True is considered an objective fact, not the subjective feeling of the believer. — Hanover

I thought this over, and couldn't square up what the criteria of being True as an objective fact means.
Is there such a thing which stands as absolute truth beyond doubt?

It sure seems like what we call objective is some idea, conclusion, explanation that is (seems) well justified, AND we don't know of some other idea, conclusion, explanation that is (seems) better justified. And we will always have to have some intution in our evaluation of that. We have to trust our memories, sense of how well we checked, EVEN if it seems like we are supported by scientific consensus. Which doesn't mean one has to run around doubting everything and testing jumping off buildings since gravity may just be a hypothesis.

I am concerned with the difference between knowledge and belief. I read in some epistemology books that knowledge is justified true belief. In that case, how do you make sure the justifications are justified for absolute correct and true? So truths are dependent on justification. Justification is human action, which is subject to mistakes and faults.

Another point is that, in this case, the line between knowledge and belief seems fuzzy.

So truths are dependent on justification. Justification is human action, which is subject to mistakes and faults. — Corvus

That's the situation I find myself in. My conclusions are subject to faults and mistakes, and this is true as far as I can tell, even if i base my conclusions on the work of experts, since they are human, since I may be mistaken about what I read or how I interpret it and so on. I am a fallible creature doing my best. I don't see a way around it.

Both knowledge and beliefs are what people have/do.

Another point is that, in this case, the line between knowledge and belief seems fuzzy. — Corvus

Yes, because I can't see a way around knowledge being a rigorously arrived at subset of beliefs. Who decides it is rigorously arrived at? Humans.

Even in the case of Gravity, it is not something that exists as a concrete object in space and time. It is a postulated concept. Because every material object falls to the ground, it is believed that the force pulling the objects must exist in the core of the earth, and they called it "gravity". It is a belief.

It seems like you are disagreeing with me, but you're not, as far as I can tell. Yes, our conclusions about why things fall, etc., are beliefs. Unless you are arguing that all beliefs are the same. IOW we have no reason to believe one thing over another. But that would undermine your own argument since you (seem at least) to believe your epistemology more than other ones because it is better justified. IOW you are justifying it here.

It seemed you were disagreeing with me at first, but you seem agreeing with me now. :)

My points are that (1) There are different types of causes for beliefs.
(2) Religious beliefs are special type of belief, which should be classed as faith. (I personally think faith should be only used to denote firm religious beliefs. Using faith in association with any other than religious beliefs, I feel, is not correct.)

I came to the conclusion.
(3) Knowledge and belief are similar concept. The only difference is that the former is justified true belief.
(4) The concept of True seems vague and needing further clear definition due to the nature of any act of justification having possibility of errors and mistakes.

(2) Religious beliefs are special type of belief, which should be classed as faith. (I personally think faith should be only used to denote firm religious beliefs. Using faith in association with any other than religious beliefs, I feel, is not correct.) — Corvus

Well, good that we generally agree but I think faith doesn't not work for religions that are empirically focused like Buddhism and many types of HInduism. It's certain Christians and other Abrahimics that focus on this faith idea and also focus on beliefs (and arguments).

I am not familiar with either Buddhism or Hinduism, but I am sure that they also believe in their religious concepts, systems, scriptures and codes such as eternal reincarnations (into some other life forms such as animals or again into humans depending on each individual's karma) in Buddhism.

In Hindu, they believe in millions of different gods, and the main ones are
Brahma, who creates the universe, Vishnu, who preserves the universe, and Shiva, who destroys the universe.

I feel that all religions require the followers' belief for the minimum requirement, and when they are genuine followers of a certain religion, their beliefs transform into faith. But that is just my own view.

"Religion will not regain its old power until it can face change in the same spirit as does science." By Alfred North Whitehead.
— prothero

Should it regain its old power? Is it good thing to happen to the world we live in?
Is it possible to achieve? — Corvus

People want to believe in some larger purpose and meaning and I think there are far worse things to believe in (QANON, conspiracy theories) than a religion based on love and compassion, the golden rule and service (feed the hungry, shelter the poor, tend the sick, comfort the afflicted).

