Street Epistemology - Practice

[GrandizerII]

Firstly I need to ask whether you care that what you believe in is true.

If you don't care, then practicing epistemology on you will be ineffective.

Exactly, lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

lol...yes, I hope it'll be a lot faster in real life when I'm talking to people

But you might be right with apologist and other irrational thinkers. I might just be getting constantly frustrated with this.

Been watchin em prevaricate for years on the boards.  I don't just mean that I've been here for years..watching them...I mean that they've also been here for years...prevaricating.....

Watching paint dry is immediate gratification by comparison.

[Nay_Sayer]

I believe in God, and the Gospel of Christ....does that count?

What is this gospel of Christ of which you speak, and where may I find it?

5th row, Section J.567, Fiction

The only true gospels are that of the Prophet Boyardee.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Curiosne,

First, I do want to thank you, for the enjoyable conversation. 

If I am understanding correctly, I see two ways to interpret your first point.  One would be the inclusion of evidence or reasons against, in weighing the evidence towards a conclusion.  This I would agree with.  If you have a reason to have low confidence in the evidence, then that should be accounted for.

However, from the previous part of the discussion about moving the bar, I suspect that this is not what you are talking about.  I think that what you are talking about is not reasons against it, but some other subjective thing;  could be feelings, personal aversion to the conclusion, or just plain old incredulity.  That while not saying that it is false, because of your incredulity, you are going to stack the deck against it, by "raising the bar".  

Now if it is the first, description, then I would agree.  We need to account for all the evidence, both for and against.  If for some reason you have low confidence some of the evidence, then that should certainly be weighed.  It is also these type of things, that I think it is difficult to come up with some hard and fast rule.  On the other hand, if it is the second interpretation I gave; then I do have issues with it.  For one; what you are basing the conclusion on, largely is the result of the individual, not the external evidence and reasons.  Second, as we touched on before, if you are talking about logic and reason, then I think that similar inputs, should produce a similar result.  The conclusion will follow from the premises and be independent (as much as possible) of the individual. I think that with a good epistemology, that we should be doing are best to avoid such biases.   Would you disagree?

I think in your re-phrasing, it's going to depend what the reason for the low confidence is.  If it is personal bias, incredulity, or something else based on you the individual, then I think we should be trying to avoid that in a good epistemology.  If you provide good reason for the low confidence and support it with objective facts and logic,  then that is fine.   I think that low confidence is something which is arrived at, based on the evidence, not something which is started with, and needs to be overcome.  If this is correctly representing your view, then how do you justify the prominence of the subjective in speaking towards the objective truth of the matter.

I look forward to your response.

Brian

---

Ok, let's stick to the first description and disregard personal incredulity. I can see where you're coming from in terms of "stacking the deck" when it comes to personal biases so we'll stick to an objective view of all claims and evidences to support it (we can talk about my views later if you like).

So getting back to why I started this thread in the first place, you mentioned that you believe in the Judeo / Christian God.

Can you let me know how confident you are that your belief is true (from 0 to 100% sure) and what evidence has led you to your confidence level?

I am very confident; I live my life as if it is true, and I believe that I would give my life for that belief, if the situation came about.

As to the evidence and reasons, I would refer you back to my post near the beginning of the conversation.  With the number of different lines of evidence, and the witness of the Holy Spirit, I think that you would need pretty good reason for me to deny God.  

There are a number of reasons.  From the more generic philosophical arguments such as cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments. To scientific arguements a such as strong anthromorphic principle, and intelligent design arguments such as those that persuaded Anthony Flew to quit describing himself as an atheist. There isn’t anecdotal evidence, that of miracles, found all around the world.  Testimony of personal experiences, as well a must my own experiences.  However I would say that first and foremost,I heard and believed the Gospels.  I think it is the best explanation for the multiple disciples and apostles who testified to what happened. 

