Logic VS, Faith

[PureX]

Christian beliefs have been passed along as traditional beliefs to children. Their parents, their priests, their ministers are the authority figures. The choices to which you refer are adult choices. I'd guess those are in the minority.

As adults, we all choose to either stay with what we've been taught, or not. And I think most of us do that based on whether or not the belief serves our agenda.

 

[Sunstone]

Your definition? Or do you have an agree upon definition to back this up?

For over 2,000 years the agreed upon definition of 'knowledge' among philosophers has been "a justified true belief". Since the 1960s, many philosophers have added a highly technical qualification to that definition called a 'Gettier Defeat', but the millennia old definition is still the core definition.

 

[Sunstone]

If you have evidence, you have knowledge, not belief.

Exactly! Assuming the evidence is true (which is the usual assumption).

 

[Sunstone]

An example, you have faith the sun is going to rise in the morning. Why is this?

The Scottish philosopher David Hume famously had no faith the sun would rise tomorrow. See the 'problem of induction'.

 

[PureX]

Coosing something which is obviously false is superstition, ignorance and foolishness and not faith. For example, believing in existence of ghosts.

The "obviously false" part is different for different people.

 

[joe1776]

As adults, we all choose to either stay with what we've been taught, or not. And I think most of us do that based on whether or not the belief serves our agenda.

I don't know of any poll that would support me; but purely from discussions with Christians I've met, they stay with their beliefs because they're afraid to abandon them.

When I've told Catholic friends or relatives that I long ago abandoned the Catholic faith, and they put themselves in my shoes, I've seen fear on their faces before they even speak.

 

[Sunstone]

You cannot have faith without using logic.

I can. But then mom always said I was 'gifted'.


(Of course, mom would always add a moment or two later, "With what, no one knows.")

 

[SalixIncendium]

For over 2,000 years the agreed upon definition of 'knowledge' among philosophers has been "a justified true belief". Since the 1960s, many philosophers have added a highly technical qualification to that definition called a 'Gettier Defeat', but the millennia old definition is still the core definition.

Thank you for pointing this out. But to say knowledge is belief is akin to saying (forgive the lame analogy, but it's early and I've yet to finish my first cup of coffee) that pickup trucks are cars, which is not accurate. Pickup trucks are cars with a heavy duty suspension and a bed to haul cargo. To in any way to equate knowledge with belief requires qualifiers, as you stated in your post.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you for pointing this out. But to say knowledge is belief is akin to saying (forgive the lame analogy, but it's early and I've yet to finish my first cup of coffee) that pickup trucks are cars, which is not accurate. Pickup trucks are cars with a heavy duty suspension and a bed to haul cargo. To in any way to equate knowledge with belief requires qualifiers, as you stated in your post.

If there are no justified true beliefs, there is no knowledge. Before you claim knowledge, you have to check if you meet the standard of justified true belief.
We already observed that people can have beliefs, which are not knowledge, so you can't rule out that there is no such thing as knowledge.
So since you claim knowledge, you have to show that you have knowledge and not just write it. Writing that you have knowledge is easy. Check if you have it, is something else.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If there are no justified true beliefs, there is no knowledge. Before you claim knowledge, you have to check if you meet the standard of justified true belief.
We already observed that people can have beliefs, which are not knowledge, so you can't rule out that there is no such thing as knowledge.
So since you claim knowledge, you have to show that you have knowledge and not just write. Writing that you have knowledge is easy. Check if you have it, is something else.

I have knowledge that I authored the post you quoted.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have knowledge that I authored the post you quoted.

Do you have knowledge, that I quoted you? Not what you did, but knowledge of the objective reality? Remember now we are doing philosophy, so I am going to challenge your claims of knowledge.

 

[Sunstone]

Since @Lon hasn't replied yet, let me jump in and unravel this.

I think you've gone beyond the scope of my question, but your 'answer' to it is nevertheless absolutely fascinating -- to say nothing of astute. So, you get a 'winner' rating for that, plus the contents of what's behind door number three. (That's a lame joke -- a reference to an old American game show. )

Miracles don't defy logic directly, they just defy causality.
Causality is the main tool of logic. Thus miracles defy logic.

Brilliant!

