--I strongly believe god(s) exist(s).
--I somewhat believe god(s) exist(s).
--I don't believe either way.
--I somewhat believe no god(s) exist(s).
--I strongly believe no god(s) exist(s).
Doesn't that poll (based of Richard Dawkins' belief scale) show that
atheism (last two options) is a belief like (poly/pan)theism (first
two options) and that only agnosticism/apisticism (middle option) is a
lack of faith?
No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Some beliefs are
based on evidence. For example, I believe that it will rain
soon because I see dark clouds in the sky.
On 1 nov, 21:45, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Doesn't that poll (based of Richard Dawkins' belief scale) show that
> atheism (last two options) is a belief like (poly/pan)theism (first
> two options) and that only agnosticism/apisticism (middle option) is a
> lack of faith?
That wasn't the question. The question was whether atheism is a
belief, and your answer seems to be that it is. Regarding faith--
faith (belief) is stronger when evidence is stronger, weaker when
evidence is weaker, unless the faith/belief is blind.
On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Some beliefs are
> based on evidence. For example, I believe that it will rain
> soon because I see dark clouds in the sky.
> On 1 nov, 21:45, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Doesn't that poll (based of Richard Dawkins' belief scale) show that
> > atheism (last two options) is a belief like (poly/pan)theism (first
> > two options) and that only agnosticism/apisticism (middle option) is a
> > lack of faith?
> > Maryann Spikes / Ichthus77- Hide quoted text -
Faith, by its very nature, can only exist in the domain of ignorance.
Its only when we do not have a definite answer about something that we form a theory about it based on our beliefs and our prejudices and call it faith.
So if atheists do not have definite proof, it is a belief base on sheer contrariness.
> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 09:24:38 -0700 > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)? > From: ichthu...@hotmail.com > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> That wasn't the question. The question was whether atheism is a > belief, and your answer seems to be that it is. Regarding faith-- > faith (belief) is stronger when evidence is stronger, weaker when > evidence is weaker, unless the faith/belief is blind.
> On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Some beliefs are > > based on evidence. For example, I believe that it will rain > > soon because I see dark clouds in the sky.
> > On 1 nov, 21:45, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Doesn't that poll (based of Richard Dawkins' belief scale) show that > > > atheism (last two options) is a belief like (poly/pan)theism (first > > > two options) and that only agnosticism/apisticism (middle option) is a > > > lack of faith?
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.
Prem Das, faith doesn’t have to be a religious word. It is a good
word. We use it when we talk about having faith in mankind, being
faithful to eachother, being "faithful to the text" et cetera. Though
sometimes it means trust and loyalty to another individual/group/etc.,
it can also mean loyalty to the truth, to reality. Theists believe and
have faith lacking certainty just like everyone else—the difference is
their belief, their faith, is blind.
On Nov 7, 1:29 am, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Faith, by its very nature, can only exist in the domain of ignorance.
> Its only when we do not have a definite answer about something that
> we form a theory about it based on our beliefs and our prejudices and
> call it faith.
> So if atheists do not have definite proof, it is a belief base on sheer
> contrariness.
> > Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 09:24:38 -0700
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)?
> > From: ichthu...@hotmail.com
> > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > That wasn't the question. The question was whether atheism is a
> > belief, and your answer seems to be that it is. Regarding faith--
> > faith (belief) is stronger when evidence is stronger, weaker when
> > evidence is weaker, unless the faith/belief is blind.
> > On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Some beliefs are
> > > based on evidence. For example, I believe that it will rain
> > > soon because I see dark clouds in the sky.
> > > On 1 nov, 21:45, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Doesn't that poll (based of Richard Dawkins' belief scale) show that
> > > > atheism (last two options) is a belief like (poly/pan)theism (first
> > > > two options) and that only agnosticism/apisticism (middle option) is a
> > > > lack of faith?
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.- Hide quoted text -
I am a card carrying 'Believer'. But I don't believe in the 'you offer me prayers and I will heap blessings on you interactive God"
If you know God beyond the 'word', beyond religions, beyond reason, you may perhaps begin to see a glimmer of the majesty of all that is God.
Look up the history of religions and see if they have ever kept faith with any of all that they profess to teach. Do not sweep all the hypocrisy under the carpet and render your faith blind. There is nothing useful about it.
