Atheism does not exist

[AmbiguousGuy]

Not as odd-guy-out as you might think.

Might be. Or might be that we're even odder-guys-out than I currently judge us to be.

Hard to tell about a thing like that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well OK. It kinda sorta occurred to me that someone might argue such a position, but to my mind, it renders the definition not only useless but especially useless.
So when we claim to know that the cat is on the mat, we're admitting that it might be true that the cat is on the mat and it might be false that the cat is on the mat?

No, when you claim to know that the cat is on the mat, the rest of us don't automatically assume that you must be right.

But how is that any different from believing that the cat is on the mat?

Because it also includes the elements of justification and truth.

Maybe you are agreeing with me that all claims of knowledge and belief are simply claims that we possess psychological certainty about the matters?

Most of the time when people use the word "know", that's what I think they mean, yes.

Still, there's the question of what "psychological certainty" means. "Justified true belief" works pretty well, IMO.

Earlier, one champion of the definition exclaimed that, "We cannot know false things." Would you agree with that? I certainly wouldn't.

Yes, I think I would agree with that.

I see people knowing things all day, every day, and some of their knowledge seems blatantly at odds with reality.

You may see people claiming knowledge about things all day, but how do you know they actually know them?

I used to know that the moons of Jupiter were geologically dead. Now I know that they aren't.

You thought you knew; now you think you know something else. At least one of the times you thought you knew, you were wrong.

But if anyone objects that I 'didn't really know it,' they are believing in magic, I think. They are claiming that we really can know whether a thing is true or whether false in some sense transcending mere human opinion.

No, we're not. Not every claim is verifiable.

They are disagreeing with you about the necessity of knowing the truth or falsity of a matter before we can have knowledge about that matter.

Who is, exactly? I think you're operating from a misunderstanding.

Am I making any sense for you?

Not really.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And snakes swallow their tails. Really, don't you recognize a tautology when you recite one?

No, it isn't a tautology. Truth is a property of linguistic items, in particular, ones that reflect or accurately depict reality, or facts. "The cat is on the mat" is true if and only if the cat is on the mat.

One must have a human in the room. Truth requires a judge. A human judge.

So what you must say is something like this: "I can determine true things from false things by judging whether a statement actually reflects facts and reality."

And I can't imagine why that would be a bad thing. We obviously can and do do this, many times every day.

Or, "A group of wise elders can determine true things from false things by judging whether a statement actually reflects facts and reality."

Or, "A prophet of God can determine true things from false things by judging whether a statement actually reflects facts and reality."

I need to know: Who exactly -- what person -- decides whether a thing is true or whether it's false?

It doesn't matter. That truth has to be judged, and that this judgment is fallible, doesn't contradict anything I've said.

I'm going to declare you mistaken in various ways. First, you've chosen the most extreme case in all of Truthland as your example -- human vision being our most trusted physical sense.

So vary the example- "This mat smells like cat urine", etc.

Red herring.

Second, despite what you assert, most truth claims are not of the let's-check-our-vision sort.

Au contraire. I think you'd find that very many of what we consider true is based in vision. But as above, other senses, or so-called "truths of reason"/a priori/necessary truths are, on average, not as difficult as you are making them out to be.

In any case, the possibility of dispute is not a real objection. JTB doesn't preclude the possibility of dispute or even of error.

So when we claim to know things, it's possible that the things we know are not true?

This should be obvious. Its always possible. Truth and knowledge are open-ended.

But I've been saying that from the start. It's why I find the 'justified true belief' thing to be nonsense.

You are now saying that we can know things which might not be true. But earlier you insisted that we could not know untrue things.

We can not know untrue things. If they turn out to be untrue, then it turns out we didn't know them, wouldn't you say?

This debate business is harder than it looks, eh?

A. This is not a debate.
B. This is not at all difficult.

Try harder, I suppose.

 

[Willamena]

We can not know untrue things. If they turn out to be untrue, then it turns out we didn't know them, wouldn't you say?

What then separates claims of knowledge from knowledge?

 

[Falvlun]

What then separates claims of knowledge from knowledge?

This is an excellent question.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This is an excellent question.

I'd say we each build our model of the world based on nothing more than our collection of "best guesses" according to our experience, information, and ability.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What then separates claims of knowledge from knowledge?

