Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics! What are your sources of knowledge?

[Quintessence]

That's absolutely how I'd define reality, it is what is left when people take away their assumptions, assertions and claims. It's what actually exists beyond human perception. I don't think it's at all philosophical.

Like I said, it is not my intent to derail this thread into a discussion of the nature of reality - which is, regardless of what you think, a subject of philosophical debate to this day. Specifically, it's the central focus of ontology. You're making an assumption, assertion, and claim about the nature of reality whether you recognize it or not, and that's quite philosophical.

I never know which ontological framework a person is operating from when they say that word "reality." If a person is deriving knowledge from reality, which reality or parts of reality are they talking about? It's a relevant question, and I think it is a good idea for people who say "I derive knowledge from reality" to clarify what they mean by that.

 

[paarsurrey]

Answering the second stage questions (page # 3 post # 41 in this thread )

I'm not an atheist, but I'll give this a try. I get my knowledge from books, the Internet, television, people directly telling me things, reasoning and first-hand experience.

(1) I really don't know where to begin when it comes to calculating the percent accuracy of my sources. Some are probably very accurate while others are not.
(2) Nope.
(3) They don't. I just accept that I can't know anything with 100% certainty.
(4) Maybe. There might be some that I'm forgetting.

Thanks for your response.

For example let us classify three types of knowledge, knowledge by certainty of reason, knowledge by certainty of sight, and knowledge by certainty of experience.

This might be illustrated like thus:

1. When a person perceives smoke from a distance his mind conceives that smoke and fire are inseparable, and therefore where there is smoke there must be fire also. This would be knowledge by the certainty of reason.

2. Then on a nearer approach one sees the flames of the fire and that is knowledge by the certainty of sight.

3. Should one enter one’s hand into the fire, that would be knowledge by the certainty of experience.

Which one of the above gives 100% certainty to one, in your opinion?

Regards

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, I wouldn't. Personal beliefs and faith that vary from reality are simply wrong. I don't care how strongly one believe in leprechauns, that doesn't make leprechauns exist. Anyone who believes in something for which there is no evidence has an unwarranted and irrational belief. That is not something to be proud of.

Well exactly. Same goes for atheistic beliefs- how do you separate them from reality if you do not acknowledge them as personal beliefs at all?

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself..

 

[Quintessence]

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself..

That... is kind of brilliant, actually. And probably one of the best takes on blind faith I've ever seen. Blind faith is what people have when they don't even know they're having faith at all. They've made background assumptions somewhere that they're completely oblivious - hence blind - to.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That... is kind of brilliant, actually. And probably one of the best takes on blind faith I've ever seen. Blind faith is what people have when they don't even know they're having faith at all. They've made background assumptions somewhere that they're completely oblivious - hence blind - to.

Thanks- I should probably quit on that positive note!

But a good example is Hoyle V Lemaitre-

Hoyle and other atheists rejected and mocked Lemaitre's theory as 'big bang' explicitly for the overt theistic implications they saw at the time. i.e. directly because of their own beliefs. While Lemaitre went out of his way to disassociate his faith with his theory- because he could.

 

[Cephus]

Well exactly. Same goes for atheistic beliefs- how do you separate them from reality if you do not acknowledge them as personal beliefs at all?

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself..

There's a difference between holding a belief for the sake of a belief and holding a belief that is a reflection of demonstrable reality. I accept that which is best supported and my beliefs are open to change as we get new information. Those are not the same kind of beliefs as religious beliefs, which are largely not open to change.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Those are not the same kind of beliefs as religious beliefs, which are largely not open to change.

Anyone who believes in something for which there is no evidence has an unwarranted and irrational belief. That is not something to be proud of.

That's what prevents one being open to change, denigrating the alternative belief as something to be ashamed of. This is only to concede that you can never change your mind no matter the evidence, because that would make you 'irrational' and any other derogatory labels you had assigned to it.

That's why Hoyle rejected the Big Bang till his dying day.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which one of the above gives 100% certainty to one, in your opinion?

Regards

None, actually.

 

[paarsurrey]

How could we even know we have 100% reliability? It is just not possible.

Is near 100% possible?
If not.
How much reality is possible ?

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

How would you even measure it? What would a number even mean?

 

[Willamena]

Science, facts and reality.

Yes, and ultimately truth.

 

[paarsurrey]

How would you even measure it? What would a number even mean?

I just meant an estimation.