I do not think traditional religious dogma is compatible with modern science. I think if religion wishes to survive it must change its conception of “God” and the relationship of “God” to the world (universe).
— prothero

How should the conception of God changed? Can the old traditional religions do that? or do you want to see totally new religions born and manifested with the new concept of God? — Corvus

Well the Catholic Church could start by allowing women to serve in the priesthood, dropping their opposition to family planning and acknowledging the validity of other faiths.
Theologians could drop the God is Omnipotent and release God from being responsible for evil.
We could also drop God as Omniscient and return free will and responsibility to the people.
Yes, I know there are complicated theological arguments for the above.
Creation is an ongoing process not a completed act. Creation is hard work. Creative Advance requires God and man to work together.

‘When the Western world accepted Christianity, Caesar conquered; and the received text of Western theology was edited by his lawyers…The brief Galilean vision of humility flickered throughout the ages, uncertainly. In the official formulation of the religion it has assumed the trivial form of the mere attribution to the Jews that they cherished a misconception about their Messiah. But the deeper idolatry, of fashioning God in the image of the Egyptian, Persian, and Roman imperial rulers was retained. The Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar.’
Process and Reality 342 Afred North Whitehead

thought this over, and couldn't square up what the criteria of being True as an objective fact means.
Is there such a thing which stands as absolute truth beyond doubt? — Corvus

Whether truth can be known isn't the same question as to whether it can exist.

Well, I do know specific examples of these religions, and they are not faith based. You look at ideas in the religions, decide that they cannot have been arrived at via your epistemology and conclude that the adhernants base beliefs on faith. That's seeing something foreign to you through the lens of Abrahamic religions (even if you do not believe them). There are many Christians for example who specifically advocate faith. Which means you don't believe, you have faith. In fact some will go so far as to say belief is a problem, because it is founded on arguments or logic, etc. Whereas one should simply have faith and avoid all that. In Hinduism, for many adherants, for example, you are moving through stages in a set of empirically based practices. The guru or religious leader says do X and you will experience Y. And you spend time adn practice doing things that change the way you experience life. Yes, on top of this there are interpretations, but the bulk of your religious experience is not faith based in the least.

Just as your conclusions about the opposite sex are not faith based, even if your epistemological protocols are not scientific. You base, consciously or not, your conclusions on the opposite sex on your experiences, with Mom, with women in movies, with girls and women. You may be quite wrong, but this does not make your conclusions faith-based. Even if you cannot demonstrate that B is the way to find love or deal with the opposite sex to anyone and certainly not scientifically.

Faith is a very Abrahamic concept, it is also, even in the Abrahamic religions, not one that all adherants focus on or conceive of their belief. You can't look at the conclusions and categorize the process. You have to look at the processes. You also can't boil down a religion you don't know much about into just its beliefs, when the adherants relate to beliefs and the religion in a very different way and they play, for many, a much smaller role. In the Abrahamic religions actually changing yourself and how you experience the world or experience in general and the developmental practices of the religion are not remotely as important as in other religions. With the others developing skills and rigorous training is central and focused on changes at the empirical level. Abrahamic religions focus vastly more on having the right thoughts in your brain.

Abrahamic religions focus vastly more on having the right thoughts in your brain. — Bylaw

In theory that is true but in practice I am not convinced. The majority of Christians do not understand formal Christian theology very well in my experience. They know the slogans "born again", "Jesus saves", and have some vague notions about "life after death" and "heaven and hell" but their knowledge of official church doctrine or fundamental Christian theology is weak. So for them faith is about community and about belonging to something larger than themselves and their daily life. There is as you say too much emphasis on correct belief or belonging to the right church and not enough on correct action and following the example and teachings of Jesus or other prophets as opposed to paying lip service to the theology and orthodoxy which the Church later imposed.

Whether truth can be known isn't the same question as to whether it can exist. — Hanover

What are the truths that exist? Do you have the real world examples of truths that exist?

