrine, theory, doctrine, theory, for as long as I can remember. What is this Christian "attainment" you speak of? Just some additional doctrine and theory?

Why don't you post this exact post to Rajk?

All talk, no action seems his gig.

@suzianne said
Why don't you post this exact post to Rajk?

All talk, no action seems his gig.

Your beef with Rajk999 is about theology. His interpretation of living a Christian life is more about action [obeying Christ's commands and the obligation for Christians to do good works] and less about talk [the self-obsessed doctrines and theories and the general counting-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin].

In fact, I think you probably broadly agree with Rajk999 about Christianity-in-action in your heart of hearts but your partisanship/sycophancy towards sonship almost always trumps your principle.

Christianity is so much more than thinking things about yourself [sonship]; it is about a way of living life and about doing stuff. To my way of thinking anyway.

@fmf said
Your beef with Rajk999 is about theology. His interpretation of living a Christian life is more about action [obeying Christ's commands and the obligation for Christians to do good works] and less about talk [the self-obsessed doctrines and theories and the general counting-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin].

In fact, I think you probably broadly agree with Rajk999 about Christian ...[text shortened]... elf [sonship]; it is about a way of living life and about doing stuff. To my way of thinking anyway.

But isn't Rajk's theology about God hating sinners and his adherence to that precept something you'd care to address?

Hating is doing isn't it? Rajk claims good works qualities one for entrance into the kingdom of God, but hating is in direct conflict with Jesus' commandment to love your neighbor.

I guess you don't have a problem with that.

@FMF

So, you almost never talking about your religion in action, is other people's fault?

I think it goes without saying that Christianity (in spite of its corruptions) has done more for humanitarian actions in the world then your atheism has.

@fmf said
Sloman and Fernbach suggested that we think we know a lot ~ even though individually we know very little ~ because we treat the knowledge in the minds of others as our own. Do you think there is truth in what they say?

This is how science works.

Do you pre-suppose that science knowledge, most of which comes from the research of others, is an "illusion"?

@FMF
Because there is only one mind it seems absurd to to think that one owns ones ideas, knowledge. The separation illusion.
Of course knowledge is only so if it is actually knowable. True. Usually independent verification of the soundness of any ' knowledge' ' is rec"d

@ghost-of-a-duke said
John of Salisbury wrote in his Metalogicon: "Bernard of Chartres used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature."

And despite this culmination of wisdom we usually still need rohypnol to make a horse drink

@suzianne said
Do you pre-suppose that science knowledge, most of which comes from the research of others, is an "illusion"?

Neither you nor KellyJay is a researcher into the history of the planet and the universe. You both get your "science knowledge" from the research of others.

Does KellyJay's "knowledge" about the Earth being only about 6,000 years old ~ having not researched it himself ~ qualify as some "knowledge illusion"?

Does your "knowledge" about the Earth being billions of years old ~ having not researched it yourself ~ qualify as "knowledge illusion"?

I believe that if I were to assert that I personally "know" something about pre-historic events that happened, say, 3,000,000,000 years ago, as persuasive as some or most of the relevant deductions and research out there might be, I would consider my own certainty - to a degree - to be illusory.

@fmf said
Neither you nor KellyJay is a researcher into the history of the planet and the universe. You both get your "science knowledge" from the research of others.

Does KellyJay's "knowledge" about the Earth being only about 6,000 years old ~ having not researched it himself ~ qualify as some "knowledge illusion"?

Does your "knowledge" about the Earth being billions of years old ...[text shortened]... s and research out there might be, I would consider my own certainty - to a degree - to be illusory.

Even if one were to research some topic themselves in an effort to not rely on previously uncovered information, one must needs resort to acknowledging the efforts of those who have come before, or else their research becomes bogged down into stagnation. The scientific method renders a way to avoid rehashing each new discovery by turning the experiments of one generation into the givens of the next. Once something has been proven, it becomes general knowledge for the next researcher, who can then focus on "seeing further" to the next problem. In this way, scientific discovery benefits not only those who discover it, but all those in the downline, who yes, may consider it "knowledge" and not "illusory", even though they were not there to discover it themselves.

Ben Franklin risked his life, flying his kite in a thunderstorm, to prove that lightning was the same force as electricity. Today, we can take this for granted, or equal to "personal knowledge", without having to risk our own lives flying our own kite in a thunderstorm. Once the wheel has been invented, one does not have to "reinvent the wheel" in order to build a car or a bicycle. The wheel has become personal knowledge, even though we did not invent it. One might say that, once something is known, one cannot "unsee" it.

The way I see it, is that the only knowledge that can be considered "illusory" is not knowledge at all, but rumor.