Epistemology, the standards of truth

[Quiddity]

Because truth derived in this way has a tendancy to be "not-true". It is the epistemology of tradition which has no way to acheive truth.

Mere opinion.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

Mere opinion.

~Victor

Another thread? I'd love to see your opinion of the criteria of truth.

 

[Quiddity]

Another thread? I'd love to see your opinion of the criteria of truth.

Not sure what you are planning to accomplish here. There is volumes written on this and you know this I'm sure. It really does come down to I believe and trust in the Church. I'm not sure how you plan to get around that.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

Not sure what you are planning to accomplish here. There is volumes written on this and you know this I'm sure. It really does come down to I believe and trust in the Church. I'm not sure how you plan to get around that.

~Victor

What you believe is evidence that can be evaluated for truth. Tradition and revelation are not the best standards of truth.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What you believe is evidence that can be evaluated for truth. Tradition and revelation are not the best standards of truth.

That depends on which truth we are looking for. History is an interesting excersize. It may be considered scientific, but it MUST access traditions in order to do its work. It is both a science and a philosophy at the same time. With history, tradition is the only standard, (edit) however criticized and revised, history evaluates tradition and makes up new traditions as it is revised.

So I agree with you. Tradition by itself is not the best standard of truth, but it is the only standard that we have for history.

 

[Pah]

....Tradition by itself is not the best standard of truth, but it is the only standard that we have for history.

That is not true. According to Epistemolgy, we have, among other citeria, Authority - in which the credentials of the historian are considered. The problem with authority as a standard is that those in authority on the vast majority of topics are a dime a dozen and can differ from one another.

There are other standards that can be applied to the truth of a particular historian. Correspondence and Coherence to reality.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That is not true. According to Epistemolgy, we have, among other citeria, Authority - in which the credentials of the historian are considered. The problem with authority as a standard is that those in authority on the vast majority of topics are a dime a dozen and can differ from one another.

There are other standards that can be applied to the truth of a particular historian. Correspondence and Coherence to reality.

All historians can do is review traditions. I am agreeing with you, Pah.

The root of history is tradition. While we cannot uncritically accept tradition as truth, tradition is the substance of history. Tradition is the loci of *historical* truth. Without tradition, there is nothing for historians to reivew, and the work of history would not exist.

 

[Quiddity]

That is not true. According to Epistemolgy, we have, among other citeria, Authority - in which the credentials of the historian are considered. The problem with authority as a standard is that those in authority on the vast majority of topics are a dime a dozen and can differ from one another.

Very true, but there is a system designed to correct that in RC theology. That's why it's mind blowing to me that they aren't teaching about Quatum Unicorn Farts with all the choas that goes sometimes.

Can you clearly spell out what it is you are asking or aiming for so I understand please.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

[/color]

Very true, but there is a system designed to correct that in RC theology. That's why it's mind blowing to me that they aren't teaching about Quatum Unicorn Farts with all the choas that goes sometimes.

Can you clearly spell out what it is you are asking or aiming for so I understand please.

~Victor
[/color]

You humor is too caustic to be funny and is based on nothing.

I do not have to pick on your theology - there is no theological system that corrects the faults of tradition or revelation without trying to bring in another faulty standard.

I'm surprised you made previous comments, if you didn't understand clearly. But to re-establish the topic. Tradition can not be called true nor can relevlation. Since you have called upon these two standards of truth, it is up to you to show that they are reliable.

 

[Pah]

All historians can do is review traditions. I am agreeing with you, Pah.

The root of history is tradition. While we cannot uncritically accept tradition as truth, tradition is the substance of history. Tradition is the loci of *historical* truth. Without tradition, there is nothing for historians to reivew, and the work of history would not exist.

I was thinking that facts in primary documents can be judged according to corresponence. It's picky, I know, but more in keeping with Epistemology

 

[michel]

I don't know the circumstances of how this thread arose, but no doubt it was religion - related.

http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/religion-epistemology/

Contemporary epistemology of religion may conveniently be treated as a debate over whether evidentialism applies to the belief-component of religious faith, or whether we should instead adopt a more permissive epistemology. Here by ‘evidentialism’ I mean the initially plausible position that a belief is justified only if "it is proportioned to the evidence". Evidentialism implies that it is not justified to have a full religious belief unless there is conclusive evidence for it. It follows that if the known arguments for there being a God, including any arguments from religious experience, are at best probable ones, no one would be justified in having full belief that there is a God. And the same holds for other religious beliefs, such as the Christian belief that Jesus was God incarnate. Likewise, it would not be justified to believe even with less than full confidence if there is not a balance of evidence for belief.

