On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:40:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/25/2011 14:13, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But if I were to describe the change in state, it would be "I no longer
>> need to believe that the sun is up - I know it is."
> 
> So if evidence obviates belief, and evidence obviates faith, what is the
> difference between the two?
> 
>> IOW, it's not that finding out causes disbelief, it removes the need
>> for belief because it's demonstrably true.
> 
> We're just using the words differently. Knowledge is justified true
> belief. It can be demonstratively true yet not believed (a creationist
> and evolution) and it can be demonstratively true and believed (a
> scientist and evolution).

Thinking about it a bit more - the examples you gave are perhaps not the 
best, I think.  The creationist would dispute the 'demonstratively true' 
part of evolution as the foundation for their disbelief in evolution.

There are two things one could dispute:  the theory, or the data.  In 
refusing to "believe in evolution" (a statement that I find funny 
because, again paraphrasing Neil DeGrasse Tyson, 'truth doesn't require 
your belief.'), the creationist is disputing either the veracity of the 
data or the conclusions reached by interpretation of the data.

So the dispute isn't with the idea of evolution (necessarily), but rather 
the conclusions reached by Darwin and those biologists who have reached 
the same conclusions.

Going back to the 'sun is up' example, when there is sufficient data to 
prove that a belief is correct, then it becomes truth and transcends 
being a belief.  When I see the sun around the curtains in the morning, 
and I know what time it is because my clock tells me that it's morning, I 
can believe the sun is up because there is evidence of it.  It might turn 
out to be a really bright light on a truck parked outside my window, and 
so my even justified belief that the sun is up could be wrong.

But if I pull the curtains back and see that, yes, the sun is up, then I 
no longer need to believe it because I can observe that it is up.  
"Belief" implies some doubt as to the state of what it is that I might 
observe.  If there's absolutely no doubt, then belief isn't necessary.

Just like believing I'm sitting in my chair.  I know I'm sitting in my 
chair; I can see it under me, I can feel it supporting my weight.  I can 
ask my wife to tell me if she observes the chair under me (and thus get 
corroboration).  I don't need to believe it's there because there's no 
chance that it isn't - because if it wasn't, then I'd be on the floor, 
and unable to type this message (because my keyboard is supported by my 
desk).

Jim

Post a reply to this message