Atheism does not exist

[Enai de a lukal]

The "true" part of the definition, by your own admission, really doesn't play a part, and in fact, cannot play a part since we have no "bird's eye view" to determine what is true and what is not.

We have no way of determining in any mystical or absolute way, no. But it still doesn't follow that we cannot or do not determine what is true.

If the knowledge must be true in order to be considered knowledge, then your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow cannot be considered knowledge, regardless of how well justified it may be-- if it turns out to be false.

Right... But this isn't really a problem. Provided the sun continues to rise tomorrow, my characterization of my belief as true and knowledge is nevertheless accurate.

This is what I mean by truth being open-ended.

If knowledge must be true to be considered knowledge, then this does in fact mean that knowledge must be immune to error.

Only if we're still saying that knowledge must be true in some absolute or infallible sense, which is a false criterion.

Are you okay with dropping the "true" part of the "justified true belief" definition of knowledge? If not, then you need to rethink your above positions.

Not at all. We just need to let go of some anachronistic, often unconscious assumptions we make about what knowledge or truth must be like; in large part because philosophy has always taken mathematical knowledge to be the paradigm of all knowledge, when this is NOT the case. Mathematical and logical knowledge are absolutely peculiar in that mathematical/logical truth are, if true, necessarily and absolutely true.

Personally, I think it makes a whole lot more sense to drop the true part, as your examples above argued so well.

Only because the word carries connotations that lead to distracting tangents like the present conversation. "True" could be considered short-hand for "consistent with and warranted by the available evidence", I suppose.

***

Fair enough. That would be knowledge as "justified, sufficiently evidenced belief."

Or, to put it more simply, "justified true belief".

Now that we've settled this preliminary (and unnecessary) matter, perhaps we can move on to the topic of the thread, i.e. atheism.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Magic believers. Feh.

When you're done shadowboxing your strawman and want to join the conversation, let us know.

 

[Willamena]

We have no way of determining [what is true] ... but it still doesn't follow that we cannot or do not determine what is true.

You might want to re-word that.

Edit: (I rather like the idea of "knowledge" as "justified, characterized belief.")

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You might want to re-word that.

Why? Because you deleted some words and mangled the quote to make it self-contradictory?

You realize that, if one were allowed to simply rip quotes out and edit them however you please, we could make most any statement look false or contradictory? C'mon!

The fact remains that it doesn't follow that we can't determine truth from the fact that we cannot do so in any absolute way, unless you've already assumed, out of hand, that this is what truth must be.

But this is an unwarranted assumption, and a mere chimera anyways.

 

[Willamena]

Why? Because you deleted some words and mangled the quote to make it self-contradictory?

You realize that, if one were allowed to simply rip quotes out and edit them however you please, we could make most any statement look false or contradictory? C'mon!

The fact remains that it doesn't follow that we can't determine truth from the fact that we cannot do so in any absolute way, unless you've already assumed, out of hand, that this is what truth must be.

But this is an unwarranted assumption, and a mere chimera anyways.

I apologize for my "ripping," and I do actually uphold that actual truth makes beliefs knowledge.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

We make our own judgements about what we think is true and false. These judgements are either correct or incorrect, reasonable or unreasonable.

Whoa. Wait a minute. You have just now told me that there is no ultimate authority regarding truth. There is no human being or other creature who is the ultimate authority about what is true and what is false. But now you say that 'some judgments are incorrect.'

But isn't 'incorrect' the same thing as 'false'?

So how can you simultaneously believe that 1) there is no ultimate judge of 'true/false' and 2) you can tell when a belief or claim of knowledge is incorrect/false?

Does 'incorrect' simply mean 'incorrect in Penguin's personal opinion'?

Not all beliefs are equally reasonable.

I happen to agree. Most or all of mine are of the so-reasonable-as-to-be-virtually-unassailable sort. But I have to say that many of your own beliefs do no appear very reasonable to me.

So I agree that not all beliefs are equally reasonable, but I thought the JTB definition called for a judgment of 'true'... not a judgment of 'reasonableness'.

No. Making a judgement about whether a thing is true does not do anything to actually make it true or false.

Um... now I'm really confused about your position. Are you claiming that we can never know anything?

The definition says that a thing must be true in order for us to know it. Now you are saying that a judgment about its truth has no effect on its truthfulness. But if we can't satisfy that part of the definition (judging the truth of our belief), then we can never properly know anything, can we?

What use is it to claim that we can only know true things if you simultaneously claim that we cannot make a judgment about truth?

