|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |