On 9-8-2009 7:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 7-8-2009 1:25, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> Because that is what everybody does, even you.
>>>
>>> Yes. That doesn't mean it *is* knowledge, and that doesn't mean 
>>> everything is reasonably "knowledge" to someone. That's why I'm 
>>> bringing up the examples of Napoleon.
>>
>> Let me put it this way: I say I *'know'* something if it is beyond 
>> reasonable doubt for *me*. Beyong reasonable doubt can be for a number 
>> of reasons:
>> 1) based on authority that I have no reason to doubt (the sun is about 
>> 150 million kilometers away)
>> 2) own experience (there must be an algorithm that computes the cube 
>> of an integer finalizing 3 bits per iteration*)
>> 3) when the negation would be incompatible with my existence (god does 
>> not exist)
>> Possibly an underlying problem in this discussion is that you assumed 
>> that the non existence of god is category 1 or 2 knowledge (because it 
>> would be for you?) whereas it is actually category 3. Also possibly 
>> confusing is that I admit that for theists the negation may also be 
>> category 3. I don't see a problem in that because we are different 
>> people.
>>
> body else, has never seen.
> 
> And yet.. You miss category 4: "Because the negation would contradict 
> societal ideas and social beliefs, which I am heavily invested in." 

I don't see the difference with my category 3. Then again I have 
sometimes difficulty to understand what you exactly mean.

> One 
> **strongly** suspects that the same argument of negation in #3 would be 
> stated by *anyone* with *any* god, even one so terrifyingly different 
> from yours that you find its very nature abhorrent. 

Yes indeed. I tried to word it in such a way that it was clear that I 
intended to include those.

> In fact, I am 
> certain of it. Its the Francis Collins method of "knowing". And, its 
> been rightly dissected by numerous people, ever since it was suggested 
> he might become the head of the NIH. This is one of the better ones:
> 
> http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/ 

I hadn't heard of that. Thanks for the link.

> I am sure it wouldn't be *too hard* to think of other things, besides 
> religion, which are entirely social constructs of their society, are 
> presumed to be "known" as fact, and yet are absolutely nothing of the sort.

As I am an atheist, many people would consider anything I say outside of 
religion. Other fields include male/female and class differences and the 
idea that if anybody be as selfish as possible the whole world would be 
better.

Post a reply to this message