50 replies to this topic

[Incognito]

I think this is an essential thing to ask all atheists, especially the science fanatics.

One who claims empirical 'proof' to be the source of true knowledge must back up this claim.

[Quisant]

Incognito, on 24 March 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

I think this is an essential thing to ask all atheists, especially the science fanatics.

One who claims empirical 'proof' to be the source of true knowledge must back up this claim.

Science is a methodology for acquiring knowledge through observation and experimentation.
It's not anything other than that.

It is not infallible, and no one ever claims that it is, but it has something that religion lacks: a process of testing claims against real-world observations.

What would you have as the 'source of true knowledge'?

wslm.
*

[Incognito]

iDevonian, on 24 March 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

It depends on how you define knowledge. I do think using empirical evidence one of, if not the best option we have for understanding things.

But im not sure what you mean, I may not even fit the description of those youre directing the question.

Under what definiton of knowledge do you think empirical evidenec is the best option? And under what definition is it not?

Quisant, on 24 March 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Science is a methodology for acquiring knowledge through observation and experimentation.
It's not anything other than that.

It is not infallible, and no one ever claims that it is, but it has something that religion lacks: a process of testing claims against real-world observations.

What would you have as the 'source of true knowledge'?

If you are a contented fallibilist, I implore you to be honest, be naive, hear it afresh. ‘He knows, yet he has not eliminated all possibilities of error.’ Even if you've numbed your ears, doesn't this overt, explicit fallibilism still sound wrong? - David Lewis

My view about knowledge isnt one I want to discuss, partly because I cannot be sure of it and partly because this thread was pointed towards the atheist.

I will not buy 'science because its better than anything else' - that does not make it knowledge.

[Quisant]

Incognito, on 24 March 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

If you are a contented fallibilist, I implore you to be honest, be naive, hear it afresh. ‘He knows, yet he has not eliminated all possibilities of error.’ Even if you've numbed your ears, doesn't this overt, explicit fallibilism still sound wrong? - David Lewis

My view about knowledge isn't one I want to discuss, partly because I cannot be sure of it and partly because this thread was pointed towards the atheist.

I will not buy 'science because its better than anything else' - that does not make it knowledge.

I mentioned earlier that science is not infallible, nothing in this world can be proved with absolute certainty.
It is merely enquiry; it presumes that causes are natural because it cannot successfully investigate microbes if they were Jinns.
Weather forecasts never claim to predict with 100% accuracy but they are more reliable than a rain dance.

The difference between Science and Religion is that we do not need to trust the authority of scientists, we can check their work. We can look at their data. Since we can do this, it is reasonable to trust them.
Science works. Aeroplanes fly. Bridges built by engineers stay up. Treatment by doctors cures diseases.


But I suspect by 'True Knowledge' you are referring to what they call 'Divine Knowledge' ?

wslm.
*

[MysticKnight]

I don't think everything needs have an explanation to be warranted or logical.  Logic needs not necessarily be things we can always explain. There can be some things that are properly basic. Induction is logical even if it has no explanation.

[Incognito]

Then you have set up your own fallible foundation of knowledge, to which you cannot really back up with anything more than 'well it's the best I have got'

Then what problem is there with someone who bases their foundation of knowledge on something like faith or religion? I do not understand the difference here

[iDevonian]

Incognito, on 31 March 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Then you have set up your own fallible foundation of knowledge, to which you cannot really back up with anything more than 'well it's the best I have got'

Then what problem is there with someone who bases their foundation of knowledge on something like faith or religion? I do not understand the difference here

If science is the best we've got, then it is the best we've got.  In many cases its visual observation vs religious hearsay.  I dont see why someone would take hearsay over what they can see with their own eyes. Even if what we see with our own eyes may not be real, its still better than not seeing anything at all. Or so i believe.

Edited by iDevonian, 31 March 2012 - 10:45 AM.

[Incognito]

iDevonian, on 31 March 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

If science is the best we've got, then it is the best we've got.  In many cases its visual observation vs religious hearsay.  I dont see why someone would take hearsay over what they can see with their own eyes. Even if what we see with our own eyes may not be real, its still better than not seeing anything at all. Or so i believe.

Problem of induction, scientific realism, skepticism are all things which negate this belief.

But that is only if we are to take reason to be the deepest foundation of knowledge. To believe science, we must ignore those unsolvable problems, which I am not saying is wrong or not justified, but my point is how can you then say science is better than any other form of knowledge?