There are thousands and thousands of children and adults in the present time, victims of sexual and physical abuse who might have a different persective about blind faith.
Sorry Simone, blind faith makes for brutal religions. Hence the suicide bombers.
> Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:52:55 -0800 > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)? > From: advocatesim...@hotmail.com > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> Prem Das, faith doesn’t have to be a religious word. It is a good > word. We use it when we talk about having faith in mankind, being > faithful to eachother, being "faithful to the text" et cetera. Though > sometimes it means trust and loyalty to another individual/group/etc., > it can also mean loyalty to the truth, to reality. Theists believe and > have faith lacking certainty just like everyone else—the difference is > their belief, their faith, is blind.
> On Nov 7, 1:29 am, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Faith, by its very nature, can only exist in the domain of ignorance.
> > Its only when we do not have a definite answer about something that > > we form a theory about it based on our beliefs and our prejudices and > > call it faith.
> > So if atheists do not have definite proof, it is a belief base on sheer > > contrariness.
> > > Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 09:24:38 -0700 > > > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)? > > > From: ichthu...@hotmail.com > > > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > > That wasn't the question. The question was whether atheism is a > > > belief, and your answer seems to be that it is. Regarding faith-- > > > faith (belief) is stronger when evidence is stronger, weaker when > > > evidence is weaker, unless the faith/belief is blind.
> > > On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Some beliefs are > > > > based on evidence. For example, I believe that it will rain > > > > soon because I see dark clouds in the sky.
> > > > > Doesn't that poll (based of Richard Dawkins' belief scale) show that > > > > > atheism (last two options) is a belief like (poly/pan)theism (first > > > > > two options) and that only agnosticism/apisticism (middle option) is a > > > > > lack of faith?
> > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.
I agree that everyone, lacking absolute certainty, has faith to
varying degrees. I disagree (simone) that all theists' faith is
blind, or that atheists are just being "contrary" (Prem Das). In
order to say that theism is wrong, atheism has to be "right"...just
like in order for atheism to be wrong, (poly/pan)theism has to be
right. Theists aren't just being contrary about atheism, and atheists
aren't just being contrary about theism. The ones who lack belief
either way are agnostics/apistics--defaulting to neither atheism, nor
theism.
Interesting website, simone.
On Nov 7, 3:37 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am a card carrying 'Believer'. But I don't believe in the 'you offer me prayers
> and I will heap blessings on you interactive God"
> If you know God beyond the 'word', beyond religions, beyond reason, you may
> perhaps begin to see a glimmer of the majesty of all that is God.
> Look up the history of religions and see if they have ever kept faith with any
> of all that they profess to teach. Do not sweep all the hypocrisy under the carpet
> and render your faith blind. There is nothing useful about it.
> There are thousands and thousands of children and adults in the present time,
> victims of sexual and physical abuse who might have a different persective about blind faith.
> Sorry Simone, blind faith makes for brutal religions. Hence the suicide bombers.
> > Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:52:55 -0800
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)?
> > From: advocatesim...@hotmail.com
> > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > Prem Das, faith doesn’t have to be a religious word. It is a good
> > word. We use it when we talk about having faith in mankind, being
> > faithful to eachother, being "faithful to the text" et cetera. Though
> > sometimes it means trust and loyalty to another individual/group/etc.,
> > it can also mean loyalty to the truth, to reality. Theists believe and
> > have faith lacking certainty just like everyone else—the difference is
> > their belief, their faith, is blind.
> > On Nov 7, 1:29 am, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Faith, by its very nature, can only exist in the domain of ignorance.
> > > Its only when we do not have a definite answer about something that
> > > we form a theory about it based on our beliefs and our prejudices and
> > > call it faith.
> > > So if atheists do not have definite proof, it is a belief base on sheer
> > > contrariness.
> > > > Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 09:24:38 -0700
> > > > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)?
> > > > From: ichthu...@hotmail.com
> > > > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > > > That wasn't the question. The question was whether atheism is a
> > > > belief, and your answer seems to be that it is. Regarding faith--
> > > > faith (belief) is stronger when evidence is stronger, weaker when
> > > > evidence is weaker, unless the faith/belief is blind.
