(September 13, 2020 at 8:36 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(September 13, 2020 at 7:58 am)Angrboda Wrote: Producing such a knowledge claim would be a valid method of supporting your initial assertion.  So, produce an example of a knowledge claim that we know to be true apart from feeling that we know and I will accept, at least provisionally, that you have supported your initial assertion.  Failing that, I'm left to conclude that at this stage I have no reason to conclude that your assertion is true except perhaps ipse dixit.



I have, and I noted something that I thought to remark upon earlier, which is that you seem to be conflating truth and knowledge.  The specific example you gave was being alive.  You said, ""I am alive" is not knowledge, it's not true - it's just a feeling."  It's possible for the proposition, "I'm alive," to be true without it being knowledge.  Truth and knowledge are different animals.  So while under most conceptions of knowledge, it is necessary for something to be true if it is knowledge, the reverse is not true.  Truth and knowledge aren't interchangeable.


I don't know that they're necessarily mutually exclusive, so it's possible that your question represents a false dichotomy.  Without knowing whether it is or isn't a false dichotomy, I can't answer the question.  I'm not asserting one way or the other.  You are.  Which leads us back to the above questions which must be resolved, therefore, before this question here can be resolved.  You've got the cart ahead of the horse.

Do you know any of that?  Is a single proposition in that entire post a cognitive proposition...or do you feel a certain way about a thing?

If you feel that any sentence in any of your posts is the kind of thing that can be true or false, then it seems silly to ask me to produce yet another example of such a claim to knowledge, doesn't it?  Your (our, housecat's) claims to knowledge may be mistaken, but they are, at least, claims to knowledge which arise from something other than feeling a certain way about a thing, even if you also happen to feel certain ways about things.  

The set of cognitive propositions is not exhausted by true things that we don't feel any certain way about - just as the set of even numbers is not exhausted by numbers that end in 2, even though there are a hell of alot of 2's in the set of even numbers.

You're conflating truth and knowledge again. Many of the things I posted could be true or false. That alone doesn't make them knowledge. And asking if I feel any of them are true is pretty fucking ridiculous if, as you assert, knowing things based on a feeling is not knowledge; if what you say is true, none of that is knowledge if it depends upon my feeling a certain way about it, and so none of them constitute knowledge claims.

Your knowledge may not be true, but your knowledge may not arise from feeling a certain way about a thing, regardless of whether it's true or untrue. Ostensibly, you can get things wrong by possessing the wrong set of facts, or a set of innacurate claims purported to be facts. GIGO.

Do you think that any single sentence that you've posted to me can be true or false, or do they all resolve to you feeling a certain way about a thing? Do you think it's true, or could be true, for example, that I'm conflating truth and knowledge, or do you feel a certain way about a thing? Could you be wrong about that, or do you feel a certain way about a thing? Do you think that you made no knowledge claim when you stated as much? Could that be true or false, or do you feel a certain way about a thing? Could you be wrong about that, or do you feel a certain way about a thing?

If you're hoping that I'm going to argue with your stubborn feelings, you'll continue to feel disappointed. If, otoh, you think that we're having a discussion about facts, whether we get the facts right or wrong, there is a categorical difference between the two, just as there's a categorical difference between all the numbers that end in 2 in the set of even numbers, and the rest of them.

(September 13, 2020 at 9:27 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Your knowledge may not be true,[*] but your knowledge may not arise from feeling a certain way about a thing, regardless of whether it's true or untrue.  Ostensibly, you can get things wrong by possessing the wrong set of facts, or a set of innacurate claims purported to be facts.  GIGO.

Do you think that any single sentence that you've posted to me can be true or false, or do they all resolve to you feeling a certain way about a thing?  Do you think it's true, or could be true, for example, that I'm conflating truth and knowledge, or do you feel a certain way about a thing?  Could you be wrong about that, or do you feel a certain way about a thing?  Do you think that you made no knowledge claim when you stated as much?  Could that be true or false, or do you feel a certain way about a thing?  Could you be wrong about that, or do you feel a certain way about a thing?

If you're hoping that I'm going to argue with your stubborn feelings, you'll continue to feel disappointed.  If, otoh, you think that we're having a discussion about facts, whether we get the facts right or wrong, there is a categorical difference between the two, just as there's a categorical difference between all the numbers that end in 2 in the set of even numbers, and the rest of them.

You're right. I misspoke. I should have said that you seem to be conflating truth and knowledge. I believe you are conflating truth and knowledge. I don't know that you are conflating truth and knowledge, if I understand your definition of knowledge correctly. Thus, it is not a knowledge claim in this context. I withdraw the claim as I hadn't intended it as a knowledge claim in the sense that you seem to understand knowledge claims.

Please proceed.

[*] Parenthetical: Knowledge is by definition true. False knowledge is an oxymoron. I think what you mean to say is that you may be mistaken in thinking you possess knowledge, when in fact you do not. Although if that isn't what you meant, feel free to correct me.

Can your beliefs be true or false, or do they resolve to feeling a certain way about a thing?