Now you might say that miracles do have a cause. (God) The problem is that "goddidit" isn't a logical causal chain. It "explains too much". "Goddidit" can explain any phenomenon and its opposite.
If you had a definition/description of "god" (let's say something like Newtons laws of motion), we could decide if a phenomenon was caused by "god". But then it would also stop being a miracle.

I would rephrase your first point thus: Saying god is the cause of miracles is a circular statement in so far as 'god' is no better defined than as the cause of miracles. (i.e. Miracles are caused by god. How does god cause miracles? By virtue of being god. And around and around we go from there.) Your first point appears to be an excellent one.

Your second point -- I'll have to think about it. My hunch is it's a good one, but there are some intricacies I need to look at.

So, yes, miracles are not compatible with causality and thus not compatible with logic.

Not sure we've exhausted all the possibilities yet. Another thing to look at.

Thank you for an incredibly thought-provoking and illuminating post, Heyo. You rock!

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do you have knowledge, that I quoted you? Not what you did, but knowledge of the objective reality? Remember now we are doing philosophy, so I am going to challenge your claims of knowledge.

I do not. I have some evidence since the post appeared under your username, but it could have been another person that jumped behind the keyboard while you got up to the macarena.

I have subjective knowledge that I authored that post. Objective knowledge would require additional evidence, such as me recording myself authoring the post, which you would not want me to do, because I post naked.

 

[Sunstone]

The "obviously false" part is different for different people.

Yes, and there a people who believe 2 plus 2 equals five. So, the 'truth' of 2 plus 2 is "different for different people". But that does nothing to change the fact that some people are right and other people are wrong. Either there are ghosts or there aren't ghosts. There is no 'There are ghosts for Smith, but no ghosts for Jones'. At least that's how I see it. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Sunstone]

Thank you for pointing this out. But to say knowledge is belief is akin to saying (forgive the lame analogy, but it's early and I've yet to finish my first cup of coffee) that pickup trucks are cars, which is not accurate. Pickup trucks are cars with a heavy duty suspension and a bed to haul cargo. To in any way to equate knowledge with belief requires qualifiers, as you stated in your post.

Right. Knowledge is not the same as belief. Knowledge is the same as justified true belief. Those are two different birds.

 

[Sunstone]

I have knowledge that I authored the post you quoted.

Define "I".



Joking. Just joking!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not. I have some evidence since the post appeared under your username, but it could have been another person that jumped behind the keyboard while you got up to the macarena.

I have subjective knowledge that I authored that post. Objective knowledge would require additional evidence, such as me recording myself authoring the post, which you would not want me to do, because I post naked.

That is still possible that it is not true.

 

[Sunstone]

Do you have knowledge, that I quoted you? Not what you did, but knowledge of the objective reality? Remember now we are doing philosophy, so I am going to challenge your claims of knowledge.

Mikkel, wouldn't "proof" in this case be only one of several possible justifications? I mean, depending on which standard for 'evidence' you are using, @SalixIncendium might offer various different kinds of evidence that you quoted him. To demand absolute certainty, by the way, amounts to a denial of any and all empirical evidence since no empirical evidence is absolutely certain.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The Scottish philosopher David Hume famously had no faith the sun would rise tomorrow. See the 'problem of induction'.

Is that actually true?
I thought it was more an argument of what was established by reason and what by instinct.

Whilst he thought it impossible to reason that the sun would rise tomorrow, I didn't think he precluded having faith that it would. Indeed, to a degree his argument was that it is only faith that makes us believe this will happen.

Or am I mangling his logical position?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel, wouldn't "proof" in this case be only one of several possible justifications? I mean, depending on which standard for 'evidence' you are using, @SalixIncendium might offer various different kinds of evidence that you quoted him. To demand absolute certainty, by the way, amounts to a denial of any and all empirical evidence since no empirical evidence is absolutely certain.

Correct, there is no knowledge as justified true beliefs. There are beliefs, which apparently work. Science is such abelief system, but it is not justified true beliefs. It is either axiomatic/empirical, pragmatic or just culture; a social construct.

The idea of justified true beliefs is just that, an idea, which some people believe in.
To me knowledge is a subset of beliefs. But knowledge is still a belief, which apparently works in regards to the-things-in-themselves as considered real and thus no Matrix, evil demon and what not.
I am a strong general skeptic and I don't believe in knowledge as justified true beliefs.