I feel that knowledge is justified true belief. But justifying for true is human act that is not guarantee for absolute truths.

Hence the guy who is given a placebo by his doctor with the fake explanations on what it is for will have what he thinks as a justified true belief is as sound knowledge as what the doctor knows about the placebo, if the placebo had worked for him. There is no absolute proof that what the doctor knew about the placebo was the absolute truth about the placebo. What if the doctor's knowledge about the placebo was totally wrong? Or the doctor had given him the wrong placebo by mistake?

And there is also the problem of finding out for sure, what actually cured the placebo taker's symptoms i.e. was it the placebo itself (by chance), some psychological effect, or some good sleep he had after taking the placebo .... etc etc.

Well, I do know specific examples of these religions, and they are not faith based. — Bylaw

I used to know some Buddhist people, and some of them go to the universities and study the theories and principles of buddhism. They are a very few minority of people who then seek to become lecturers or teachers in the schools and universities. These are a tiny number of minority people among the vast number of buddhists.

Most buddhists are just general followers, who do not know anything about the principles, codes or the philosophy. They go to the temples, pray for their good luck, health and prosperity. They believe in eternal reincarnation after death, because that is just what buddhism is famous for. They would also donate a lot of money to the monks and temples, because they believe blindly that would bring them good luck for their business and family. These are the beliefs based on no theories, empirical facts or principles, but their own intuitions, emotions, customs and traditions.

I don't know anything about Hindu in that regard. But I guess they believe in some kind of afterlife. Because that is what every religion is about at the end of the day.

In theory that is true but in practice I am not convinced. The majority of Christians do not understand formal Christian theology very well in my experience. They know the slogans "born again", "Jesus saves", and have some vague notions about "life after death" and "heaven and hell" but their knowledge of official church doctrine or fundamental Christian theology is weak. — prothero

Sure, I don't disagree. I actually think the Abrahamic religions are much more complex that people in online discussions (both non-theists and theists alike) tend to describe. It all comes down to (especially in philosophy forums) beliefs and epistemology and people using the word faith. When in fact Christianity is also a complex lives social phenomenon with empirical aspects. Nobody just sits around having faith. They feel better when they pray. They feel better in community. Rituals give them experiences that they like. Many find strength to break habits and deal with suffering through following pastoral or scriptural advice. IOW they are pleased with the benefits.

That is a very complicated issue and I sidestepped it because this is even more true with some other religions, where practices and the development of skills which one experiences the results of are extremely systematic.

I used to know some Buddhist people, and some of them go to the universities and study the theories and principles of buddhism. They are a very few minority of people who then seek to become lecturers or teachers in the schools and universities. These are a tiny number of minority people among the vast number of buddhists. — Corvus

That's not relevant. I am not claiming that Buddhists have an academic expertise or relation to the religion.

They believe in eternal reincarnation after death, because that is just what buddhism is famous for. — Corvus

It's generally rebirth not reincarnation in Buddhism.

These are the beliefs based on no theories, empirical facts or principles, but their own intuitions, emotions, customs and traditions. — Corvus

Again, I said empirical not theoretical. See my post above to prothero, where even Christiany is much more empirical and based on experienced results - not arguments or faith. You seem to see the word empirical and assume that it means something like scientific methodology. I am talking about people basing their belief on their experiences - iow empirical. Empirical learning can be rigorously organized, intuitive, right wrong headed, effective, confused

But
it
is
not faith

FAith is just believing because you choose to believe, regardless of experience, logic, evidence anything.

That is certainly not what Buddists and Hindus do and it isn't true for the vast majority of Christians. In part or even more their experiences lead them to stay with their participation in the religion.
Faith based is not justified, at all by the empirical. That is not what most Christians will say when they talk about why they believe. They will talk about their experiences of getting closer to God (or seeming to) via prayer, how they gained strength dealing with their mother's cancer through participation in the religion, what the various rituals make them experience and feel like.

You are thinking that it cannot be empirical because they draw the wrong conclusions. But that is confused about what the word means.