(Edit to add reference for quote)

[curiosne]

Ok, let's stick to the first description and disregard personal incredulity. I can see where you're coming from in terms of "stacking the deck" when it comes to personal biases so we'll stick to an objective view of all claims and evidences to support it (we can talk about my views later if you like).

So getting back to why I started this thread in the first place, you mentioned that you believe in the Judeo / Christian God.

Can you let me know how confident you are that your belief is true (from 0 to 100% sure) and what evidence has led you to your confidence level?

I am very confident; I live my life as if it is true, and I believe that I would give my life for that belief, if the situation came about.

As to the evidence and reasons, I would refer you back to my post near the beginning of the conversation.  With the number of different lines of evidence, and the witness of the Holy Spirit, I think that you would need pretty good reason for me to deny God.  

There are a number of reasons.  From the more generic philosophical arguments such as cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments. To scientific arguements a such as strong anthromorphic principle, and intelligent design arguments such as those that persuaded Anthony Flew to quit describing himself as an atheist. There isn’t anecdotal evidence, that of miracles, found all around the world.  Testimony of personal experiences, as well a must my own experiences.  However I would say that first and foremost,I heard and believed the Gospels.  I think it is the best explanation for the multiple disciples and apostles who testified to what happened. 

(Edit to add reference for quote)

So to summarise, you are 100% confident that God exists due to:
1)  generic philosophical arguments such as cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments.
2)  Scientific arguments a such as strong anthromorphic principle, and intelligent design
3)  Anecdotal evidence, that of miracles, found all around the world.
4)  Testimony of personal experiences, as well a must my own experiences.
5)  You've heard and believed in the Gospels.

So let's tackle this one by one. In point one above, are you saying that all the philosophical arguments you've mentioned point towards the Judeo/Christian God existing? How do you make this connection between the argument and between the Judeo/Christian God existing?

---

Ok, let's stick to the first description and disregard personal incredulity. I can see where you're coming from in terms of "stacking the deck" when it comes to personal biases so we'll stick to an objective view of all claims and evidences to support it (we can talk about my views later if you like).

So getting back to why I started this thread in the first place, you mentioned that you believe in the Judeo / Christian God.

Can you let me know how confident you are that your belief is true (from 0 to 100% sure) and what evidence has led you to your confidence level?

I am very confident; I live my life as if it is true, and I believe that I would give my life for that belief, if the situation came about.

As to the evidence and reasons, I would refer you back to my post near the beginning of the conversation.  With the number of different lines of evidence, and the witness of the Holy Spirit, I think that you would need pretty good reason for me to deny God.  

There are a number of reasons.  From the more generic philosophical arguments such as cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments. To scientific arguements a such as strong anthromorphic principle, and intelligent design arguments such as those that persuaded Anthony Flew to quit describing himself as an atheist. There isn’t anecdotal evidence, that of miracles, found all around the world.  Testimony of personal experiences, as well a must my own experiences.  However I would say that first and foremost,I heard and believed the Gospels.  I think it is the best explanation for the multiple disciples and apostles who testified to what happened. 

(Edit to add reference for quote)

So to summarise, you are 100% confident that God exists due to:
1)  generic philosophical arguments such as cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments.
2)  Scientific arguments a such as strong anthromorphic principle, and intelligent design
3)  Anecdotal evidence, that of miracles, found all around the world.
4)  Testimony of personal experiences, as well a must my own experiences.
5)  You've heard and believed in the Gospels.

So let's tackle this one by one. In point one above, are you saying that all the philosophical arguments you've mentioned point towards the Judeo/Christian God existing? How do you make this connection between the argument and between the Judeo/Christian God existing?

[RoadRunner79]

I am very confident; I live my life as if it is true, and I believe that I would give my life for that belief, if the situation came about.

As to the evidence and reasons, I would refer you back to my post near the beginning of the conversation.  With the number of different lines of evidence, and the witness of the Holy Spirit, I think that you would need pretty good reason for me to deny God.  