(Human beings hold lots of paradoxical concepts in mind. False knowledge is common. You can't be mistaken in thinking that you possess knowledge, if you think you possess knowledge. That's a true fact. You do think that. Neither of us imagines the human mind to be a prime example of strictly logical processes, I'm sure.)

(September 13, 2020 at 12:51 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Can your beliefs be true or false, or do they resolve to feeling a certain way about a thing?

(Human beings hold lots of paradoxical concepts in mind.  False knowledge is common.  You can't be mistaken in thinking that you possess knowledge, if you think you possess knowledge.  That's a true fact.  You do think that.)

I'm likely not going to get back to you for a couple days, so be forewarned. My beliefs can be true without them being knowledge, so I'm sorry, but I don't see this as leading anywhere. I may believe I'm the sexiest Asian dumpling for 64 city blocks. It may be true that I am the sexiest Asian dumpling for 64 city blocks. I don't at present know that I am the sexiest Asian dumpling for 64 city blocks, and my feeling or not feeling something won't make a lick of difference in that regard. Though if you want to try to persuade me that I am justified in believing that I am the sexiest Asian dumpling for 64 city blocks, I'm willing to listen to your case.

As to the latter, of course you can be mistaken in thinking that you possess knowledge. You think that you think that you possess knowledge, and you can't be mistaken in that (or if you can, it's not something I intend to argue for at this time). I may think that I possess justified true belief that the moon is made of green cheese because a Republican is in the White House. I would be mistaken in believing that the moon being made of green cheese was justified by the fact of Trump's presidency. A Republican in the White House doesn't logically entail the moon being made of green cheese, or at least, not obviously so, so my belief that I have justified true belief, aka knowledge, is mistaken (failing some fact being shown that a Republican being in the White House does in fact entail the moon being made of green cheese; said fact would need to be present, though).

No worries.

So long as your beliefs can be true or false, then they are categorically different from feeling a certain way about a thing - which is not a cognitive proposition at all. As you note, feeling a certain way about a thing won't alter the truth value of that same thing, though I imagine it's great for self esteem.

(September 12, 2020 at 9:10 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(September 12, 2020 at 8:10 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: In other words, my atheism will continue, as long as theists continue to fail to meet their burden of proof to support their claims that a god exists.

In writing this, you demonstrate that you have a belief system.

Usually in philosophy, "I believe it" means "I hold it to be true." And a belief system is a set of things you hold to be true. 

I never said I don't have a belief system. I said, atheism is not a belief system.

Reading comprehension is a thing, you know...

Yes, I agree, belief is the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition to be true, or likely true.

Quote:One of the things we hold to be true is: "what constitutes good evidence?" or "what would have to be evident to constitute proof?" These are not things that people are born with. They are learned. One person from one culture will hold it to be true that a dream constitutes good evidence, while someone from another culture will hold it to be true that evidence must always be repeatable empirical quantifiable science-type evidence. Each person has a set of values or standards of evaluation that he uses, and these are a part of his belief system. Mr. A believes that tradition and authority constitute good evidence, while Mr. B believes that such things are insufficient. That's belief.

When I use the term 'good standards of evidence', I am describing a method to demonstrate the truth of a claim. Please define what you accept good standards of evidence to be.

I don't care if some culture considers a dream good evidence, can they demonstrate it? If their dream does not reliably: predict events, describe shared reality accurately, (or whatever other thing they are claiming their dream is good evidence for), how is that good evidence?

Is using tradition and authority a reliable path to truth? How can it be, when there are, and have been, thousands of traditions and authorities, all different, and mostly contradictory?

Quote:So when you say that theists have never met the burden of proof, you are showing that you have beliefs about what constitutes good proof. 

Yes, I believe that good standards of evidence are that, which would demonstrate that their god claims are true, or likely true. What standard of evidence do you think would reliably demonstrate one of the various god claims is true?

2 Billion Christians use: tradition, ancient texts, authority, faith to come to their god beliefs, 1.5 billion Muslims use: tradition, ancient texts, authority, faith to come to their god beliefs, 1.1 billion Hindus use: tradition, ancient texts, authority, faith to come to their god beliefs, same for Jews, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, etc.

If theistic ideas of good evidence were reliable, how can they lead the entire population of the planet to vastly differing beliefs?

Do you sincerely believe that: tradition, authority, ancient texts, faith, etc have the same epistemological standing as: demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic? Do you sincerely believe that the former are as reliable as the latter?

Quote:And since religious claims are seldom science-type claims, your beliefs about evidence constitute metaphysical beliefs. It is a statement of metaphysics to say that reliable knowledge from divine revelation is impossible, for example.

It is not my fault that a god or gods, do not understand good epistemology. As far as I can tell, either they are purposely hiding, they don't care if I know they exist, or they don't exist.

I never stated or claimed that "divine revelation is impossible". I am almost certain it doesn't exist, though. As soon as it is demonstrated to exist, I will accept it.

It is unreliable, though. How can it be reliable when: 2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Muslims, 1.1 billion Hindus, etc, all have claims of divine revaluation in some form or another, and they all differ? Not to mention, that there are thousands of sects of Christianity alone, and many of them disagree in major portions of doctrine. So, even 'divine revelation' within one religion is far from reliable.