Only God can have actual knowledge? (That's my position by the way. And it's one reason I pre-emptively announce my status of Prophet of God, as I did in my intro message in this forum. We Prophets of God carry the ultimate trump card, truthwise, and the first one to proclaim his prophethood has a leg up in any prophet face-off.)

I have no idea where you're coming from here. If you get offended at the fact that humans are fallible, I'm not sure what I can say to help you, but your offense doesn't magically make all of your judgements correct.

I likewise have no idea what you are talking about. Offended that humans are fallible? The fallibility of human knowledge is the very essence of my Great Message to Humanity. Notice my screenname?

Anyway....

And frankly, your arguments in this thread are coming off as confused.

Sorry to hear that. But you never know. In time, you may come to understand what I'm saying.

We can't speak with ultimate certainty, but we can recognize the preponderance of evidence for and against the idea. Sometimes, that balance tips so far over to one side that it becomes unreasonable to argue for the other side.

OK. Just to be clear, you are making a claim something like this: I, Penguin, can determine that Mr. Smith doesn't really know what he claims to know by making the judgment that his 'true belief' is so unreasonable to me and my co-thinkers that I am ready to declare it an 'untrue belief' -- which really means something more like 'unreasonable to me and my co-thinkers.' Since I judge it to be an untrue belief, then Mr. Smith does not really know what he claims to know.

Is that pretty accurate? If not, please reword it to make it more in line with your thought. I don't want to comment on a bad paraphrase of your position.

It's not "elegant" to make up your own personal definition for a word and use it with others as if they're supposed to know what you mean and accept it.

You are making the logical fallacy of 'demonizing/distorting the other guy's position, the easier to ridicule it.'

(There's probably a fancy Latin name for that, but I'm too lazy to look it up.)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I apologize for my "ripping," and I do actually uphold that actual truth makes beliefs knowledge.

That's fine, and so do I. But this "actual-ness" is not disclosed to us, because we don't have any bird's eye view, or "view from nowhere"- thus truth is, so far as it concerns us, open-ended, provisional and defeasible, and is ultimately a function of the nature and quantity of the evidence for the claim/belief in question.

 

[Willamena]

That's fine, and so do I. But this "actual-ness" is not disclosed to us, because we don't have any bird's eye view, or "view from nowhere"- thus truth is, so far as it concerns us, open-ended, provisional and defeasible, and is ultimately a function of the nature and quantity of the evidence for the claim/belief in question.

It needn't be in some imagined unknowable, bird's-eye, god's-eye realm. It's here, right in front of your face.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It needn't be in some imagined unknowable, bird's-eye, god's-eye realm. It's here, right in front of your face.

How's that work, then? What does an actual truth look like, as opposed to only a purported one?

 

[Willamena]

How's that work, then? What does an actual truth look like, as opposed to only a purported one?

Pretty much identical, except for that switch that came on saying, "true."

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You have claimed that your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is knowledge since it is based upon sufficient evidence-- despite the fact that it may not be true. You have stated that knowledge does not need to be immune to error. And you have said that it is sufficient evidence that distinguishes knowledge from belief.

It seems to me that "sufficient evidence"-- the justified part of the definintion-- is therefore the only relevant part of the definition. The "true" part of the definition, by your own admission, really doesn't play a part, and in fact, cannot play a part since we have no "bird's eye view" to determine what is true and what is not.

If the knowledge must be true in order to be considered knowledge, then your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow cannot be considered knowledge, regardless of how well justified it may be-- if it turns out to be false.

If knowledge must be true to be considered knowledge, then this does in fact mean that knowledge must be immune to error.

Are you okay with dropping the "true" part of the "justified true belief" definition of knowledge? If not, then you need to rethink your above positions.

Personally, I think it makes a whole lot more sense to drop the true part, as your examples above argued so well.

A most excellent message, and I agree that the word 'true' is a serious problem and should be struck from the definition. As I've said, its very existence may cause some young and impressionable college students to begin believing that 'true' can actually be determined by humans.

But I think there's a bigger problem with the definition. On the end of it needs to be tacked, "IN X's OPINION."

How can a belief be justified and true all by itself? It's just floating out in space all justified and true? Nah. In order for the JTB definition to have any chance of efficacy, or even coherence, it needs an actor. Who exactly must determine the belief to be justified and true in order for Mr. Smith to know something, rather than only thinking that he knows something?

This is the Great Question which makes journeymen JTB fighters quake in their wrestling tights!