People dont believe in religion without evidence, that would be absurd. People need a reason to believe, but that evidence will not be empirical and not scientifically based, but then as we have discussed, is that a reason to deny it?

What If I use faith as my ultimate source of knowledge? What makes that any inferior to science? You may argue science works, we can apply science to every day life, but the same follows with religion.

[iDevonian]

Incognito, on 01 April 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

Problem of induction, scientific realism, skepticism are all things which negate this belief.

But that is only if we are to take reason to be the deepest foundation of knowledge. To believe science, we must ignore those unsolvable problems, which I am not saying is wrong or not justified, but my point is how can you then say science is better than any other form of knowledge?

People dont believe in religion without evidence, that would be absurd. People need a reason to believe, but that evidence will not be empirical and not scientifically based, but then as we have discussed, is that a reason to deny it?

What If I use faith as my ultimate source of knowledge? What makes that any inferior to science? You may argue science works, we can apply science to every day life, but the same follows with religion.

Religion does lack certain forms of evidence.  And people can and do believe things often without what we would consider, justifiable reason.  Religion cannot help people in the way science does.

Often, and this is how I usually rephrase things, religion is belief in what exists without visual observation or testing.  Science would be belief after physically working with what is around you.  People can debate and differ on religion because often they dont have a solid foundation in what we consider physical reality. But for people who accept science, and accept physical observation and testing as a higher form of evidence, we dont disagree on things because they to us are unalterable realities.

Religion can often deal with man made concepts, and those concepts they take as their reality.  But in science, we deal with things that we didnt create. Things that pre existed and we can all agree on.  We didnt create the universe, and everyone can agree on that.  But If someone said we didnt create the Gods, many people would disagree because we have little evidence or any physical foundation to work with.

So its hard to say what is truth and what is not, but at the end of the day, we can all agree on what physically exists around us.

[Quisant]

Incognito, on 01 April 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

What If I use faith as my ultimate source of knowledge?

You can use faith as ultimate source of knowledge, but you would never know it it was true knowledge or wishful thinking.

Quote

What makes that any inferior to science? You may argue science works, we can apply science to every day life, but the same follows with religion.

The flaw in Science is that it can only determine truth in the Physical.
It can only determine truth about an observable phenomenon.

The flaw with Faith / religion is that it is subjective, not transparent and it is not examinable.
It does not have sophistication in explaining reality. Metaphysics' deals with all things outside of the perceivable realm.

Unfortunately Religion is still unable to prove even the existence of the Supernatural and there are a staggering amount of conflicting religious beliefs.
The scientific method has an excellent track record of providing results.  

But if God does exist and Nature is the garment of God, then the best way to understand the creator is by studying the creation. So, science is a better source of truth than Holy Books.
(In my opinion)

wslm.
*

[Incognito]

Quote

Religion does lack certain forms of evidence.  And people can and do believe things often without what we would consider, justifiable reason.  Religion cannot help people in the way science does.

I agree with the former.

And vice versa for the latter.

Quote

Often, and this is how I usually rephrase things, religion is belief in what exists without visual observation or testing.  Science would be belief after physically working with what is around you.  People can debate and differ on religion because often they dont have a solid foundation in what we consider physical reality. But for people who accept science, and accept physical observation and testing as a higher form of evidence, we dont disagree on things because they to us are unalterable realities.

Religion can often deal with man made concepts, and those concepts they take as their reality.  But in science, we deal with things that we didnt create. Things that pre existed and we can all agree on.  We didnt create the universe, and everyone can agree on that.  But If someone said we didnt create the Gods, many people would disagree because we have little evidence or any physical foundation to work with.

So its hard to say what is truth and what is not, but at the end of the day, we can all agree on what physically exists around us.

I agree with some of what is there, but I think we are using the term science very loosely, in that claim.

I dont deny the important of science, especially applied science. But to use empirical evidence as the only sort of evidence to live your life is rather silly. There is a world of difference between the world and what is inside you.

Science concerns itself abotu the world, religion concerns the individual. When you look for God/religion, you should look within yourself and not in anything external. This is the problem I see from both atheists and theists.

The world doesnt consist of only the physical, to assume it does would be adhering to a fallacy. You may argue it does, but then it requires a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

Science helps us live our lives, it doesnt help us become human, to recognise ourselves. These are thigns that are found in religion.

