TV and Religion

[Scarecrow2407]

Back to the original topic..... I enjoy the interjection of christian mythology into my entertainment, as long as it remains just that: entertainment. Along with Greek, Roman, Norse and Native American mythologies, of course. I especially enjoy the show "Firefly", which interjected Buddhism, christianity and a bit of islam in there as well. It was a damn good show and did the christian element well with a character who was a priest (or close enough, anyway), but the captain and majority of the show were agnostic or atheist, if their dialogs were any indication. Just my two cents.

Yours in doubt,
Scarecrow.

[Edwardo Piet]

Objective knowledge is often interpreted as knowledge that it is true regardless of who or what interprets it. It still remains that even if it is objective knowledge, it is not necessarily true.

How can someone hold UNtrue objective knowledge? If God exists then those who believe in him "know" that he exists in the philosophical sense I thought. How can there be any objective knowledge that isn't true?

Knowing, again, does not imply that one is correct in their assumption of truth

But that's subjective knowing.

If there truly is an omniscient God that "knows" everything, then that's in the objective sense so how could it be false?

I thought objective knowledge is something that is absolutely known by definition? As opposed to merely humans thinking they know.

EvF

[Violet]

How can someone hold UNtrue objective knowledge?

How can someone hold objective knowledge in the first place?

There is no such thing. It is a misnomer. Knowledge is necessarily subjective. Even if all of "us" knew the same thing to an equal extent: it can at best be considered inter-subjective.

Oh, and there is no differentiation between untrue objective knowledge and true objective knowledge (for the sake of argument, if it DID exist, though it really cannot). Why would there be?

If God exists then those who believe in him "know" that he exists in the philosophical sense I thought. How can there be any objective knowledge that isn't true?

No... if "God" exists then those who know he exists were right in their knowledge. There is nothing separate, save corretedness. Why should there be any other difference between correct objective knowledge and incorrect objective knowledge? What different occurs save correctness?

But that's subjective knowing.

Of course it is. Can you imagine it otherwise?

If there truly is an omniscient God that "knows" everything, then that's in the objective sense so how could it be false?

Even though it may know everything... it is a wholly different thing to say he is right about everything. Indeed the latter would be contradictory to the last. Think about that for a moment and you'll come up with so many examples it will flatten you.

I thought objective knowledge is something that is absolutely known by definition? As opposed to merely humans thinking they know.

But what is "absolutely known"? A rock doesn't know anything at all... how can such a thing as "absolute" or "objective" knowledge exist in the first place?

And even if a thing could be absolutely known... why should it be any more right than any other knowledge? There seems no reason to think this to me...

[Edwardo Piet]

How can someone hold UNtrue objective knowledge?

How can someone hold objective knowledge in the first place?

There is no such thing. It is a misnomer. Knowledge is necessarily subjective. Even if all of "us" knew the same thing to an equal extent: it can at best be considered inter-subjective.

Oh, and there is no differentiation between untrue objective knowledge and true objective knowledge (for the sake of argument, if it DID exist, though it really cannot). Why would there be?

The philosophical sense of knowledge in the epistemology Wikipedia thread for example, that's about objective knowledge. The way I understand it, if you believe in something and it exists then you hold that knowledge. Philosophical knowledge is different to the general understanding of it. Subjective knowledge isn't really seen as knowledge at all is it? Because we can't really 'know' anything subjectively.

No... if "God" exists then those who know he exists were right in their knowledge.

Which means that that is objective knowledge in the philosophical sense I thought?

If it's just subjective and a matter of opinion then that isn't really 'knowing' that isn't knowledge in the philosophical sense. That's just knowing like when someone claims to know... or when someone says "I know that" about something considered obvious - that's different to philosophical knowledge.

There is nothing separate, save corretedness. Why should there be any other difference between correct objective knowledge and incorrect objective knowledge? What different occurs save correctness?

The correctness is what makes it objective I thought. On the other hand, it merely being subjective and opinion would mean it isn't really knowledge, it's just opinion.

Of course it is. Can you imagine it otherwise?

Yes, when it's defined differently to people merely claiming to know things. Epistemology is a whole field - if all knowledge was merely defined as what people claim it to be then there wouldn't be much of a point in studying epistemology, debating it, critiquing it etc, would there? There would be no point in even mentioning it if we could merely define all knowledge as what people think they know and leave it at that.

Even though it may know everything... it is a wholly different thing to say he is right about everything.

I'm talking about knowledge and truth here though. I'm not talking about 'right' in the sense of morals and ethics or whatever.

But what is "absolutely known"?

We don't know. But that doesn't mean it isn't there. Epistemology is a field of study that explores such questions as that.

A rock doesn't know anything at all... how can such a thing as "absolute" or "objective" knowledge exist in the first place?

By it being defined differently to subjective knowledge. Subjective knowledge is just people thinking they know and hence isn't really knowledge at all to my mind. Objective knowledge is when people both believe in something and that also happens to be objectively true. This can even apply to whether there are any objective truths at all or not. Because if there are, if there are objective truths - then those who believe that "know" it in the philosophical sense.

And even if a thing could be absolutely known... why should it be any more right than any other knowledge? There seems no reason to think this to me...

I'm just talking about the difference between the everyday understanding of "knowing" and the philosophical sense of knowledge really. As much as I can try, right or wrong, I try lol.

EvF

[Samson]

I am a huge fan of Supernatural...I've seen every single episode thus far and will continue. Another show I truly love is Legend of the Seeker on the Sci-Fi network Channel. (Probably due to that I read every single book (All 12) of Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" series, a new one is coming out next year, can't wait)...

I look at it as entertainment and would truly hope that the mass majority does as well. In other words, I don't separate Smallville (Superman) from Supernatural in terms of reality.....Fictional bliss comes to mind....

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

I love Supernatural! I've seen every single episode to date. The recent episode on the mythological gods was epic. I didn't expect that twist on the show; I suppose the twist with mythological gods makes the show stand up to its name 'Supernatural': Now the show is actually about a universe in the perspective of Sam and Dean Winchester where every supernatural belief in 'reality' is true.

answer to your question: My favorite shows presume the supernatural is out there but unknown to most people - 'Medium', 'Supernatural', and even 'Fringe' has its supernatural elements. I don't know why I enjoy these shows so much. Perhaps I think of them as more of a satire of reality than something I should take seriously as many people do when they watch shows based on supernatural ideas. My mom actually thinks demons are out there in the world and she would probably imagine them as they appear in 'Supernatural'. I remember watching The Exorcism of Emily Rose with some classmates and they found themselves determined in the existence of evil using the argument 'if good exists, evil must exist' I tried to explain the true background of exorcisms in reality and explain that their argument is a distortion of what in viewed as 'good' in our daily lives since 'good' deeds or behavior whatever is not manifested as an angel destroying a demon and we've never really seen someone spin their head 360 degrees. I was so excited to explain all the details that I appeared more crazy and unstable than the movie at the time.