 

[Willamena]

How's that work, then? What does an actual truth look like, as opposed to only a purported one?

Earlier, you had said:

I'm not proposing anything out of the ordinary here. For me to know, for instance, that my cat is on the couch, my cat must actually be on the couch. Duh!

What did you mean by that the cat is actually on the couch? I think you meant exactly what I thought you meant, and now you're over-thinking (you've become the Aristotle to Plato's JTB).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you haven't been given one.

For awhile, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, knowing that you were new to this sort of debate and figuring you would adjust yourself. But I have to say now that I find your responses to be dishonest. I'm sorry, but that's how it seems to me. You have not answered my question, despite me asking it repeatedly, and you know that you haven't answered it.

But you claim that you've given me an answer and that I just didn't like it.

You may notice as we go along that I don't treat you the same as I treat other debaters. But don't despair. I never hold a grudge. There is still a chance that I'll embrace you again one day as a serious voice.

...but this doesn't entail, at all, that all beliefs are then equal. Beliefs are differentiated on the basis of evidence- and sufficient evidence distinguishes knowledge from belief.

Evidence is not capable of distinguishing anything. You're confused about that. Only humans can distinguish one belief from another and make judgments about their veracity.

And evidence tribunals don't float about in the ether, either.

And 'beliefs are not differentiatied.' That's just you trying to escape into the passive voice again.

People differentiate beliefs. Why is that so hard for you to admit?

Besides, you can hardly criticize anyone here since you still have yet to spit out the criticism or counter-argument you have in mind; you are haplessly trying to play the Socratic interlocutor, yet you've failed to address any of the pertinent issues or raise any real objections. You haven't even said what this "magic" supposedly consists in.

I have explained it repeatedly. If you would like me to use smaller words, I doubt I can. Maybe I could draw and post some pictures for you?

Hints and allusions do not a counter-argument make.

Well, I've proven the uselessness of the JTB definition of knowledge and have shown how it's adherents suffer such confusion that they run away from simple questions about it. At least I've done that.

When you want to get in the game, grow a pair and say what it is you have in mind.

How utterly droll. "Be brave," the frantically fleeing man shouts over his shoulder at the Big Bad Questioner.

Oh, I love this kind of stuff too much. I really do. There's probably something wrong with me.

 

[Willamena]

A most excellent message, and I agree that the word 'true' is a serious problem and should be struck from the definition. As I've said, its very existence may cause some young and impressionable college students to begin believing that 'true' can actually be determined by humans.

But I think there's a bigger problem with the definition. On the end of it needs to be tacked, "IN X's OPINION."

How can a belief be justified and true all by itself? It's just floating out in space all justified and true? Nah. In order for the JTB definition to have any chance of efficacy, or even coherence, it needs an actor. Who exactly must determine the belief to be justified and true in order for Mr. Smith to know something, rather than only thinking that he knows something?

This is the Great Question which makes journeymen JTB fighters quake in their wrestling tights!

...and you, the Socrates to Plato's JTB.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

...and you, the Socrates to Plato's JTB.

Well, not quite, but he's trying.

 

[Falvlun]

Truth

I peered at the shining and startling Proof
When a man appeared with a sickening ‘poof’
I told him that I was just looking for Truth
And he snickered and sneered at the follies of youth

“You truly think there’s reality out there?
Let me show you your Truth” and he sucked in some air
He breathed out six Lies that spelled out “BEWARE”
And I swear that I saw two demons in prayer

“Look. How do you know that the world is round?”
I scoffed. “The science behind is factually sound.”
He roared. “I told you to look! Look at the ground!”
And as I looked down, I could feel my heart pound

For standing in Space, though glittering cold
Moved slowly a Turtle gigantically old
And happily perched, my beloved Earth glowed
Flattened indeed, an orbless abode

The vision soon melted and smoothly I glared
“Tricking my eyes can hardly be fair”
With flair: “So you admit that eyes can be tricked?” I stared.
With deadly percision he’d settled his snare

With morbid intensity, I heard him explain
Why everything sensed was sensed in vain
For how do you know whether senses remain
Free of control or if trickery reigns?

“Truth is dead. Truth is dead.” His whisperings tore
Blinded and deaf, my mind found the door
I hurled my words, a rational core:
2 + 2 still equaled 4

He looked amused. “It is nice prize
To find where your confidence faithfully lies
Reason will falter where others surmise.”
At the edge of my mind danced ominous Fives

I was still sure: A triangle is always exactly three sides
Ignoring my thoughts, he continued his stride, “Besides
Where will you find your omniscient guide
When matters of gods are yours to decide?