Quote

You can use faith as ultimate source of knowledge, but you would never know it it was true knowledge or wishful thinking.

The same can be said about science. Both work, both cannot be proved to an infallible extent.

Quote

The flaw in Science is that it can only determine truth in the Physical.
It can only determine truth about an observable phenomenon.

The flaw with Faith / religion is that it is subjective, not transparent and it is not examinable.
It does not have sophistication in explaining reality. Metaphysics' deals with all things outside of the perceivable realm.

Unfortunately Religion is still unable to prove even the existence of the Supernatural and there are a staggering amount of conflicting religious beliefs.
The scientific method has an excellent track record of providing results.  

But if God does exist and Nature is the garment of God, then the best way to understand the creator is by studying the creation. So, science is a better source of truth than Holy Books.
(In my opinion)

I think a lot of people would agree that by studying nature they see God.

The nature of God suggests that it must be found through ways other than empirical evidence. Does that not suggest that science is no excuse to reject God?

[iDevonian]

Incognito, on 01 April 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

I agree with the former.

And vice versa for the latter.

When I said "Religion cannot help people in the way science does.", i meant it in the sense that, religion cant create cures for diseases.  It cant take us to mars etc.

Incognito, on 01 April 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

I agree with some of what is there, but I think we are using the term science very loosely, in that claim.

I dont deny the important of science, especially applied science. But to use empirical evidence as the only sort of evidence to live your life is rather silly. There is a world of difference between the world and what is inside you.

Science concerns itself abotu the world, religion concerns the individual. When you look for God/religion, you should look within yourself and not in anything external. This is the problem I see from both atheists and theists.

The world doesnt consist of only the physical, to assume it does would be adhering to a fallacy. You may argue it does, but then it requires a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

Science helps us live our lives, it doesnt help us become human, to recognise ourselves. These are thigns that are found in religion.

Well yea, of course there are things religion provides that science cannot.  However, if we want to understand the world around us and in my opinion even many things about what is within us, science is the way to go.  In a sense, science can even explain religion.  It gives explanations for why we act and live the way we do.  Especially fields like anthropology.

[Alshajr]

We as humans have a limited number of sensors to aid us in order to perceive. Our scientific instruments are limited to our imagination and the materials and knowledge we have. We cannot claim that we have absolute knowledge but we are merely students studying the reality we have been born into, which we as individuals had no control over.
Studying our environment is an excellent way to gain knowledge for example, we can look at fossils that we find to try to establish the number of species that existed but we cannot say that we have found all the different species that have existed for we would have to have had knowledge of how many species existed. As we expand our sphere of knowledge from the perceivable we realise that we cannot deny a concept unless we can disprove it as we know that we do not possess absolute knowledge and so it may be true and its truth does not depend on whether we know it is true or not. Whether we choose to believe in it/accept it, is subjective to us as individuals.
Science has an objective of increasing our empirical understanding of our environment and it is a good tool for that objective. However it cannot detect anything outside of the realm of the perceivable.
If one wants to delve into the reasoning into WHY (not necessarily how) the things are the way they are then they have to look elsewhere. Also if one wants to understand how these thiings came together using only the perceivable then they will also need to look elsewhere as science consists of plenty of unknowns and there are plenty of unanswerable questions in this line of thought.
As the human is an intelligent being that perceives data, processes it, concludes, speculates, calculates, as well as many other things; any desire to fill in the gaps that science cannot fill is rational. A human uses all knowledge in their possession to reach a conclusion, including the factor of the unknown and if they choose to accept a faith that answers the unknowns which science can never answer it is also rational.
The objective of 'religion'  is to put our existnce into perspective and guide humanity to live in a respectful manner. Respectful to the fact that we are an advanced product that had no input into our own individual production, that we entered this world ignorant and are still ignorant of the unknown, that we have walked this earth for a short period compared to other things in this universe, that we are faced with the reality of a limited time on this earth.
Respectful to the fact that we also design products and know our limitations of knowledge and that the design of our products do not change unless we/something changes them.

[Incognito]

Quote

Well yea, of course there are things religion provides that science cannot.  However, if we want to understand the world around us and in my opinion even many things about what is within us, science is the way to go.  In a sense, science can even explain religion.  It gives explanations for why we act and live the way we do.  Especially fields like anthropology.

