how do you forgive yourself?

[Jeffonthenet]

I really read your post and tried to respond honestly. I am sorry if I overlooked something. I appreciate you taking the time to respond again, but I do not agree with you that you assume certain basic beliefs simply because you must do so to live your life. I think you accept these beliefs because you actually think they are true, not just because you think that they are practical to accept. Even if it is only .0000000001% of your beliefs that you accept as assumption, you must build upon this .000000001% just about every belief you hold, so it is quite significant.

By basic logical truths I mean things like the law of non-contradiction--probably the most basic of all logical laws. It states that A cannot be both A and not-A in the same time and in the same sense. It seems to me, and I believe most all philosophers agree with me that logical laws like this law cannot be demonstrated without assuming it.

You are actually more right than wrong. I feel these beliefs to be true, to an extent. They are the weakest beliefs I have, but like you said, they constitute a huge portion of my belief structure. The justification for the belief is typically the need for the belief because the belief in question is an a priori issue. Sometimes that issue is self evidence. Meanings of words, memory, perception- these are things that can't be justified.
Derrida and Rorty have ripped some foundationalist principals to shreds, being post structuralist.
Regardless, either you suppose these truths with me, or you live in the world of a radical skeptic.

I appreciate the thoughtful response. It is true that not accepting basic beliefs would lead to radical skepticism, but ultimately that is not a rational reason to believe in them. Simply because radical skepticism is the result of not believing X, it doesn't follow that X false. However, if it is true that we do actually know these basic beliefs to be true based on some sort of intuition it is possible to be both a rational person and to not be a radical skeptic who does not even know if his wife exists or if shoes are made to go on feet. My point is that we can know things apart from argument.

---

If I had an atomic watch it was highly unlikely that I was mistaken. Likewise, it could be that one could have a bona-fide experience of God and with it would come the certainty similar to that of having an atomic watch. I cannot produce the experience and likewise I cannot produce the watch.

So with the possibility that you might be lying, or simply mistaken, seeing that you are unable to demonstrate your claim, why should someone who disagrees with you believe your claim?

It might be that people who know me and trust me ought to believe it. I am not saying that you should, but it is possible that you have some Christians in your life that you are in this situation with.

---

Faithnomore, I appreciate the time you took to give a reasoned response. However, I still disagree and let me tell you why. You say that one is justified in saying that there is only one medicine to cure a disease because it can be scientifically proven while mine faith cannot. You say also say, "your religion… cannot be verified, so it must not be believed in."

You seem to be saying that things which cannot be verified by the scientific method should not be believed in. However, this statement itself cannot be verified by the scientific method. Neither can things like the existence of the past, basic logic. And it doesn't follow that these things are irrational to believe in because they cannot be verified by the scientific method.

No problem, and you make an interesting point here that has also been brought up before in other threads. Since I am not educated in formal logic, I do not know how to formally prove my belief that the past is as my memory recalls, however, I personally believe in my memory's validity due to the fact that every time I have acted as if my memory is valid, I have received positive results. So, yes, it would be arrogant for me to claim for certain that my memory is valid, but I'm sure others are able to prove that formally.

The proof of this sort of thing is the domain of philosophy, and from what I know about it, no one has been able to do this. Philosophers used to think that they could do this sort of thing, but I don't think anymore. After all, what do you know that does not presuppose your memory? To even say, as you do, that you trust your memory because every time you have acted as if your memory is valid you see positive results, is to presuppose that your memory of such acting is valid. Therefore, your conclusion: "my memory is reliable," is presupposed in your argument, and therefore, your argument is circular.

[The Grand Nudger]

Faithnomore, I appreciate the reasoned response. However, I would say that absolute certainty about something is not necessary to justify belief in that something. I think you also run into the danger of presupposing your conclusion as from the fact that our brains can play tricks upon us, it doesn't follow that all experience of God is a trick. It seems to me that this argument may also be used for one to be skeptical about any belief you hold as it can always be said that this belief may be false because our brains play tricks upon us.

bolding mine

Ding ding ding ding! Whadda we have for him Johhny? One could, btw Jeff, plan to act as though their memories were trustworthy sometime in the future, make that plan known publicly, and then court multiple sources of verification for both their acts and their reasons for undertaking them after the fact (this would also help to determine whether or not there was an "after the fact" to begin with). One need not presuppose, you could actually propose the polar opposite, that our memories are not trustworthy (and we have done precisely this sort of thing in trying to determine how accurate our memories can be said to be).