His point found its mark, a poisonous dart
My questing for Truth embraced Ending and Start
No philosophical answers would Thinking impart
Even with Reason I was still in the dark

Kindly, he spoke, “There is one possible way;
Democratic and chic: the Majority say.”
I could smell what he wanted, this factual decay
To make Truth mere opinion, a transient grey

I straightened. “Truth is more than a popular wish
It’s beauty and terror and Absoluteness
Impervious to time or human corruptness
It exists whether or not you believe its existence!”

“Well said,” he said, with a trace of surprise
But immediately he hardened, with a mouth opened wide
And out of it spewed a legion of lies
They swarmed and attacked in colorful tides

My being was blurred between wrong and the right
And a war was waged in the sunshine of night
Circles picked sides and blackness turned white
Reality fled the scene of the fight

Blindly, I bent my will towards the man
“Though nothing remains, I will still stand!”
My confidence grew through desperate demand
“Because I’m still thinking I know that I am!”

He let out a laugh that clearly defined
What he thought of my statement, O innocent blind!
He wrote on my heart one menacing line:
You’re no more alive than the thoughts of my mind!

My position became so dangerously clear
I only felt him, disturbingly near
I looked with his eyes and I heard with his ears
I was only a thought, a whisper, a fear

I let out a strangled, imaginary yell
Ran as far as I could from that frightening hell
And whether I made it, no one can tell
For this poem may be just a figment as well

 

[Willamena]

I could beat him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whoa. Wait a minute. You have just now told me that there is no ultimate authority regarding truth. There is no human being or other creature who is the ultimate authority about what is true and what is false. But now you say that 'some judgments are incorrect.'

But isn't 'incorrect' the same thing as 'false'?

So how can you simultaneously believe that 1) there is no ultimate judge of 'true/false' and 2) you can tell when a belief or claim of knowledge is incorrect/false?

Does 'incorrect' simply mean 'incorrect in Penguin's personal opinion'?

You know, this conversation would go more smoothly if you actually read what I wrote and tried to process it before jumping into a reply.

When I say that claims are either correct or incorrect, I'm not making any judgement about whether any particular claim is correct; I'm giving the range of possibilities for the truth of claims: a claim is either true or false. This is still the case even if I'm not in a position to judge whether it actually is true or false.

Saying that a coin has a "heads" side and a "tails" side does not imply any sort of pronouncement about which way any particular flipped coin has come up.

I happen to agree. Most or all of mine are of the so-reasonable-as-to-be-virtually-unassailable sort. But I have to say that many of your own beliefs do no appear very reasonable to me.

So I agree that not all beliefs are equally reasonable, but I thought the JTB definition called for a judgment of 'true'... not a judgment of 'reasonableness'.

It doesn't "call for" anything. It gives a set of criteria for something to be "knowledge". It doesn't necessarily imply that the criteria are achievable.

If I gave you a definition for a martian (e.g. "an intelligent non-human native of the planet Mars"), would you take the mere fact that the word has a definition to imply that martians exist?

Um... now I'm really confused about your position. Are you claiming that we can never know anything?

No, I'm not. Read it again.

The definition says that a thing must be true in order for us to know it. Now you are saying that a judgment about its truth has no effect on its truthfulness. But if we can't satisfy that part of the definition (judging the truth of our belief), then we can never properly know anything, can we?

"Judging the truth of our belief" is not part of the definition of "knowledge". You're trying to sneak in that stuff about knowing what we know again.

What use is it to claim that we can only know true things if you simultaneously claim that we cannot make a judgment about truth?

Yes, the word "know" is of limited usefulness. I don't see why this is such a mental roadblock for you.

Only God can have actual knowledge? (That's my position by the way. And it's one reason I pre-emptively announce my status of Prophet of God, as I did in my intro message in this forum. We Prophets of God carry the ultimate trump card, truthwise, and the first one to proclaim his prophethood has a leg up in any prophet face-off.)

Well... no. If God exists, he has his own perspective. All perspectives are necessarily subjective.

I likewise have no idea what you are talking about. Offended that humans are fallible? The fallibility of human knowledge is the very essence of my Great Message to Humanity. Notice my screenname?

I never claimed that you're consistent. You were the one complaining about offense.

