Pelvidar

Hi Zarathuckya, you said:

"How can a human that does not know EVERYTHING ever be sure about the truth of ANYTHING? To be absolutely sure about the truth of something, would we not need to know everything first?"

An excellent point. I've been a Christian for the better part of my life, and one of my favorite quotes is from a religion professor of mine that said:

"Humans do not have the luxury of certainty, only confidence."

I think this is about as fair an answer I can muster to respond to your query. Patterns certainly do occur, and from those I think we can develop confidence about things "ie. this chair will support my weight" - and that allows us to cope with the chaos of life. Patterns make life easier, and I suppose that is why so many people want to put "everything" into packeges labaled as "certainty". Life just seems easier that way.

However, my belief that we are unable to arrive at "certainties" is one of the reasons I find the typical use of Christian "prayer" to be so peculiar (as outlined below):

1) God knows everything.
2) I do not
3) Prayer: "God I want you to *fill in request here*"

To me, no sense can be made from asking a being which supposedly knows what is objectively best, to do what "I" think is subjectively best.

I guess my point is that I agree with you, and that I think we all need to live with the humility that recognizes even our most cherished beliefs need to be open for criticism (for our own sakes).

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Pelvidar ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Originally posted by Jim Mitchell:
The unbeliever is stuck in this situation of needing total knowledge if he is no have any true knowledge at all. If you have no foundation that is certain, then you can't even have the smallest bit of probable knowledge.

Whoops! You're missing a logical chain here....

It seems clear that calculating probability, even roughly, presupposes some firm, absolutely reliable method

It may "seem clear" to you, but the rest of us get along fine with our rough and ready methods. "It seems clear" is not an argument, but your opinion.

In fact, in calculating probability, one selects a level of accuracy that is necessary for practical use. The fact is that for most endeavors certain knowledge is unnecessary and pursuit of it is even inefficient (diminishing returns set in as accuracy increases. One needs only a level of knowledge that will ensure an acceptably high level of success. Your argument fails for this, among many other reasons.

What if our probably true method turns out to be false and some other new method of determining probability turns everything we thought probable around as improbable or impossible, including our original method?

You mean like, "What if there's no god?"

The point here is simply that it is impossible to have any probable knowledge without presupposing some certain knowledge.

All knowledge is probable knowledge. It is not necessary to have certain knowledge, only knowledge that is reasonable accurate at the level we need it to be.

But atheism, if reflective on the implications of naturalistic metaphysics at all, forces reliance on flawed and finite human faculties alone

Yep.

(certain knowledge attributed or revealed by God is surely excluded),

There is no god. Demonstrate its existance first, then we can discuss your particular arguments. So far you haven't put forth any arguments for the existance of gods, you've merely asserted that they exist.

and must maintain that no human knowledge is certain.

But if no human knowledge is certain, how can you maintain no human knowledge is certain? Aren't you making a "certain" statement there?

But the problem is that this leads to absolutely no knowledge of any sort

The problem is your argument is not connected by any logical framework. Just because knowledge is uncertain, does not mean that it is impossible.

- including the probable sort - and it is quite obvious that the universe is intelligible, whatever atheism implies to the contrary.

Atheism implies no conclusions about the intelligibility of the universe. It is merely a statement of disbelief in gods.

The fact that our cognitive faculties are fallible in no way negates God's ability to reveal absolutely true knowledge to us.

And the fact that our cognitive faculties are fallible in no way makes an effective level of truth impossible.

We can surely argue about the propositions we hold to be revealed from God and to what extent they do in fact correspond to the truth that God knows - it is not always easy interpreting all of life in accordance with God's mind!

Yes, fictional beings are so fickle.

This is one reason theology is such a rich and interesting subject.

I agree. Fiction in any form, from theology to mythology to science fiction to literature, is always entertaining.

Jim, there isn't any logical connection between your claims here. You need to supply a logical chain that shows that if knowledge is uncertain, it is impossible.

The trick is that knowledge need not be certain, it need only be effective. Remember that organisms (including human) interact with each other and the empirical world, and constantly receive feedback that "corrects" errors, refining our knowledge of the world. This is true whether one is a Beatle or a beetle.