And we all do this, everyone.
We all follow experts in some area of life because it worked (or seemed to) even if we or no one has done rigorous scientific research to demonstrate that this golf swing and attitude improves our game, or thinking of the opposite sex as ________________, makes it more likely we will experience ______________, or in politics or parenting or how to make friends or how to enjoy _________more. And so on.

Beliefs
being arrived at

in processes that are in a large part empirical with interpretations

and which do not have scientific consensus backing them up and we never looked any way.

But in discussions like this it only the religious and it is faith.

Nope. It's empirical, often to a very large degree.

Which, I repeat, does not mean it is correct. Being empirical is not a specific protocol.

It simply means that experience plays a huge role.

Faith tells you to ignore experience, that one should simply believe.

They can be right or wrong, but they are basing their beliefs on experience and even more so in other religions - indigenous/shamanic/animistic even more so, in my experience than the others.

They think it is working and leads to what they want and base this on experiences.

Yeah, after mulling it over, I think you are right. I am not sure actually. My problem is that I do not know much about any of these religions in detail.

It's generally rebirth not reincarnation in Buddhism. — Bylaw

Rebirth is for being born again as the exact same person. Even in buddhism, I don't think they will believe that - which means, Socrates has died, but he will be born again as Socrates?

Reincarnation is for being born in some other life forms or other human, I think. So Socrates will be born again as a bear, tiger or lion, or a rock star guitarist etc. I think this makes more sense logically :D

Thought about it yet again. I think faith is the religious belief that does not require empirical evidence, knowledge or justification. When one says "I believe in God, because I just know he exists, or I just feel that he cares for me." These are statements based on faith. No one can challenge or deny the statements, when they are based on one's intuition, feelings and experience.

All other non religious beliefs generally require empirical evidence, knowledge and justification for someone to believe in something.

The critical point is that even if religious faith does not require empirical evidence or knowledge, if there were such evidence or knowledge, which was experienced by chance by private experience, then that cannot destroy faith. Especially if the evidence or knowledge or experience supports the faith, then it would even strengthen one's faith. But even if it were negative evidence, knowledge or experience, one would not throw away one's faith, because it is faith, not belief.

In the case of belief, the believer will change his beliefs on something based on empirical fact, evidence, knowledge and experience.

I am sure that there are plenty of buddhists who believe in their religion with faith level i.e. they are so committed to their beliefs, they won't discard the belief no matter what new experience or knowledge is acquired, which should be classed as faith.

As always, I stand to be corrected.

How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? — Corvus

Because I am god. So I know of my existence directly the same way you know of yours.

:strong:

Because I am god. So I know of my existence directly the same way you know of yours.

:strong: — hope

I got a funny feeling that I might had seen you before. :chin:

This is what I came up with:

1. It's possible God exists.
2. Therefore, it's possible to know all things that are true and false.
3. If something can't possibly be known to be false, it must be true.
4. The existence of God can't possibly be known to be false.
5. The existence of God must be true.

1. It's possible God does not exist.
2. Therefore, it's not possible to know all things that are true and false.
3. If something can't possibly be known to be true, it must be false.
4. The existence of God can't possibly be known to be true
5. The existence of God must be false.

I got a funny feeling that I might had seen you before. — Corvus

“Look down on me and you see a fool, look up at me and you see a god. Look straight at me and you see yourself.”

“Look down on me and you see a fool, look up at me and you see a god. Look straight at me and you see yourself.” — hope

I looked down, and saw my feet.
I looked up, and saw the ceiling.
I looked straight at you, and there was a computer screen.
Where are you?

Where are you? — Corvus

I'm inside your solipsism.

It can't be possible God doesn't exist, because I just proved God definitely does exist.

Also, just because something can't possibly be known to be true (unless there's a God) doesn't mean that it's false. There could be unicorns on the outskirts of the universe we'll never know to exist, if we're the only ones who can know what is true from what is false...they're still, in fact, true.

But key here is the insight that things which can't possibly be known to be false tend to be true.