> > > > On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Some beliefs are
> > > > > based on evidence. For example, I believe that it will rain
> > > > > soon because I see dark clouds in the sky.
> > > > > > Doesn't that poll (based of Richard Dawkins' belief scale) show that
> > > > > > atheism (last two options) is a belief like (poly/pan)theism (first
> > > > > > two options) and that only agnosticism/apisticism (middle option) is a
> > > > > > lack of faith?
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.-Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.- Hide quoted text -
We are all agnostics: no one knows whether God exists or not. I
don't think that even the Pope would claim that he knows that God
exists. An agnostic is someone who does not know. Some of
us, including myself, believe that God does not exist.
Not all beliefs are faith: my belief that it will rain tomorrow,
based on the weather forecast and on the clouds, would not
normally be seen as an instance of faith. What's more, "faith"
is used in certain contexts, generally religious contexts: my
belief that Obama is an intelligent person is not generally considered
as a faith in his intelligence. I can give reasons why I consider
him to be intelligent.
It may be that we should stop talking about faith, which is a
theological virtue and is not used much in philosophy, and begin to
talk in terms of belief and of knowledge. In that context, I
agree with Icthus 77 that atheism is a belief system. Actually,
there are very few things that we can know with certainty.
However, in the real world, most of us choose, insofar as we
choose, to live our lives as if God exists or as if God does not
exist. That is a real existential choice, and that choice is
based on belief, not on knowledge.
On 7 nov, 20:53, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that everyone, lacking absolute certainty, has faith to
> varying degrees. I disagree (simone) that all theists' faith is
> blind, or that atheists are just being "contrary" (Prem Das). In
> order to say that theism is wrong, atheism has to be "right"...just
> like in order for atheism to be wrong, (poly/pan)theism has to be
> right. Theists aren't just being contrary about atheism, and atheists
> aren't just being contrary about theism. The ones who lack belief
> either way are agnostics/apistics--defaulting to neither atheism, nor
> theism.
> Interesting website, simone.
> On Nov 7, 3:37 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I am a card carrying 'Believer'. But I don't believe in the 'you offer me prayers
> > and I will heap blessings on you interactive God"
> > If you know God beyond the 'word', beyond religions, beyond reason, you may
> > perhaps begin to see a glimmer of the majesty of all that is God.
> > Look up the history of religions and see if they have ever kept faith with any
> > of all that they profess to teach. Do not sweep all the hypocrisy under the carpet
> > and render your faith blind. There is nothing useful about it.
> > There are thousands and thousands of children and adults in the present time,
> > victims of sexual and physical abuse who might have a different persective about blind faith.
> > Sorry Simone, blind faith makes for brutal religions. Hence the suicide bombers.
> > > Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:52:55 -0800
> > > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)?
> > > From: advocatesim...@hotmail.com
> > > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > > Prem Das, faith doesn’t have to be a religious word. It is a good
> > > word. We use it when we talk about having faith in mankind, being
> > > faithful to eachother, being "faithful to the text" et cetera. Though
> > > sometimes it means trust and loyalty to another individual/group/etc.,
> > > it can also mean loyalty to the truth, to reality. Theists believe and
> > > have faith lacking certainty just like everyone else—the difference is
> > > their belief, their faith, is blind.
> > > On Nov 7, 1:29 am, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Faith, by its very nature, can only exist in the domain of ignorance.
> > > > Its only when we do not have a definite answer about something that
> > > > we form a theory about it based on our beliefs and our prejudices and
> > > > call it faith.
> > > > So if atheists do not have definite proof, it is a belief base on sheer
> > > > contrariness.
> > > > > Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 09:24:38 -0700
> > > > > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)?
> > > > > From: ichthu...@hotmail.com
> > > > > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > > > > That wasn't the question. The question was whether atheism is a
> > > > > belief, and your answer seems to be that it is. Regarding faith--
> > > > > faith (belief) is stronger when evidence is stronger, weaker when
> > > > > evidence is weaker, unless the faith/belief is blind.
> > > > > On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Some beliefs are
> > > > > > based on evidence. For example, I believe that it will rain
> > > > > > soon because I see dark clouds in the sky.