I agree that certain knowledge is impossible, but we obviously do not need certain knowledge to function effectively. One need only glance at other living organisms to see that they function well on in-built behaviors or on limited and extremely fallible knowledge. Are you maintaining that they too have revelations from god running through their brains? Or could it be that all organisms, including humans, are capable of effective decision-making at the level to which they have evolved?

Your section on Christians simply undermines your post. Suddenly people with "certain knowledge" have disagreements, especially in religious matters, where you came "certain knowledge" exists in the form of god's revelations. In fact, as far as anyone can tell, Christians are as fallible as atheists when it comes to knowledge, maybe more so, given the high crime, violence divorce, murder and illegitimacy rates in the more Christian areas of the United States, as well as their lower protections for labor, the poor, women, the accused, and the environment.

Michael

Theophage

Originally posted by Jim Mitchell:
The fact that our cognitive faculties are fallible in no way negates God's ability to reveal absolutely true knowledge to us.

The fact that our cognitive faculties are fallible partially explains why so many people believe in silly things like gods in the first place.

99Percent

Jim Mitchell, Have you ever wondered how casinos consistently make a profit? By your logic, the casino owners must know God pretty well, and are praying to him all the time.

Kachana

I've realised it's actually impossible to have a meaningful debate with a presuppositionalist, and that is not meant as any kind of slur, rather, as a fact that derives directly from the extent of discrepancy between the two sides.

As far as Jim is concerned, I am borrowing from his worldview with every argument I make, and further I 'know' God exists on some deep level which has yet to be revelaed to me by God's grace. Every one of my counters to him was predestined by God, and his arguments to me are only effective in as far as he is being a tool by God to carry our a destiny decided long ago.

I think it's pretty clear that in such a situation, there is literally nothing I can possibly say to influence Jim's wordview. Even an argment that he had no answer to would be part of God's plan, I would have had to presuppose God on some fundamental level to even make the argument. It's one thing arguing with a Christian about a historical matter in the Bible, or on the pitfalls of evolution/ creation research, in those instances some type of resolution can occur, but in these such instances, what can be gained? I can't influence him pretty much by definition, and if he is to influence me, it is going to be due to God's will not my free consideration of the arguments, so no conscious action I can take can alter the course his arguements will take on me.

Jim, can you think of anything whatsoever that would convince you that your current worldview was incorrect. Hypothetically speaking, what would someone have to demonstrate for you to reconsider your position?

Kachana.

Ms. Siv

"Good" is a word I'm not very comfortable with. How about intellectually honest instead ?!

In one sense you really cannot be sure of anything because we observe everything with our human perceptions.
As Dawkins says : " Brains function on a need -to-know basis, and the need-to-know is what you need to know in order to survive on the African plains as hunter-gathers. It's pure bonus if we manage to understand a bit about relativity and quantum theory as well. I think it's a tremendous privilege that we can understand as much as we can. "

However, accepting the limits of our human perceptions, we can still make an honest attempt at finding out the truth, trying to find some order in this universe, searching for evidence to support/disprove our theories .... thats what science does. And that method works.

So you dont need to call it the absolute truth . But you can call it a more and more improved understanding of our universe.

- Sivakami.

YHWH666

There are no square circles!

I think therefore I am!

Cristopher robin is always here except on the occassions when he is not!

2+2=4!

How's that for an objective basis?

Probability relyes on mathematics.
Mathematics is certain.
therefore, the method by wich probability is calculated is certain.

Yyou don't need certiantity to be "good", instead you can use probability. I can't be certain that i'm not in some lunatic ward speaking (or typing rather)to my imaginary friends, but i don't need to be. Although i can't be certain there is no santa clause , he is so improbable that it is "virtualy certain" he is shear myth. It's possible that the next time you step out side you will be impaled by a shaft of frosen urin falling from an airliner high in the upper atmosphere, but i wouldn't waste money on a helmet.

Theophage

"Probability, probability; all is probability!"
-Quantum Ecclesiastes 1:1

Draygomb

Logic is the only source of Absolute Truth.

Francois Tremblay

Zarathuckya : Your problem is that you are confusing certainty with knowledge. Meditate and be enlightened ;P