So far as I can tell, a conception along these lines is compatible with many varieties of theism, atheism, agnosticism, idealism, materialism, skepticism, and so on.
Moreover, it offers a rational basis for a sort of conceptual closure, and for regulative principles of harmony and unity that may inform the rational imagination in practices of meditation, prayer, and worship -- for instance in keeping with Dewey's talk of "natural piety" in the first section of A Common Faith. — Cabbage Farmer
SonOfAGun
106
— SonOfAGun
What do explanations have to do with it? A belief is not an explanation. Perhaps you're conflating beliefs with explanations?
— Cabbage Farmer
What the h*** are you talking about. If you have a true/factual/tested physical explanation for a phenomenon YOU NO LONGER NEED TO BELIEVE what ever it was that you believed about the phenomenon. YOU NOW KNOW FOR A FACT. belief is no longer required. — SonOfAGun
The use of the word "believe" there is a convention...and serves to corrupt the word. — Frank Apisa
No, not at all. I’m not trying to discredit science as a pathway to knowledge. I was just pointing out that science isn’t the only pathway that achieves valuable results. — Pinprick
Well, I consider this to be a scholarly discussion, so I think the consensus of scholars would be appropriate. It may not be true, and I’m aware of the Gettier problems and other criticisms of it. At the very least it is flawed, but still the best we have at this point according to experts. — Pinprick
So far as I can tell, denial of the proposition "x exists" entails:
i) a belief that the proposition "x exists" is false,
ii) a belief that the proposition "x does not exist" is true, and
iii) a belief that there is no such thing as "x". — Cabbage Farmer
I don't know that your examples qualify as knowledge they are not consistent. Need and desire: Do heroin addicts need heroin? Is their desire for heroin a false desire? Emotion is an erratic and often illogical thing and difficult to understand even when they are your own. What about unjustified jealousy or anger, gluttonous satifaction, unrequited love, etc. Are you saying that these things meet the criteria of knowledge? — SonOfAGun
Is it not appropriate to look towards the consensus of scholars/experts as a starting point to find the truth? What definition of knowledge should I have assumed if not the one the experts generally agree on? — Pinprick
Scenery perception is pretty well understood already by science and does not fall into the category of needs, desires and emotions. — SonOfAGun
What post of mine are you referring to? — Pinprick
Agree 100% with this as long as you aren’t equating “thinks” with “believes.” — Pinprick
I am, because they mean the same thing. To believe something is just to think that it is true, nothing more. — Pfhorrest
Right, but wouldn’t you agree that not all thoughts are beliefs? If so, then the thought “no Gods exist” doesn’t have to be a belief. — Pinprick
I’d say all thoughts to the effect that something exists or not constitute beliefs. There are also thoughts that are not about what does or doesn’t exist, which are not beliefs, but we’re not talking about those here. — Pfhorrest
Ok. What justification can you provide for excluding thoughts about existence? — Pinprick
Excluding them from what? I’m not excluding them from beliefs, I’m limiting beliefs to just them. I think you misread me. — Pfhorrest
I’m asking why thoughts about existence must be beliefs. Why do those types of thoughts warrant the designation of “beliefs” when others do not? — Pinprick
Because... that’s what a belief is? A thought to the effect that the world is such-and-such way. I have no idea what you’re on about here. — Pfhorrest
Ok, maybe it wasn’t included in my original examples, but the point still holds that it is valuable knowledge obtained independent from science. Science can certainly explain it, but I don’t need to consult a medical/science apparatus to know I’m hungry or in pain. — Pinprick
It is not obtained independent of reason and logic. Not everything requires a full on scientific investigation. You still have to interpret the data to mean something, and then we are back in the field of science. Unless you think that "external spirits are responsible for your pain and hunger" is a viable alternative. This knowledge is not instinctual in human beings. The knowledge is passed down from parent to child or, more generally, taught via science, because science has more information to give on the subject. — SonOfAGun
66
Would you agree that to deny the proposition that "x exists" is ordinarily to believe that the proposition "x exists" is false? Just as to affirm the proposition that "x exists" is ordinarily to believe that the proposition "x exists" is true"?
Accordingly it would seem that to deny the existence of x is indeed ordinarily to have a sort of belief, though not a belief in the existence of a nothing. More like: belief in the existence of a false proposition, or of an empty concept. — Cabbage Farmer
Yes. But I want to make the distinction that believing a proposition is false is different than believing something doesn’t exist.
— Pinprick
Ok, so you’re claiming that not all thoughts are beliefs, but all thoughts regarding the existence of an object are beliefs. Did I get that right? If so, then it seems that there is something special about existence that causes all thoughts regarding it to be classified as beliefs. What is that special thing? Also, if you’re claiming, and I don’t know that you are, that thoughts about the nonexistence of an object are beliefs, then you’ve contradicted yourself. — Pinprick
Well, I think you’re using a looser definition of science than I thought — Pinprick
but either way I disagree that I was taught pain or hunger. — Pinprick
It also depends on how you’re using the term “mean.” — Pinprick
I consider meaning to be subjective — Pinprick
and I’ve never had to interpret data to know I’m in pain, and that pain was meaningful to me. — Pinprick
If I cut myself I react automatically without having to hypothesize or interpret anything. — Pinprick
It is a subconscious process. — Pinprick
To believe something is to think something about how the world is or is not, about what is real or not, what exists or not, etc. As opposed to, say, thinking something about what is good or bad, what ought or ought not be, etc. Or other kinds of thoughts about different kinds of things. — Pfhorrest
↪SonOfAGun ↪Pfhorrest ↪Vinicius ↪Pinprick
The above comment was addressed to you people. — Frank Apisa
god must be atheist
2k
↪SonOfAGun ↪Pfhorrest ↪Vinicius ↪Pinprick
The above comment was addressed to you people.
— Frank Apisa
I am glad you left me out of the list. — god must be atheist
It would have been a direct insult to my intelligence to be instructed to read the same stuff you have written ten thousand times** already. — god must be atheist
Then you are surprised why we call you a one-topic poster. — god must be atheist
** Disclaimer: Not an exact count. — god must be atheist
Fae is a term for mystical creatures like fairies (also spelled "faerie"), gnomes, sirens, succubi, etc — SonOfAGun
In others words, predicates of X entail search parameters for locating X (i.e. whether or not X exists where & when).There is absolutely no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods.
— Frank Apisa
Wrong again, Frankie! :sweat:
Cite one example of 'divine' intervention in the world (i.e. miracle) ascribed uniquely (i.e. which cannot also be ascribed to natural forces or agents) to any g/G in any religious or philosophical tradition for which there is any corroborable evidence. In so far as you can't - that there isn't any - THAT is "unambiguous evidence against the existence of gods" BECAUSE such evidence is entailed by 'divine predicates' attributed to it.
To wit (as per tim wood's "magic hippopotami"): Absence of any evidence entailed by a g/G predicates is evidence of the absence of a g/G so predicated. — 180 Proof
Strawman. :clap:Also the main body or your argument is fallacious. Argumentum ad ignorantiam, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. — SonOfAGun
My actual "argument", as sketched above, I've applied as a principle - criterion - for evaluating any theistic conception of divinity and thereby I'm committed to anti-theism (which, therefore, excludes 'agnosticism' with respect to theism's truth-value (of its e.g. ontological claims)). — 180 Proof
Insofar as "god" is undefined, the statement "god is false" says nothing but "@^%*# is false" (i.e. nonsense). Otherwise, if 'theism is false' is true, then every theistic-type of g/G is fictional - that's my position.Fair enough. As long as you limit your claims to "theism is false" not "god is false." — SonOfAGun
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.