I have never studied anthropology enough to be able to argue a more clear point, so I will not. But one thing about anthropology is that it assumes something in order to prove another. It has its own foundation (of something being true). Such as evolutionary anthropology.

And nor does it actually show us anything. Those, too, are just theories with attempts to reconcile what we think we know as 'evidence'.

My position isnt one that rejects science. I value science as much as anyone else, but I acknowledge its limitations. Science seems to be contingently true, which as you said, is good enough for us. But I would hate to think that is knoweldge, because it is of such a weak nature.

The fact that

1) What is contingently true might not even be true
2) It is contingent

But evidently, it appears towork in some ways. Applied science does seem to work, for the time being. Therefore we should use it to help us, and to get further. But this is applied science only.

Theoretical science for me is nothing but metaphysical philosophy who use 'evidence' that can be used in support of almost any theory anyone creates.

And for Alshajr, nicely put.

Edited by Incognito, 02 April 2012 - 04:33 AM.

[Quisant]

Alshajr, on 02 April 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

We as humans have a limited number of sensors to aid us in order to perceive. Our scientific instruments are limited to our imagination and the materials and knowledge we have. We cannot claim that we have absolute knowledge but we are merely students studying the reality we have been born into, which we as individuals had no control over.
Studying our environment is an excellent way to gain knowledge for example, we can look at fossils that we find to try to establish the number of species that existed but we cannot say that we have found all the different species that have existed for we would have to have had knowledge of how many species existed. As we expand our sphere of knowledge from the perceivable we realise that we cannot deny a concept unless we can disprove it as we know that we do not possess absolute knowledge and so it may be true and its truth does not depend on whether we know it is true or not. Whether we choose to believe in it/accept it, is subjective to us as individuals.
Science has an objective of increasing our empirical understanding of our environment and it is a good tool for that objective. However it cannot detect anything outside of the realm of the perceivable.
If one wants to delve into the reasoning into WHY (not necessarily how) the things are the way they are then they have to look elsewhere. Also if one wants to understand how these thiings came together using only the perceivable then they will also need to look elsewhere as science consists of plenty of unknowns and there are plenty of unanswerable questions in this line of thought.
As the human is an intelligent being that perceives data, processes it, concludes, speculates, calculates, as well as many other things; any desire to fill in the gaps that science cannot fill is rational. A human uses all knowledge in their possession to reach a conclusion, including the factor of the unknown and if they choose to accept a faith that answers the unknowns which science can never answer it is also rational.
The objective of 'religion'  is to put our existnce into perspective and guide humanity to live in a respectful manner. Respectful to the fact that we are an advanced product that had no input into our own individual production, that we entered this world ignorant and are still ignorant of the unknown, that we have walked this earth for a short period compared to other things in this universe, that we are faced with the reality of a limited time on this earth.
Respectful to the fact that we also design products and know our limitations of knowledge and that the design of our products do not change unless we/something changes them.

Hello Alshajr,

I agree with almost everything you say, a very good post.

Science is a methodology for acquiring knowledge through observation and experimentation.
It does not claim anything other than that. It is not philosophy or life guidance, secular humanism is.

In theory Religion 'tells' us that it provides guidance for a respectful life.

In practice 'organised religion' has become a force that wishes to extinguish the lights your curiosity switches on.
It aims to imprison and brainwash you into accepting intellectual mediocrity.
Blind obedience is praised, imagination and questions discouraged.

wslm.
*

Incognito, on 02 April 2012 - 03:41 AM, said:

But I would hate to think that is knoweldge, because it is of such a weak nature.

What do you think knowledge is?
*

[Alshajr]

Quisant, on 02 April 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

In practice 'organised religion' has become a force that wishes to extinguish the lights your curiosity switches on.
It aims to imprison and brainwash you into accepting intellectual mediocrity.
Blind obedience is praised, imagination and questions discouraged.

wslm.

Hi Quisant, thanks

Im not in agreement that 'organised religion' aims or wishes to dehumanise humans. Curiousity is a tool of the human mind and it is by design. I guess it depends on what your definition of 'o r' is.
I see that Religion provides order, organisation, and structure to society which otherwise may be chaotic and volatile. It provides law and boundaries which adherants respect as they have established in line with their reasoning that their Creator defined them.