The example was knowing about fire.

• If one sees smoke arising from a house, one could guess there is 25% (approximately) chance that there is fire somewhere in the House as one knows that smoke rises when there is fire.This would be knowledge by the certainty of reason.
• If one goes near the house and sees with one's won eyes the fire. One would be 75% (approximately) sure of fire. This is knowledge by the certainty of sight.
• If one puts one's hands and feel the burning of the fire, one would get 100% (approximately) certainty of fire. This is knowledge by the certainty of experience.

How would you go about for gaining certainty of knowledge of something? Please.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

I just meant an estimation.

The example was knowing about fire.

• If one sees smoke arising from a house, one could guess there is 25% (approximately) chance that there is fire somewhere in the House as one knows that smoke rises when there is fire.This would be knowledge by the certainty of reason.
• If one goes near the house and sees with one's won eyes the fire. One would be 75% (approximately) sure of fire. This is knowledge by the certainty of sight.
• If one puts one's hands and feel the burning of the fire, one would get 100% (approximately) certainty of fire. This is knowledge by the certainty of experience.

How would you go about for gaining certainty of knowledge of something? Please.

Regards

Oh, you mean in a "how often it is true" sense?

In that sense, certainty isn't really attainable, even after the fact. For the most part we try to obtain independent verification of our perceptions and look for consistency in various measurements and along time.

 

[paarsurrey]

Oh, you mean in a "how often it is true" sense?

In that sense, certainty isn't really attainable, even after the fact. For the most part we try to obtain independent verification of our perceptions and look for consistency in various measurements and along time.

I don't get you exactly.

I will explain again.

For knowledge by certainty of reason, one has made no personal experience with one's senses, one has just heard about it or read about it that where there is smoke, there will be fire also .and one is applying this information/reason generated on a specific incident.

For knowledge with certainty with seeing, one has gone a step further and for investigation has gone near the site so that one could use the flames of fire with one's senses to find the truth.

For the next, one has ascertained certainty besides the above two (reason + senses) one has experienced the burning effect of the fire. So it is the maximum level of certainty a human could achieve. It is knowledge by certainty of experience.

Or now, you please suggest the process as to how one gains certainty?
In easy language as English is not my mother tongue.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Or now, you please suggest the process as to how one gains certainty?
In easy language as English is not my mother tongue.

Regards

One doesn't really.

It is very human to seek certainty, but we can't truly reach it.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science, facts and reality.

Science is a specific domain dealing in things physical and material. It does not cover whole of human life.
How an Atheist/Agnostic/Skeptic accesses facts and reality to gain certainty of knowledge in other domains not covered by science? Please

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Science is a specific domain dealing in things physical and material. It does not cover whole of human life.

That is true. But if certainty is a concern, science is as good as it gets.

When we need certainty outside science's scope, far as I know we just can't have it. A leap of faith is as close as we can achieve then.

How an Atheist/Agnostic/Skeptic accesses facts and reality to gain certainty of knowledge in other domains not covered by science? Please

Regards

We do not. It is not possible.

In that, I don't think we are any different from anyone else.

 

[paarsurrey]

Renji said:↑

Science, facts and reality.

Yes, and ultimately truth.

Truth is the source of knowledge.

The same question as asked in the preceding post from friend Rengi. Please add truth also.

Regards

 

[Cephus]

That's what prevents one being open to change, denigrating the alternative belief as something to be ashamed of. This is only to concede that you can never change your mind no matter the evidence, because that would make you 'irrational' and any other derogatory labels you had assigned to it.

That's why Hoyle rejected the Big Bang till his dying day.

No, actually, it isn't something that one should be ashamed of unless the alternative is reasonable. Given two equally likely alternatives, both supported by objective evidence, picking one just because it emotionally appeals to you isn't something that a rational person ought to be proud of. However, given two unequal alternatives, one supported by evidence, the other not, not only should you not be ashamed for picking the better supported choice, you should openly disdain anyone who picks the less likely alternative, simply because they happen to be emotionally attached to it.

Hoyle rejected the Big Bang because he had an emotional attachment to his own pet idea, one that had no evidence to support it. Hoyle and Wickramsinghe were simply wrong.

 

[Cephus]

One doesn't really.

It is very human to seek certainty, but we can't truly reach it.

And rational people understand that and don't pretend to achieve, or even seek, absolute certainty. That's the mark of an intellectually mature individual.