Does that sound right ?

 

[nutshell]

I don't know the circumstances of how this thread arose, but no doubt it was religion - related.

http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/religion-epistemology/

Contemporary epistemology of religion may conveniently be treated as a debate over whether evidentialism applies to the belief-component of religious faith, or whether we should instead adopt a more permissive epistemology. Here by ‘evidentialism’ I mean the initially plausible position that a belief is justified only if "it is proportioned to the evidence". Evidentialism implies that it is not justified to have a full religious belief unless there is conclusive evidence for it. It follows that if the known arguments for there being a God, including any arguments from religious experience, are at best probable ones, no one would be justified in having full belief that there is a God. And the same holds for other religious beliefs, such as the Christian belief that Jesus was God incarnate. Likewise, it would not be justified to believe even with less than full confidence if there is not a balance of evidence for belief.

Does that sound right ?

Then where does faith fit in?

 

[Pah]

Then where does faith fit in?

Faith is the acceptence of evidence apart from logic and reasoning.

 

[Quiddity]

You humor is too caustic to be funny and is based on nothing.

I do not have to pick on your theology - there is no theological system that corrects the faults of tradition or revelation without trying to bring in another faulty standard.

You only need to be corrected if the cup of dogma is spilled and you get it wrong. Don't believe that can happen. So what's next?

I'm surprised you made previous comments, if you didn't understand clearly. But to re-establish the topic. Tradition can not be called true nor can relevlation. Since you have called upon these two standards of truth, it is up to you to show that they are reliable.

I understood the section I responded too. But I am unsure as to how you see or understand Tradition and that is why I asked for clarification.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Faith is the acceptence of evidence apart from logic and reasoning.

Absolutely incorrect. Faith builds upon reason and is within the rules of logic.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

I don't know the circumstances of how this thread arose, but no doubt it was religion - related.

http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/religion-epistemology/

Contemporary epistemology of religion may conveniently be treated as a debate over whether evidentialism applies to the belief-component of religious faith, or whether we should instead adopt a more permissive epistemology. Here by ‘evidentialism’ I mean the initially plausible position that a belief is justified only if "it is proportioned to the evidence". Evidentialism implies that it is not justified to have a full religious belief unless there is conclusive evidence for it. It follows that if the known arguments for there being a God, including any arguments from religious experience, are at best probable ones, no one would be justified in having full belief that there is a God. And the same holds for other religious beliefs, such as the Christian belief that Jesus was God incarnate. Likewise, it would not be justified to believe even with less than full confidence if there is not a balance of evidence for belief.

Does that sound right ?

The article, it seems to me, is an attempt to divorce religious belief from Epistemology. But with any discussion of truth, the standards apply

 

[Pah]

[/color]

You only need to be corrected if the cup of dogma is spilled and you get it wrong. Don't believe that can happen. So what's next?
...
~Victor

You have to apply the standards to dogma as well. And that relies on relevaltion. Even the truth of the Bible is acheived by revelation. There is nothing religious that can claim truth except by revelation.

I should hasten to add - personal revelation

 

[Pah]

Absolutely incorrect. Faith builds upon reason and is within the rules of logic.

~Victor

:sigh: that's not the standard definition of faith. There is absolutley no logic to the risen Christ. Logic is strained by a virgin birth.

Logic requires that all assumption be true.

 

[Quiddity]

You have to apply the standards to dogma as well. And that relies on relevaltion. Even the truth of the Bible is acheived by revelation. There is nothing religious that can claim truth except by revelation.

I should hasten to add - personal revelation

What is the point of applying the standard to something that can't be measured Pah? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure if you and I went step by step we would agree in many but agree in some. Dogma is the standard.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

What is the point of applying the standard to something that can't be measured Pah? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure if you and I went step by step we would agree in many but agree in some. Dogma is the standard.

~Victor

Ah but it can be measured - measured by a better standard that you have yet to address.