Once realising something is true through reasoning it is rational to believe in it wholeheartedly. I for example believe in the law of gravity and that it has a particular magnitude and have established through reasoning that it exists. In that way I now blind follow that it is a law and will make decisions of jumping, throwing etc on this reasoning.

[Quisant]

Alshajr, on 03 April 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

Hi Quisant, thanks

Im not in agreement that 'organised religion' aims or wishes to dehumanise humans. Curiousity is a tool of the human mind and it is by design. I guess it depends on what your definition of 'o r' is.
I see that Religion provides order, organisation, and structure to society which otherwise may be chaotic and volatile. It provides law and boundaries which adherants respect as they have established in line with their reasoning that their Creator defined them.

Once realising something is true through reasoning it is rational to believe in it wholeheartedly. I for example believe in the law of gravity and that it has a particular magnitude and have established through reasoning that it exists. In that way I now blind follow that it is a law and will make decisions of jumping, throwing etc on this reasoning.

The theme of this thread is not what provides 'guidance', the question being asked is what provides 'knowledge'.

I have asked what does he mean by 'knowledge', I am waiting for clarification.

wslm.
*

[Incognito]

Quote

What do you think knowledge is?

I agree with Lewis, I dont think we can ever say we have knowledge.

Faith is the highest thing a man can have. The most true of all things, and certainly the thing that matters most. The external world is important, but never as important as the internal.

The core of every man is faith, groundless faith which we hold so dearly.

[Pascal]

Incognito, on 24 March 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

I think this is an essential thing to ask all atheists, especially the science fanatics.

One who claims empirical 'proof' to be the source of true knowledge must back up this claim.

I notice your picture is of good old Soren. If you know anything about Soren, you know you can't totally justify knowledge, especially about things like God. If you follow his philosophy and i assume you are a fan, then you cant be 100% sure God exists, it seems unfair you demand that we prove that we should be 100% about something.

Incognito, on 01 April 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

But that is only if we are to take reason to be the deepest foundation of knowledge. To believe science, we must ignore those unsolvable problems, which I am not saying is wrong or not justified, but my point is how can you then say science is better than any other form of knowledge?

You're being very fluffy and blurry here...it really depends on the kind of knowledge you're talking about. Define, precisely, what exactly it is you want to know. Everything isn't a good enough answer.

If you want to know how to cure malaria, the quran is no where near the best book to read.

If you want to know the meaning of life, molecular biology of the cell, whilst a very good book, won't help you at all.

Clearly, none of us use only one method of knowing things or finding information, to suggest so is absurd. I am a scientist, yes, but it doesn't mean im any different from you in my personal life. I don't go around analysing the fractions of my soy sauce or scientifically prove why its better to like strawberry icecream less than vanilla. I simply just like vanilla better.

I'm very pragmatic, no one says science is perfect. It's just a good way of realising certain facts about the natural world. I think you become very confused by looking at people like dawkins and i don't blame you. I mean technically, we can't know if gravity is actually real. I mean sure, in the past, the apple has always fallen down but what if it doesn't? This isn't pragmatic nor useful. Science isn't philosophy. We need to move forward and we can't spend all day on questions like that. We can't be absolutely sure electrons behave the way we think they do or we can't be absolute sure antibiotics actually work but 99.99% of the time it fits what we know, its good enough for us to work with. It's better than any other way of dealing with these things. You can't even technically be sure that this reality is real. If we just sit around thinking about this all day though, you will NEVER get anything done.

Incognito, on 01 April 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

People dont believe in religion without evidence, that would be absurd. People need a reason to believe, but that evidence will not be empirical and not scientifically based, but then as we have discussed, is that a reason to deny it?

I think thats up to the individual, no matter what you think is the correct way to derive knowledge, people will keep acting as they did. The question is of little use to anyone but yourself.

Of course people dont believe without evidence but what is considered evidence wildly varies. For some people, its just good enough that their ancestors or tribe do as proof.

Again, its personal. If you personally believe something needs to be empirically proven for you to believe it, then thats your choice. Not that i think you can actually choose.

Incognito, on 01 April 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

What If I use faith as my ultimate source of knowledge? What makes that any inferior to science? You may argue science works, we can apply science to every day life, but the same follows with religion.

When was the last time someone learnt how to design drugs or build a bridge using the quran? There are quiet clearly different kinds of knowledge. You're lumping everything together far too much in my opinion.