I am willing to believe it, as soon as it can be demonstrated. Until it is demonstrated, what should be my warrant to accept it as being true? I have no idea whether it is impossible or not. But, how did you determine that it is possible?

Please list any other circumstance, beside god claims and belief, where you think that some metaphysical method would lead to reliable results.

How would this metaphysical method reliably differentiate between all the different god claims, to show that one of them is more likely to be true? Or if any of them are?

Could this method rule out belief in other, none god related claims? Such as: bigfoot, alien abductions, Tarot, crystal healing, Jinn, ghosts, etc, etc? After all, all these types of claims could also be believed by methods that do not include demonstrable evidence, and valid and sound logic.

Funny thing is, many theists, will dismiss many if not all, of all these types of claims, for much the same reasons I dismiss god claims. Lack of evidence.

Quote:So you do have a set of beliefs, and this is intrinsic to your atheism. 

Yes, as I stated above, I do have a set of beliefs.

My atheism is simply not being convinced of theist claims that gods exist.

I do have a set of beliefs, that lead me to my atheism.

I have 2 presuppositions:

1. that there is a shared objective reality
2. the logical absolutes are true

Theists also agree with these presuppositions, but they add several more. like: god[s] exist, and there is a supernatural realm. Mine are much more parsimonious, or as William of Ockham stated, "entities should not be multiplied without necessity".

Among my other beliefs are: there is no warrant to believe an existential claim without demonstrable evidence, and valid and sound logic to support the claim.

Quote:I think that a lot of atheists would be improved as critical thinkers if they acknowledged their own beliefs and standards of judgment, rather than pretending that their minds are at some sort of default setting. They are not.

I don't think I ever ran across an atheist that believes this. But, there are tools we have, that can go along way to decreasing and/or eliminating our biases.

(September 13, 2020 at 3:41 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Yes, as I stated above, I do have a set of beliefs.

My atheism is simply not being convinced of theist claims that gods exist.

I do have a set of beliefs, that lead me to my atheism. 

Thank you, we are in agreement about this.

You originally stated "my atheism will continue, as long as theists continue to fail to meet their burden of proof to support their claims that a god exists." A surprising number of people on this forum seem to think that when they say someone has failed to meet a burden of proof, there is no reason to give any explanation of why that's so, or what standards they use to make the judgment. As if it should be self-evident even to people who are unaware of any criteria for evaluating claims. 

If I were going to write a similar sentence, I might add a little for extra clarity, to avoid certain misunderstandings that others have made. I'd say something like: "my atheism will continue, as long as theists continue to fail to meet their burden of proof according to the criteria I used to evaluate their claims." Naturally, they think they have met a burden of proof, which we disagree with, so the subject turns into how we demonstrate or dispute the truth of our statements, and not some one-sided judgment passing that gives the impression that our own standards are somehow eternal, indisputable, and obvious to everyone.

The standards of judgment you list in your post all seem very reasonable to me.

If you are reading some of the less reasonable opinions on this forum, you'll see that people sometimes announce that they don't have to have any standards of judgment when they reject the claims of religious people. They just do. Or that if they have standards of judgment, these are just absolutely obvious and need no explanation or defense. I've seen people announce that their atheism is exactly the same as the atheism of a newborn baby or a ham sandwich, rather than a considered position based on standards of judgment.

So I thank you for taking the time to explain your criteria.

As usual, your beliefs about atheism and it's origins could only apply to people who become atheists by assessing whatever it is they do believe. Some of us just never believed in gods from the getgo. Plenty of other ridiculous shit, just not gods. Ive always been amused by your inability to believe that people might believe or not believe something for no particular reason, lol.

Have you come up with any reason to believe that preschoolers engage in elaborate internal rational dialogue, like we might see on these boards, for example?

(September 11, 2020 at 9:57 am)rockyrockford Wrote: extremely interesting statement "...Is this question ever going to tie back to not believing in God or gods, the only thing all atheists have in common?..."

My question to an atheist is not "why don't you have "eternal faith in God", but what do you have "eternal faith" in? If anything. If you feel that that the word "faith" is more of a religious term, then it would be very hard for you to relate to the question about faith. It wouldn't apply to you, it would be an unfair question. 

Would it be safe to say, that an atheist doesn't have "eternal faith" in anything...not even nature will last, our sun will eventually burn out a bazillion years from now.

Great Post !! Thank you!!

I'm willing to go with 'eternal faith' as a trust similar to that which gnostic monotheists hold in God or particularly strict religious people hold in their dogma, as a trust that can't be conceived to be misplaced. I don't have that kind of faith in anything. The available evidence suggests that our sun will eventually burn out and after trillions of years all that will remain of matter and energy in the universe is an ever-expanding and thinning barely detectable scattering of photons. But if evidence were found tomorrow that overturned that conception of the future of the sun and the universe, I would change my opinion to match the new evidence rather than hold on to my previous conception. I think that willingness to change opinions to match our ever-increasing but always-finite knowledge of reality is a virtue. Of course, that's not my position as an atheist, it's my position as a rational skeptic.