OK. Just to be clear, you are making a claim something like this: I, Penguin, can determine that Mr. Smith doesn't really know what he claims to know by making the judgment that his 'true belief' is so unreasonable to me and my co-thinkers that I am ready to declare it an 'untrue belief' -- which really means something more like 'unreasonable to me and my co-thinkers.' Since I judge it to be an untrue belief, then Mr. Smith does not really know what he claims to know.

No, I'm not.

Is that pretty accurate? If not, please reword it to make it more in line with your thought. I don't want to comment on a bad paraphrase of your position.

It's not accurate at all.

Here's my perspective:

We build our understandings, including our understanding of universal truths, based on our experiences; therefore, our understandings are ultimately based on inductive reasoning and are therefore not perfectly certain but still provide insight - sometimes a great deal of insight - into what's really going on, and in many cases can be used to inform our judgement of the validity of claims.

You are making the logical fallacy of 'demonizing/distorting the other guy's position, the easier to ridicule it.'

(There's probably a fancy Latin name for that, but I'm too lazy to look it up.)

If you think I've distorted your position, then feel free to point out my errors.

I do think it's a bit hypocritical for you to complain about me "demonizing/distorting" your position, though, since this is most of what you've been doing to me for the last few pages, IMO.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You know, this conversation would go more smoothly if you actually read what I wrote and tried to process it before jumping into a reply.

OK. For the record, that's just how I feel about your performance here. But I try to pass over that kind of negativity as best I can.

When I say that claims are either correct or incorrect, I'm not making any judgement about whether any particular claim is correct; I'm giving the range of possibilities for the truth of claims: a claim is either true or false. This is still the case even if I'm not in a position to judge whether it actually is true or false.

Saying that a coin has a "heads" side and a "tails" side does not imply any sort of pronouncement about which way any particular flipped coin has come up.

I don't get it. What use is claiming that a coin has a heads' side and a tails' side if humans can never see which is which?

You say that claims are either true or false, but that makes no sense to me unless you acknowledge that humans can distinguish true from false. It just perplexes me. It's as if you're making a faith statement. We can't tell true from false, correct from incorrect, but by faith we believe that they exist?

Really, I'm confused by your (seeming) position.

It doesn't "call for" anything. It gives a set of criteria for something to be "knowledge". It doesn't necessarily imply that the criteria are achievable.

So even though we can't determine whether a belief is 'true', we can still claim to know that thing?

Yeah, I'm lost. Why not just take 'true' out of the definition then? It's a meaningless word if we can't distinguish true from false, isn't it?

If I gave you a definition for a martian (e.g. "an intelligent non-human native of the planet Mars"), would you take the mere fact that the word has a definition to imply that martians exist?

No. You'd have to show me an intelligent, non-human creature and convince me that he was a native of Mars. If you did that, I would conclude that the create met the criteria laid out in your definition.

Likewise, if you claim to 'know' something (according to the JTB definition), I would assume that you considered it to be both true and justified. Which would mean that you'd made a judgment about true/false and about justified/unjustified.

No, I'm not. Read it again.

Nah. I read it several times and tried very hard to paraphrase it exactly. But if you'd rather not pursue it, that's fine.

"Judging the truth of our belief" is not part of the definition of "knowledge". You're trying to sneak in that stuff about knowing what we know again.

Yeah. I'm entirely perplexed. I have no idea where you're coming from. The definition says that a belief must be true. To my mind, that means that humans must judge the truth of any belief which is claimed to be knowledge.

We build our understandings, including our understanding of universal truths, based on our experiences; therefore, our understandings are ultimately based on inductive reasoning and are therefore not perfectly certain but still provide insight - sometimes a great deal of insight - into what's really going on, and in many cases can be used to inform our judgement of the validity of claims.

Really, Penguin, that's fine with me. I'm sure that you and I approach life and truth in similar ways. My objection here is very specific: I think the 'justified, true belief' definition of 'knowledge' is useless and even detrimental to clear thought regarding the nature of knowledge. That's all I've been trying to talk about.

If you think I've distorted your position, then feel free to point out my errors.

Same for you. Rather than accusing me of logical errors with Latin names, maybe you could engage the actual places where I've gone wrong in my thought.

I do think it's a bit hypocritical for you to complain about me "demonizing/distorting" your position, though, since this is most of what you've been doing to me for the last few pages, IMO.

A curious thing. You don't realize that the only reason I accused you of a logical fallacy was because I had tired of you repeatedly doing so to me?

 

[Falvlun]

Yes, the word "know" is of limited usefulness. I don't see why this is such a mental roadblock for you.

Rather, the JTB definition of knowledge is of limited use. So why not use a defintion that is actually useful?