EPISTEMOLOGY: The Key to Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Atheists believe everything came from…well, nothing. And WE are the ridiculous ones.

[/quote]

Explain what you mean. Also define nothing.[/quote]

Wow, go to sleep in Japan, wake up to 25 new pertinent posts. Sorry for a few of you guys but I probably wont be able to respond to everything I want to. Keep in mind I am responding here to this post in specific but also to the posts so far in general.

Couple things:

First, we need to make sure we are not mixing the purposes of science and religion. I think this is where most people get screwed up. Science answers the question of how. Religion answers the question of why. A lot of times on this board a ton of keystrokes are wasted expecting an answer that neither exists in order to supply.

Second, the issue of faith is, I think, getting confused here. Here is my secular definition for believers and non-believers alike. If anyone doesn’t agree please let us know why, but Raj is right, we need to arrive at a common understanding of what we are talking about or we are just a bunch of bloviating asses in love with the sound of our own voices. Rather than the engaging bloviating asses we should all strive to become. (^_^)

Faith: The final state of belief wrought from the decision every human must eventually make regarding the things that cannot be known.

This is what I mean when I say that we are not any different from one another in this regard, the atheist or the Christian. Set biblical literalism aside for a moment and look back up at the topic of this thread. If you do not yet fully understand the definition of epistemology, look it up now. It is extremely important.

Finally, Raj, to answer your question, see any of the thousand discussions we’ve had regarding the Cosmological Argument from Contingency. Then refer again to my definition of faith here. We do not (yet) know, via science, how all of this got here. We have theories and such, but there comes a point where the knowledge dries up and we need to make a decision. You have made yours. I have made mine. That’s fine. Where I take umbrage is when I am equated to some inbred West Virginia mountain dwelling imbecile who hasn’t taken the time to think this thing through for myself and draw a conclusion in the very same manner that this person did.

Both of us have stared into that darkness, across that yawning chasm of human ignorance. And both of us decided to take our chances, and jump.

342

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
I have just scanned your argument Brother Chris and it seems you are saying faith is as good as reason as both are unproven.

Reasoning is rooted in logic, which does is not a belief system in itself instead it is a description of how we can come to know things and how knowledge of one thing can be applied to another. These rules are said to be self evident, which is not the same as religous faith. [/quote]

Please explain how they are different.

Feel free to use examples but be careful not to paint a picture of what Christians believe that is untrue.

343

Is your argument along the lines that we ultimately can’t know anything for certain as ultimately all our reasoning relies on our taking the rules of logic to be valid, which may not be the case and therefore we ultimately have to place faith in our understanding to be correct, and the choice to believe in faith in God is just as valid?

edit = sorry, i missed your post just above where you have answered the above question and I think you would agree with the above pararagh, as awkwardly worded as it is?

I agree with some key points you make but also think the above does not address the perceived conflict between the two. I think one is a description of what appears to us and one is an explanaion of what appears to us.

344

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
Is your argument along the lines that we ultimately can’t know anything for certain as ultimately all our reasoning relies on our taking the rules of logic to be valid, which may not be the case and therefore we ultimately have to place faith in our understanding to be correct, and the choice to believe in faith in God is just as valid?[/quote]

Sort of. Your statement is valid but I don’t think we’ve quite made it to that point in this discussion (the overall discussion, I mean). I do not doubt the rules of logic and I trust them to lead me to the same place you expect them to lead you. Right now I’m focusing upon what can and what cannot be known.

Do me a favor, give me an example of a belief that Christians believe that is provably irrational. Be careful, I am not a biblical literalist or young earth creationist, and there is no cognitive dissonance to be found in my understanding of science, how the universe was formed, and my Catholicism.

345

I don’t think any belief can be proven to be categorically irrational.

346

[quote]Cortes wrote:

First, we need to make sure we are not mixing the purposes of science and religion. I think this is where most people get screwed up. Science answers the question of how. Religion answers the question of why. A lot of times on this board a ton of keystrokes are wasted expecting an answer that neither exists in order to supply. [/quote]

I disagree with this. Science asks why all the time, it just doesn’t always get the answer. Religion attempts to answer why, but as far as I can tell it is nothing more than wild guess.

I mean what’s the justification for believing a heaven and hell exists?

