Irishbrutha

Well of course I am, and that's the fatal flaw to skepticism. Btw, I actually assert that I know I exist. That's it I guess. The rest is based upon either necessity of functionality or belief.

I'm actually just arguing and I'm open to redirection of my firm skepticism. So I don't think it's certain. It just happens to be the most subjectively sound epistemology in my mind.

Your use of the word "know" is different than the precise definition given it in philosophy. Justified true belief = knowledge. You can never ascertain whether your justified belief is true unless you can verify that the object/concept/idea/assertion/whatever of your justified belief corresponds to reality. Since one can never exit their sensory limitations they are stuck using their sensory devices to confirm the accuracy of their sensory devices. Well we all know that's not possible. Or at least, it's possible but it does no good in the way of objectively verifying the correctness of both the yield and the function of my sensory devices.

-Shaun

Btw, I'm not asserting that reality accords with our beliefs. I'm discussing our ability to understand and record reality. We define our reality according to the perception of our senses. We define the information given to our senses according to rational principles. Science is a highly developed form of doing this. When I talking about our belief in a particular epistemic system, I am saying that we subjectively accord our actions with that belief, because the specific belief is that the system yields truth. But the belief can never be verified as true.

Mageth

I understand that philosophical argument, and yet I still duck when a bat is swung at my head. And so would Kant, and you.

Irishbrutha

Read the new ending to my last post. I duck not because of knowledge. Your confusing what motivates us and whether we can "know" what is. I'm saying that belief motivates much the same as knowledge. Knowledge has a three-part definition for a reason. Justified = subjective good reason to assert belief. Belief = the act of the mind that will conform the will to a principle in proportion to the subjective sense of the belief's justification, True = objectively actual.

I'm on this other board where everyone wants to slam theists for having faith. It's hilarious. Belief is just the engine/motivation aspect of knowledge. We do things all the time without verification that our reasons are justified. We simply assert that our reasoning for the beliefs are just that. Justified. In my case I say they're justified by the necessity to function. But that's not really reational justification, it's again just a descriptor of motive. Still working on that point though. It's sort of infantile in my own epistemology.

-Shaun

Mageth

I think I've probably said enough on the "knowledge" thing, but I must deny the generalization that "everyone wants to slam theists for having faith." I don't think I've exactly "slammed" theists for having faith on this thread, have I?

Irishbrutha

Oh no, not you and not on this forum. It was on another board...craigslist.com philosophy forum. I had heartburn after an hour on that board. You guys were refreshing after that fiasco, which my philosophy friends would find funny 'cuz they consider you to be "unfriendly" atheists (in the technical sense of the word, not personal sense). While I think some here are both personally and technically unfriendly atheists there are enough, yourself included in that bunch, personally friendly atheists to make up for the fact that the majority of you are technically unfriendly. (by technical I simply mean ideologically.) We can still have civil discussions about whether theism is rationally viable. They rejected outright whether theism was even a part of philosophical discussion, to which I responded, "we're arguing it via reason aren't we?" I got a bunch of names thrown at me and decided I liked SecWeb better.

-Shaun

Mageth

Aah...right...I just noticed that "other" in there. Sorry - brain fart on my part. One too many whacks upside the head, I suppose.

Anyway, I've seen theists slammed for having "faith" as well. I know, and love, too many theists (including my parents and my wife, as well as most of my several siblings) to do so. And I once was one myself, and well understand the allure of faith.

Not that in moments of frustration I haven't come down on theists pretty hard on these boards; sometimes I just have to vent, and can't do so IRL, exactly. But I've softened in my approach quite a bit since "deconverting" four years ago.

Irishbrutha

Understood, except I'm referring to their derogatory use of the word "faith." It's humorous because we all have "faith" in something. Our reason, our senses, etc.

-Shaun

Mageth

I think the problem here is that there are two different uses of "faith". One is "faith" as in faith in something without evidence (e.g., faith in the existence of God, as it is usually meant in the Christian sense.) "Blessed is he who has beleived without seeing," to paraphrase Jesus. The other is "faith" based on experience. I have "faith" in my reason and senses because I've experienced them to be reasonably reliable (not always reliable, of course). I prefer to call this faith based on experience "trust." I trust that the sun will come up tomorrow because I've experienced the sun coming up for 48 years and counting.

An argument can be made, of course, for "experience" that corroborates faith in God's existence. And many believers claim to have such experience. As such, I'd say they've gained "trust" in God's existence. But there's always that bit out there that requires "faith" without "seeing."

Starboy

Mageth, faith is even more confusing than that. It has two additional meanings, one is loyalty, as in faithful servant, and the other means religion as in a system of beliefs. I would think that if brutha was of such a philosophical bent he would understand how confusing words can be and post with more clarity rather than rely on the vagueness of language to wiggle out of an obviously silly position.

Starboy

Mageth

You are correct, of course.