Incognito, on 04 April 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

Faith is the highest thing a man can have. The most true of all things, and certainly the thing that matters most. The external world is important, but never as important as the internal.

The core of every man is faith, groundless faith which we hold so dearly.

Now, now...i'm sure you know thats begging the question. You can't just say...i claim it so, then it must be true!

The core of my life most definitely isn't faith of any kind...

Faith isn't the highest thing a man can have... does it really matter of hitler or a rapist was faithful? Morality, personality, character and direction are more important.

I'm sure bin laden had a lot of faith, whether or not you think he was distorting islam is a quite different matter, its clear him and his associates strongly believe what they think they ought to though. Having faith in itself is not a good quality, especially looking at people like bin laden. It's how you act and all those other things i said above.

I think the reason you've had so much trouble in this thread thus far is your question is extremely broad and not well defined, there are different kinds of knowledge and different ways, like my vanilla example. You really need to narrow it down. We obviously can't empirically prove God but we can't empirically prove a lot of things. Regardless of empirical proof there are logical reasoning problems like the problem of evil around God.

Edited by kingpomba, 05 April 2012 - 05:50 AM.

[Dhulfikar]

Quote

I agree with Lewis, I dont think we can ever say we have knowledge.

If you can demonstrate this logically then we can have some start point.

[Incognito]

Dhulfikar, on 05 April 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

If you can demonstrate this logically then we can have some start point.

The problem with philosophy is that it destroys itself. Nothing stands on a infallible ground, that is the problem. I cannot accept I know something when I can still admit that I could very easily be wrong about that thing. How can any then claim they know?

Quote

I was interested in what you had to say with regards to how faith is a source of knowledge (and examples of what knowledge it gives), but this quote contains an extreme view and, like all extreme views, is recklessly unrealistic.

You know how to spell "knowledge", clearly. And astonishingly - or perhaps not so astonishingly - I know that you know how to spell "knowledge". Are you seriously allowing for even the smallest doubt for either of these?

If you don't know how to spell certain words and read certain words and understand certain words, how will you be responding to my post?

I think you may have misunderstood my point. I can know within a system, but I cannot know the system. The system creates itself in such a way that it it makes certain things knowledge, through a fallible means of attaining it. So I have already presupposed a lot of things when I spell knowledge, now accepting those things as the base, I can know how to spell knowledge.

Just like being a brain in a VAT. If I simply ignore the problem and assume I am not, then I can know I have hands.

Quote

I am still eager to read careful answers to the questions: how is faith a source of knowledge? what examples of knowledge are provided by faith?

I think maybe I was mistaken to say it is a form of knowledge, but rather an alternative to it. Although, it can be both. With faith, there is a sort of 'knowing' that seems to be subjective. Now whether or not all truths are purely objective isnt something I can know. Humans as a whole are concerned with the universal, but for me that way of thinking seems to fail in understanding the self. Faith, like everything else, seems to be groundless. Knowledge is an impossible thing. whereas faith is not.

[Incognito]

Quote

I notice your picture is of good old Soren. If you know anything about Soren, you know you can't totally justify knowledge, especially about things like God. If you follow his philosophy and i assume you are a fan, then you cant be 100% sure God exists, it seems unfair you demand that we prove that we should be 100% about something.

Spot on. But I am not sure whether or not Kierkegaard would agree with me that knowledge cannot be justified in every aspect, he definitely would with regard to God, but then a lot of people would.

For the second half of that paragraph, it isnt so much that I am demanding anything. I see no problem in people thinking they know what science says, My problem comes when they believe that is the only 'true' way of knowing something. When science lacks evidence for a deity, they can therefore withold judgement or reject it, that is my problem.

Quote

You're being very fluffy and blurry here...it really depends on the kind of knowledge you're talking about. Define, precisely, what exactly it is you want to know. Everything isn't a good enough answer.

If you want to know how to cure malaria, the quran is no where near the best book to read.

If you want to know the meaning of life, molecular biology of the cell, whilst a very good book, won't help you at all.

Clearly, none of us use only one method of knowing things or finding information, to suggest so is absurd. I am a scientist, yes, but it doesn't mean im any different from you in my personal life. I don't go around analysing the fractions of my soy sauce or scientifically prove why its better to like strawberry icecream less than vanilla. I simply just like vanilla better.