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Faith: The final state of belief wrought from the decision every human must eventually make regarding the things that cannot be known. [/quote]

I disagree with this because, I am an agnostic atheist. I don’t claim any knowledge and I don’t know if god does or doesn’t exist. I am completely open to new evidence for a god. So in that respect, I may never make a decision on that matter unless conclusive evidence comes forth for the existence of god.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Finally, Raj, to answer your question, see any of the thousand discussions we’ve had regarding the Cosmological Argument from Contingency. Then refer again to my definition of faith here. We do not (yet) know, via science, how all of this got here. We have theories and such, but there comes a point where the knowledge dries up and we need to make a decision. You have made yours. I have made mine. That’s fine. Where I take umbrage is when I am equated to some inbred West Virginia mountain dwelling imbecile who hasn’t taken the time to think this thing through for myself and draw a conclusion in the very same manner that this person did.

Both of us have stared into that darkness, across that yawning chasm of human ignorance. And both of us decided to take our chances, and jump. [/quote]

By saying I believe something can come from nothing, you are misrepresenting my position. My position is that I do not necessarily accept something cannot come from nothing.

The reason I asked you to define nothing is in some cases, depending on how you define nothing, something can come from nothing.

Lawrence Krauss’s book a universe from nothing goes in depth about this

347

Cortes, there shouldn’t be any cognitive dissonance between your understanding of science and your catholic faith. It’s not irrational to suggest a conscience entity is the “cause” of our reality, it’s also not irrational to say everything came from nothing or that the universe just is and always will be. In fact, nothing can be said to be irrational when talking about the very nature of reality. That is not a justifiable basis for what religon is sometimes stated as being.

348

[quote]therajraj wrote:
You can justify ANYTHING by saying it’s “above human reasoning.”
[/quote]

But that’s not the justification for believing it. That doesn’t make any sense.

Based off the authority and witness of the Church.

Not that there isn’t rationality in the Dogmas, there is, but that we can’t arrive there using logic. It’s basically an empirical observation that we can’t explain using logic. I am not sure if that makes sense.

What do you consider conclusive evidence? Like what is the criteria or the goal posts that something has to pass before it’s considered conclusive?

349

I also disagree with your definitions of faith and science. The definition of faith you have given may describe your reasons for faith but I don’t think humans MUST believe anything, if something is not known, its unknown, there is no belief.

350

Brother Prince, you have no grounds to appeal to a higher form of reason. If something is beyond human reasoning then we cannot say anything about it’s vailidity. Can you give me some examples of Dogma. Is the idea that homosexual acts are sinful a dogma or is it more to do with ideas like reasons for allowing suffering in the world?

351

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
I also disagree with your definitions of faith and science. The definition of faith you have given may describe your reasons for faith but I don’t think humans MUST believe anything, if something is not known, its unknown, there is no belief.[/quote]

Yes, but most fundamental skeptics appear to be able to function, because well they aren’t consistently skeptical and not really all that fundamental.

352

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

But that’s not the justification for believing it. That doesn’t make any sense. [/quote]

What I’m saying here is that saying something is “above human reasoning” would make whatever they were referring to unfalsifiable.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Based off the authority and witness of the Church. [/quote]

Okay, and how could they possibly know about something that is above “human reasoning?”

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Not that there isn’t rationality in the Dogmas, there is, but that we can’t arrive there using logic. It’s basically an empirical observation that we can’t explain using logic. I am not sure if that makes sense. [/quote]

What empirical observation?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

What do you consider conclusive evidence? Like what is the criteria or the goal posts that something has to pass before it’s considered conclusive?
[/quote]

I couldn’t tell you, but if a god exists he/she/it would know.

However what is your standard of evidence for accepting god?

As far as I know you can make a philosophical argument wrought with criticism and you have gospels which are 2nd hand textual accounts of reported miracles written 40 years after the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I don’t find that to be compelling. Do you?

353

can you clarify what point you are making with that last post? {Cortes}

354

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
Brother Prince, you have no grounds to appeal to a higher form of reason. If something is beyond human reasoning then we cannot say anything about it’s vailidity. Can you give me some examples of Dogma. Is the idea that homosexual acts are sinful a dogma or is it more to do with ideas like reasons for allowing suffering in the world?[/quote]

Our understanding of SSA and SS acts are a piece of doctrine and part of Natural Law. I guess if you deny final causality (got it this time) that it won’t seem like there is a reason.