(Edit to add reference for quote)

So to summarise, you are 100% confident that God exists due to:
1)  generic philosophical arguments such as cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments.
2)  Scientific arguments a such as strong anthromorphic principle, and intelligent design
3)  Anecdotal evidence, that of miracles, found all around the world.
4)  Testimony of personal experiences, as well a must my own experiences.
5)  You've heard and believed in the Gospels.

So let's tackle this one by one. In point one above, are you saying that all the philosophical arguments you've mentioned point towards the Judeo/Christian God existing? How do you make this connection between the argument and between the Judeo/Christian God existing?

I don't think I would say 100%. For one, putting numbers on such things always seemed kind of artificial to me. And certainly, there are situations where I would be more confident (such as something which I personally seen for myself, and is corroborated by others. However I would stand by fairly confident and willing to die for (for what you make of that).

As to the arguments of philosophy and natural theology. I don't think that there is a direct connection. And I don't really see why there would be. By their nature, these are arguments in the generic. They provide parts of the picture, to which I find the historic revelation of the Judeo Christian God aligns with that description. That is how the connection is made.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Historic revelation"......you mean Wotan?

RR, lol.  "Magic book said so!". What is gained, in understanding or conversation..in pretending that things are what they are not? Absolutely no-one considers magic book a "historical revelation" - not even putatively christian scholars. Even the most rabid fish for the moniker of "legend" as opposed to "myth". Only nutters consider it an AP report from the ANE front.

Even among the nutters....the term...is "special revelation", not "historical revelation".

[curiosne]

So to summarise, you are 100% confident that God exists due to:
1)  generic philosophical arguments such as cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments.
2)  Scientific arguments a such as strong anthromorphic principle, and intelligent design
3)  Anecdotal evidence, that of miracles, found all around the world.
4)  Testimony of personal experiences, as well a must my own experiences.
5)  You've heard and believed in the Gospels.

So let's tackle this one by one. In point one above, are you saying that all the philosophical arguments you've mentioned point towards the Judeo/Christian God existing? How do you make this connection between the argument and between the Judeo/Christian God existing?

I don't think I would say 100%. For one, putting numbers on such things always seemed kind of artificial to me. And certainly, there are situations where I would be more confident (such as something which I personally seen for myself, and is corroborated by others. However I would stand by fairly confident and willing to die for (for what you make of that).

As to the arguments of philosophy and natural theology. I don't think that there is a direct connection. And I don't really see why there would be. By their nature, these are arguments in the generic. They provide parts of the picture, to which I find the historic revelation of the Judeo Christian God aligns with that description. That is how the connection is made.

ok so point one by itself doesn't in itself provide a "direct connection" that your God exists. Is this the same case for point two also?

[RoadRunner79]

I don't think I would say 100%. For one, putting numbers on such things always seemed kind of artificial to me. And certainly, there are situations where I would be more confident (such as something which I personally seen for myself, and is corroborated by others. However I would stand by fairly confident and willing to die for (for what you make of that).

As to the arguments of philosophy and natural theology. I don't think that there is a direct connection. And I don't really see why there would be. By their nature, these are arguments in the generic. They provide parts of the picture, to which I find the historic revelation of the Judeo Christian God aligns with that description. That is how the connection is made.

ok so point one by itself doesn't in itself provide a "direct connection" that your God exists. Is this the same case for point two also?

Yes... as I had said before. They are not going to give you specifics or tell you things other than what they point to.

[curiosne]

ok so point one by itself doesn't in itself provide a "direct connection" that your God exists. Is this the same case for point two also?

Yes... as I had said before.  They are not going to give you specifics or tell you things other than what they point to.

1)  generic philosophical arguments such as cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments.
2)  Scientific arguments a such as strong anthromorphic principle, and intelligent design
3)  Anecdotal evidence, that of miracles, found all around the world.
4)  Testimony of personal experiences, as well a must my own experiences.
5)  You've heard and believed in the Gospels.

So you've mentioned that number five is the best reason that you have such a high confidence that your God exists. Can you tell me what about it gives you so much confidence?