I'm very pragmatic, no one says science is perfect. It's just a good way of realising certain facts about the natural world. I think you become very confused by looking at people like dawkins and i don't blame you. I mean technically, we can't know if gravity is actually real. I mean sure, in the past, the apple has always fallen down but what if it doesn't? This isn't pragmatic nor useful. Science isn't philosophy. We need to move forward and we can't spend all day on questions like that. We can't be absolutely sure electrons behave the way we think they do or we can't be absolute sure antibiotics actually work but 99.99% of the time it fits what we know, its good enough for us to work with. It's better than any other way of dealing with these things. You can't even technically be sure that this reality is real. If we just sit around thinking about this all day though, you will NEVER get anything done.

What I say is specifically aiming at people like Dawkin. Those who follow science as a way of life, it is absurd. From what you have said, you are not like that, therefore I have nothing to say in that matter. I would agree with what you have written above. Science, whether or not we can know is true, seems to work on some level, so we should keep at it. Make our assumptions and continue with them because they seem to be working (although sometimes they do not)

Quote

I think thats up to the individual, no matter what you think is the correct way to derive knowledge, people will keep acting as they did. The question is of little use to anyone but yourself.

Of course people dont believe without evidence but what is considered evidence wildly varies. For some people, its just good enough that their ancestors or tribe do as proof.

Again, its personal. If you personally believe something needs to be empirically proven for you to believe it, then thats your choice. Not that i think you can actually choose.

For such people, they are gravely mistaken. But I have talked about this enough already

Quote

When was the last time someone learnt how to design drugs or build a bridge using the quran? There are quiet clearly different kinds of knowledge. You're lumping everything together far too much in my opinion.

Maybe you are right. I will take more time to think about the different types of knowledge.

Quote

Now, now...i'm sure you know thats begging the question. You can't just say...i claim it so, then it must be true!

The core of my life most definitely isn't faith of any kind...

Faith isn't the highest thing a man can have... does it really matter of hitler or a rapist was faithful? Morality, personality, character and direction are more important.

I'm sure bin laden had a lot of faith, whether or not you think he was distorting islam is a quite different matter, its clear him and his associates strongly believe what they think they ought to though. Having faith in itself is not a good quality, especially looking at people like bin laden. It's how you act and all those other things i said above.

I think the reason you've had so much trouble in this thread thus far is your question is extremely broad and not well defined, there are different kinds of knowledge and different ways, like my vanilla example. You really need to narrow it down. We obviously can't empirically prove God but we can't empirically prove a lot of things. Regardless of empirical proof there are logical reasoning problems like the problem of evil around God.

So help me out. What different types of knowledge are there? Which types are more reliable?

[:Sami]

Incognito, on 06 April 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

Spot on. But I am not sure whether or not Kierkegaard would agree with me that knowledge cannot be justified in every aspect, he definitely would with regard to God, but then a lot of people would.

For the second half of that paragraph, it isnt so much that I am demanding anything. I see no problem in people thinking they know what science says, My problem comes when they believe that is the only 'true' way of knowing something. When science lacks evidence for a deity, they can therefore withold judgement or reject it, that is my problem.




What I say is specifically aiming at people like Dawkin. Those who follow science as a way of life, it is absurd. From what you have said, you are not like that, therefore I have nothing to say in that matter. I would agree with what you have written above. Science, whether or not we can know is true, seems to work on some level, so we should keep at it. Make our assumptions and continue with them because they seem to be working (although sometimes they do not)



For such people, they are gravely mistaken. But I have talked about this enough already



Maybe you are right. I will take more time to think about the different types of knowledge.



So help me out. What different types of knowledge are there? Which types are more reliable?

There's SECRET OR HIDDEN KNOWLEDGE , which is very reliable and only available to a few.
Limitations in the english language and most people's paradigms do not allow for discussions here.

Edited by :Sami, 06 April 2012 - 06:02 AM.

[Quisant]

Incognito, on 06 April 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

So help me out. What different types of knowledge are there? Which types are more reliable?

Faith without knowledge is like a dog chasing its own tail.
Knowledge without wisdom is like a donkey carrying books on its back.

Know Yourself.

It is the best advice that can be given to man or woman; to understand oneself is to understand others as well.
The purpose of life becomes visible only through self-knowledge.
Because, in the end, you will not cheat yourself.

"Yourself" is the filter that delivers the deepest available knowledge and truth.
wslm.
*