> > > > > > > Doesn't that poll (based of Richard Dawkins' belief scale) show that
> > > > > > > atheism (last two options) is a belief like (poly/pan)theism (first
> > > > > > > two options) and that only agnosticism/apisticism (middle option) is a
> > > > > > > lack of faith?
> > > > > --
> > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.-Hidequoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.-Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
I don't think, amos, that you can say we are all agnostics: certainly
some theists claim to "know" that god exists, and certainly some
atheists claim to "know" that god doesn't.
For myself I think that there are different forms of atheism - one
which is very much like theism, in which its adherents claim
certainty, and another (which I think most atheists fall into) which
is a simple lack of belief in god - usually due to a lack of
evidence.
The latter doesn't call for any faith at all, to say it does is like
saying that a lack of belief in the loch ness monster calls for faith.
It doesn't. All it calls for is skepticism until some valid evidence
is in. And no, you don't even have to seriously consider that god, or
the loch ness monster does exist in the absence of evidence, then
you'd have to consider a ton of other things that people believe, but
have no evidence for - ghosts, fairies, santa claus, zeus, thor, etc,
etc, etc.
Simply stating that no, you don't believe, and no, you don't know but
you think it highly unlikely, doesn't call for any faith as far as I
can see (or feel.)
David
On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We are all agnostics: no one knows whether God exists or not. I
> don't think that even the Pope would claim that he knows that God
> exists. An agnostic is someone who does not know. Some of
> us, including myself, believe that God does not exist.
> Not all beliefs are faith: my belief that it will rain tomorrow,
> based on the weather forecast and on the clouds, would not
> normally be seen as an instance of faith. What's more, "faith"
> is used in certain contexts, generally religious contexts: my
> belief that Obama is an intelligent person is not generally considered
> as a faith in his intelligence. I can give reasons why I consider
> him to be intelligent.
> It may be that we should stop talking about faith, which is a
> theological virtue and is not used much in philosophy, and begin to
> talk in terms of belief and of knowledge. In that context, I
> agree with Icthus 77 that atheism is a belief system. Actually,
> there are very few things that we can know with certainty.
> However, in the real world, most of us choose, insofar as we
> choose, to live our lives as if God exists or as if God does not
> exist. That is a real existential choice, and that choice is
> based on belief, not on knowledge.
> On 7 nov, 20:53, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree that everyone, lacking absolute certainty, has faith to
> > varying degrees. I disagree (simone) that all theists' faith is
> > blind, or that atheists are just being "contrary" (Prem Das). In
> > order to say that theism is wrong, atheism has to be "right"...just
> > like in order for atheism to be wrong, (poly/pan)theism has to be
> > right. Theists aren't just being contrary about atheism, and atheists
> > aren't just being contrary about theism. The ones who lack belief
> > either way are agnostics/apistics--defaulting to neither atheism, nor
> > theism.
> > Interesting website, simone.
> > On Nov 7, 3:37 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am a card carrying 'Believer'. But I don't believe in the 'you offer me prayers
> > > and I will heap blessings on you interactive God"
> > > If you know God beyond the 'word', beyond religions, beyond reason, you may
> > > perhaps begin to see a glimmer of the majesty of all that is God.
> > > Look up the history of religions and see if they have ever kept faith with any
> > > of all that they profess to teach. Do not sweep all the hypocrisy under the carpet
> > > and render your faith blind. There is nothing useful about it.
> > > There are thousands and thousands of children and adults in the present time,
> > > victims of sexual and physical abuse who might have a different persective about blind faith.
> > > Sorry Simone, blind faith makes for brutal religions. Hence the suicide bombers.
> > > > Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:52:55 -0800
> > > > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)?
> > > > From: advocatesim...@hotmail.com
> > > > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > > > Prem Das, faith doesn’t have to be a religious word. It is a good
> > > > word. We use it when we talk about having faith in mankind, being
> > > > faithful to eachother, being "faithful to the text" et cetera. Though
> > > > sometimes it means trust and loyalty to another individual/group/etc.,
> > > > it can also mean loyalty to the truth, to reality. Theists believe and
> > > > have faith lacking certainty just like everyone else—the difference is
> > > > their belief, their faith, is blind.
> > > > On Nov 7, 1:29 am, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Faith, by its very nature, can only exist in the domain of ignorance.