That's at the heart of what's bugging me. The JTB crowd seems to acknowledge that we can claim to know untrue things but that we can't actually know untrue things. To my mind -- as I've said repeatedly -- that smacks of magical belief.

It assumes that we can actually know what is true, in a sense transcending human opinion, and I just don't see how that could be possible.

It ignores the possibility of human error -- which is why I find it such a dangerous definition.

 

[Willamena]

I'd say we each build our model of the world based on nothing more than our collection of "best guesses" according to our experience, information, and ability.

All right and fine, except that "guessing" was one of the no-nos in terms of what makes for good justification of what to believe.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

All right and fine, except that "guessing" was one of the no-nos in terms of what makes for good justification of what to believe.

I was using "best guess" in the colloquial sense - i.e., a best current estimation or conclusion based on what information is available, albeit incomplete - and not in the strict definition of "guess."

 

[Willamena]

I was using "best guess" in the colloquial sense - i.e., a best current estimation or conclusion based on what information is available, albeit incomplete - and not in the strict definition of "guess."

If our best guess is that there is life elsewhere in the universe, and estimation is our justification to believe, "knowledge" is still dependent upon it being true.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If our best guess is that there is life elsewhere in the universe, and estimation is our justification to believe, "knowledge" is still dependent upon it being true.

This applies to everything. I was speaking more broadly to the idea that everything we "know" is predicated on other things, and if one wants to get down and dirty, there if very little any of us can say we really "know." But, much of it is useful and applicable, so it works.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, when you claim to know that the cat is on the mat, the rest of us don't automatically assume that you must be right.

But I wasn’t asking about other people judging my knowledge claim. I was asking about myself. You seemed to be admitting that when I know that the cat is on the mat, it could be untrue that the cat is on the mat. To my mind, that offends the definition. According to the definition, I cannot know that the cat is on the mat unless it is true that the cat is on the mat.

Because it also includes the elements of justification and truth.

So you think that when people claim to 'believe' something, they don't consider that their belief is justified and true?

That's not my experience. If someone says that he believes Jesus is Lord or believes that the sun will rise tomorrow, he is thinking that his belief is justified and true.

Do you know of a formal definition of 'belief' which differs from 'justified true belief'? Does epistemology have such a formal definition, to your knowledge, and does it differentiate between belief and knowledge?

Still, there's the question of what "psychological certainty" means. "Justified true belief" works pretty well, IMO.

OK, we'll have to just disagree about that. I think such a definition asserts the possibility that we can know things trascendently, in the way that God might know something. But according to my view, I could be wrong about anything, anytime.

You may see people claiming knowledge about things all day, but how do you know they actually know them?

Well, it's like someone claiming to 'have an idea.' That person may be lying to me and not actually have an idea. I don't know, but I usually just take their word for it. Or they may claim to be a Christian. That's fine with me. I assume that they really do think of themselves as Christians.

Same when someone claims to know something. I assume that he actually is knowing a thing if he claims to be knowing a thing. Whatever mental state equals 'knowing'... this guy is probably experiencing that mental state. Why would he lie to me?

Of course, with the 'justified true belief' definition, I can never know whether anyone actually knows anything. That's because I don't consider myself capable of discerning 'true' from 'false' in any transcendent way. I can have an opinion that his knowledge is at variance with external reality, but I can't know that he's wrong.

You thought you knew; now you think you know something else. At least one of the times you thought you knew, you were wrong.

OK. But we can't know which time I really knew it and which time I only thought that I knew it?

So as Willemena asks, there's no difference between knowing something vs. claiming to know something?

No, we're not. Not every claim is verifiable.

But some claims are verifiable? Really? That's an interesting assertion. OK, so maybe you will take a shot at The Most Frightening Question In All Of Truthdom. Here it is, cast in three different forms:

If I say a claim is verified, but you say the claim isn't verified... is the claim verified or isn't it?

If 55% of observers say that the cat is on the mat, but 42% say that the cat is not on the mat... is it true or false that the cat is on the mat? (Let's say you're in the 42% group.)

TMFQIAOT: Who -- which person or persons -- is the final authority as to whether a claim has been verified (is true)?

Who says, with final authority, whether a claim is verified?

If you can answer this question, I think I'll be able to understand your position much better.

