rainbow walking

While we're still considering the relative value of the question itself, I'd like to press on to another viable question that also relates to our arguments for and against such existence.


How much of our respective arguments, both pro and con, involve interpretation of various sources? And how do we know our interpretations are correct?

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, if christianity is a template, we don't and can't know our "interpretation" is correct. That's why the threat to believe on faith.

Cult's are necessarily top-down authoritarian dictatorships in the guise of "freedom." You're free to not except your minister's or priest's (or the bible's) interpretation of "the way things are," at great personal harm for non-compliance.

You won't just be punished for this non-compliance, your body and soul will be punished in the "second death" of the lake of fire, presumably for all eternity.

It's the old dodge of, "You have a choice. I will either punch you or hug you."

Well, that's not a choice, of course, since no matter what happens, somebody else will be inflicting their will upon you; they will act against your will in some manner. That one is comparatively less painful than the other is irrelevant to the larger issue involved.

Unfortunately, most cult members are not taught to comprehend or even see the fallacy, so, once again, the acceptance of authority is automatic and confirmed and the necessary critical analysis that would lead to the "correct" interpretation usurped by the assumption of authority to inflict such a scenario.

In other words, the cult member's ability to "interpret" correctly has been circumvented long before the member even has a chance to contemplate what is involved in the scenario.

Bill

All human knowledge is interpretation of various sources. There are no exceptions because humans totally lack the ability to directly access "reality" and thus directly obtain "knowledge."

This is why so many philosophical arguments try to take into account (in some way) the unreliability of human sense inputs. That unreliability itself converts all such sense inputs into "data needing interpretation." The only epistemological method know to product truth is SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Thus, while we can never be absolutely certain, we will achieve the greatest possible degree of certainty if we apply scientific method to ascertain exactly what the correct interpretation ought to be.

== Bill

(P.S.: Thanks for a couple of easy ones this time around.... )

Whispers

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bill
[B]All human knowledge is interpretation of various sources. There are no exceptions because humans totally lack the ability to directly access "reality" and thus directly obtain "knowledge."

This puzzles me. How do you reach such a conclusion, and how can you say this if you have no knowledge of which you speak?

rainbow walking

Now I am truly perplexed.

There is definitely a puzzle residing herein.

Bill posits all arguments to be a matter of interpretation with, perhaps, the scientific method being the closest to a true rendering...

Koy says the theist begins from a faulty foundation in his interpretations...(and, no doubt, the theist is likely to make the same charge against Koy...)

And then Whispers points out that both of these statements are likely also interpretations of my question of interpretations so...

Something ain't right...

How are we to determine the relative value of all these pros and cons if all is interpretation? If the argument gets pushed back to who's interpretation we are to give the most credence...and then, when we consider this "giving of credence" is also an interpretation, and so on and so forth...oh my.

Cascading turtles falling out in both directions all the way down.

Now we may have exposed one of the sources of contention in this hotly debated issue. Or is that just an interpretation also?

So we're essentially back to establishing a JTB (Justified True Belief)

In other words a BELIEF we argue to JUSTIFY as TRUE...but then, if our justifications are also based on interpretation...

Dammit Bill, I thought you said this was an easy one?

Whispers

This is the problem with belief. It leads to more questions than answers. Fire burns when yopu place your hand in it. No belief is needed, and no interpretaion required. Fire burning as a truth never needs to be debated. Beliefs just cause people to argue.

rainbow walking

Hi Whispers,
I shouldn't think we would be trying to resolve the question of an existent god with the same degree of certainty as we have concluded that fire burns. But we can consider the merits of the claim...yes?

joedad

Good question. I recommend The Golem – What You Should Know About Science. I have the 2nd edition. Bill's response is right on in this respect. From the back cover:I think "debunk" is too strong a word, especially when the intro opens with:But fortunately, and despite the bales of opening strawmen, the text discusses the fact that science is imperfect, using some classic examples of scientific investigation and discovery. It portrays it as a "bumbling giant," a golem, noting primarily that science cannot be separated from the human condition. I've found it to be a good read so far.

Of course there is no perfection, though there are perfectionists.