Let’s see, what is a good Dogma…Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

Others:

All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.
God has created a good world.
The first man was created by God.
The rational soul per se is the essential form of the body.
Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church.
From the sacramental contract of marriage emerges the Bond of Marriage, which binds both marriage partners to a lifelong indivisible community of life.
All the Sacraments of the New Covenant confer sanctifying grace on the receivers.

There are more of course. And there is distinctions between dogmas. Pure dogmas are those that I believe you are referring to, pure dogmas are those which can be known only from revelation, as the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.; while mixed dogmas are truths which can be known from revelation or from philosophical reasoning as the existence and attributes of God. Both classes are dogmas in the strict sense, when considered as revealed and defined.

355

this has gone for a few pages can i ask what the point of this thread is? There is no evidence or reasoning that supports the existence of the God you put forward. Catholics essentially have no basis for this rather grand and elaborate belief system

Discussions of the limits of human knowledge don’t support the idea of a God in any way, neither does a lack of understanding of our perceived realiy. You can believe whatever you wish, that is your right, the same way I can have a right to be unsure however please don’t claim there is any basis that supports the idea of the catholic god as presented in the bible.

356

I will re-read the thread again, but I am unsure why the word epistemology was repeatedly brought up.

Logic, reasoning and scientific enquiry do not have anything to say on religon, other than it is not supported by any evidence to suggest it being real.

Don’t try to equate it with logic or reason, its a complete misrepresentation of what those are taken to be.

edit - reading some of the earlier posts by Tribulus, so much promised and nothing but strawman arguments and some very poor attempts to discredit logic, which shows a fundemental lack of understanding of how logic relates to human thought

357

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
Cortes, there shouldn’t be any cognitive dissonance between your understanding of science and your catholic faith. It’s not irrational to suggest a conscience entity is the “cause” of our reality, it’s also not irrational to say everything came from nothing or that the universe just is and always will be. In fact, nothing can be said to be irrational when talking about the very nature of reality. That is not a justifiable basis for what religon is sometimes stated as being.[/quote]

This is why I asked you for a tangible example. Please, give me one.

358

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
I also disagree with your definitions of faith and science. The definition of faith you have given may describe your reasons for faith but I don’t think humans MUST believe anything, if something is not known, its unknown, there is no belief.[/quote]

There is no such thing as no belief. The very fact that you are posting here debating about it implies a passion. Passion for “nothing” does not exist.

I don’t know you very well, but Raj has been here a while, and for somebody who doesn’t hasn’t made any final decisions about the nature of our universe, God and such, he sure does hold some STRONG opinions.

If there actually exists the person who doesn’t believe finally in anything (no dysphemism intended), you won’t find them here because finally they just don’t give a shit.

359

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
I also disagree with your definitions of faith and science. The definition of faith you have given may describe your reasons for faith but I don’t think humans MUST believe anything, if something is not known, its unknown, there is no belief.[/quote]

Yes, but most fundamental skeptics appear to be able to function, because well they aren’t consistently skeptical and not really all that fundamental. [/quote]

Bingo.

360

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
this has gone for a few pages can i ask what the point of this thread is? There is no evidence or reasoning that supports the existence of the God you put forward. Catholics essentially have no basis for this rather grand and elaborate belief system

Discussions of the limits of human knowledge don’t support the idea of a God in any way, neither does a lack of understanding of our perceived realiy. You can believe whatever you wish, that is your right, the same way I can have a right to be unsure however please don’t claim there is any basis that supports the idea of the catholic god as presented in the bible. [/quote]

This is why I suggested guys like you spend at least a month reading through the threads on the topics that you intend to discuss. That saves us a lot of retreading old ground and reexplaining our positions to each other.

First, Cosmological Argument from Contingency provides an ample argument for the necessity of a First Cause (in other words, God). Tirib doesn’t like this one for a number of reasons but if you are taking on Christians telling us our belief that there is a God has no evidence or basis in reason, you are sorely mistaken.

After that is established, there are all sorts of others ways we can confidently conclude that the God we have established must exist is the self-same God of Abraham, Moses, Elija, is, in fact, Jesus Christ. But, again, this is not the place to discuss all that.

You keep saying that our beliefs are unfounded, but you have a yet to offer a single example of an unfounded belief that we hold.

Please. One example.