 

[Willamena]

This applies to everything. I was speaking more broadly to the idea that everything we "know" is predicated on other things, and if one wants to get down and dirty, there if very little any of us can say we really "know." But, much of it is useful and applicable, so it works.

But we can say that we "know" of things predicated only on immediate experience or reasoning. I know I am typing on a keyboard right now. And here I am... clicking submit...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But we can say that we "know" of things predicated only on immediate experience or reasoning. I know I am typing on a keyboard right now. And here I am... clicking submit...

On the other hand, I can only assume that you actually exist and typed on your keyboard and hit submit. It seems to fit my experience that this is true, and it's useful, so I'll go with it.

 

[Willamena]

On the other hand, I can only assume that you actually exist and typed on your keyboard and hit submit. It seems to fit my experience that this is true, and it's useful, so I'll go with it.

You do that.

 

[idav]

But we can say that we "know" of things predicated only on immediate experience or reasoning. I know I am typing on a keyboard right now. And here I am... clicking submit...

You know that sounds a lot like something a bot would say. ”Clicking” submit? A very clever bot.

 

[Willamena]

You know that sounds a lot like something a bot would say. ”Clicking” submit? A very clever bot.

Not everything is a claim to knowledge.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, it isn't a tautology. Truth is a property of linguistic items, in particular, ones that reflect or accurately depict reality, or facts. "The cat is on the mat" is true if and only if the cat is on the mat.

So do you commune directly with God to determine whether the cat is actually on the mat? Serious question. You've told me that consensus doesn't determine whether the cat is actually on the mat. So if 93% of all observing humans declare that the cat is on the mat, but you see no cat on the mat... is it true or false that the cat is on the mat?

I know it's a scary question, but this is a debate forum. Take a shot at it. What do you have to lose?

How do you determine whether the cat is actually on the mat in the example I've given above?

It doesn't matter.

Oh, my. I triple-dog dare you, challenging your very manhood, yet you still refuse to address the question. How interesting.

My question doesn't matter? Right. I'm sure that must be the case.

You know what I do when someone taunts me to answer a simple question? I just answer it. Even if I think the question doesn't matter, I go ahead and answer it, mostly to prove to myself that I don't actually fear it. It's just how I roll.

Anyway, come on. Gird up your loins. Give it a shot. Here's the challenge again: Tell me how truth is decided -- without using the passive voice.

That truth has to be judged, and that this judgment is fallible, doesn't contradict anything I've said.

('Truth has to be judged' is passive voice.)

Of course it contradicts everything you've said. It completely guts the 'justified true belief' definition of knowledge.If each one of us judges for ourselves whether a thing is true, then every claim of knowledge is just as legitimate as every other claim of knowledge. One person can know that Saturn has no moons. Another can know that Saturn has several moons. Both hold legitimate knowledge, since each one is proclaiming a justified true belief.

And your claim that people 'only think they know' is nonsense. If someone claims to know something, he knows it. After all, he has judged it to be justifiable true belief.

So tell me: Who decides that a bit of knowledge is based on an untrue belief? You? Me? A group of elders? A particular prophet of God? The consensus?

We can not know untrue things. If they turn out to be untrue, then it turns out we didn't know them, wouldn't you say?

So how does a thing 'turn out to be untrue'? I mean, who decides that?

By the way, it has turned out that you are mistaken about the JTB definition actually working properly to describe knowledge. So if you 'think that you know' it to be a good definition, now may be the time to jump ship on that.

This is not a debate.

Please don't give up yet. I think you may have it in you. Just buck up and fear no question, is my advice.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'd say we each build our model of the world based on nothing more than our collection of "best guesses" according to our experience, information, and ability.

That's how I see it. I only know the truth when I'm in prophet mode, and that gets to feeling creepy pretty quick.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The real atheist doesn't believe God exists. Whether they believe in the "monkey theory" or not is just a detail. One might think ocean view is best place to build a house. The other might disagree and think the mountain view is best.
Why is this so hard for people? It says nothing about who is right. Theism and atheism are only about what a person believes(or doesn't)

And if the belief is cognitive and meaningful, then it is either true or false. It may not be PC to ask whether the theist or the atheist is correct, but it is surely a pertinent question- and if neither of them are correct or incorrect, this can only be because the claim in question (does God exist?) is nonsensical to begin with.

But the claim that God exists is cognitive and meaningful; it's just false. Atheism is, at best, the knowledge that theism is false.