> > > > > Its only when we do not have a definite answer about something that
> > > > > we form a theory about it based on our beliefs and our prejudices and
> > > > > call it faith.
> > > > > So if atheists do not have definite proof, it is a belief base on sheer
> > > > > contrariness.
> > > > > > Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 09:24:38 -0700
> > > > > > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)?
> > > > > > From: ichthu...@hotmail.com
> > > > > > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > That wasn't the question. The question was whether atheism is a
> > > > > > belief, and your answer seems to be that it is. Regarding faith--
> > > > > > faith (belief) is stronger when evidence is stronger, weaker when
> > > > > > evidence is weaker, unless the faith/belief is blind.
> > > > > > On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Some beliefs are
> > > > > > > based on evidence. For example, I believe that it will rain
> > > > > > > soon because I see dark clouds in the sky.
> > > > > > > > Doesn't that poll (based of Richard Dawkins' belief scale) show that
> > > > > > > > atheism (last two options) is a belief like (poly/pan)theism (first
> > > > > > > > two options) and that only agnosticism/apisticism (middle option) is a
> > > > > > > > lack of faith?
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.-Hidequotedtext -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.-Hidequoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> I don't think, amos, that you can say we are all agnostics: certainly
> some theists claim to "know" that god exists, and certainly some
> atheists claim to "know" that god doesn't.
> For myself I think that there are different forms of atheism - one
> which is very much like theism, in which its adherents claim
> certainty, and another (which I think most atheists fall into) which
> is a simple lack of belief in god - usually due to a lack of
> evidence.
> The latter doesn't call for any faith at all, to say it does is like
> saying that a lack of belief in the loch ness monster calls for faith.
> It doesn't. All it calls for is skepticism until some valid evidence
> is in. And no, you don't even have to seriously consider that god, or
> the loch ness monster does exist in the absence of evidence, then
> you'd have to consider a ton of other things that people believe, but
> have no evidence for - ghosts, fairies, santa claus, zeus, thor, etc,
> etc, etc.
> Simply stating that no, you don't believe, and no, you don't know but
> you think it highly unlikely, doesn't call for any faith as far as I
> can see (or feel.)
> David
> On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We are all agnostics: no one knows whether God exists or not. I
> > don't think that even the Pope would claim that he knows that God
> > exists. An agnostic is someone who does not know. Some of
> > us, including myself, believe that God does not exist.
> > Not all beliefs are faith: my belief that it will rain tomorrow,
> > based on the weather forecast and on the clouds, would not
> > normally be seen as an instance of faith. What's more, "faith"
> > is used in certain contexts, generally religious contexts: my
> > belief that Obama is an intelligent person is not generally considered
> > as a faith in his intelligence. I can give reasons why I consider
> > him to be intelligent.
> > It may be that we should stop talking about faith, which is a
> > theological virtue and is not used much in philosophy, and begin to
> > talk in terms of belief and of knowledge. In that context, I
> > agree with Icthus 77 that atheism is a belief system. Actually,
> > there are very few things that we can know with certainty.
> > However, in the real world, most of us choose, insofar as we
> > choose, to live our lives as if God exists or as if God does not
> > exist. That is a real existential choice, and that choice is
> > based on belief, not on knowledge.
> > On 7 nov, 20:53, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I agree that everyone, lacking absolute certainty, has faith to
> > > varying degrees. I disagree (simone) that all theists' faith is
> > > blind, or that atheists are just being "contrary" (Prem Das). In
> > > order to say that theism is wrong, atheism has to be "right"...just
> > > like in order for atheism to be wrong, (poly/pan)theism has to be
> > > right. Theists aren't just being contrary about atheism, and atheists
> > > aren't just being contrary about theism. The ones who lack belief
> > > either way are agnostics/apistics--defaulting to neither atheism, nor
> > > theism.
> > > Interesting website, simone.
> > > On Nov 7, 3:37 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I am a card carrying 'Believer'. But I don't believe in the 'you offer me prayers
> > > > and I will heap blessings on you interactive God"
> > > > If you know God beyond the 'word', beyond religions, beyond reason, you may
> > > > perhaps begin to see a glimmer of the majesty of all that is God.
> > > > Look up the history of religions and see if they have ever kept faith with any
> > > > of all that they profess to teach. Do not sweep all the hypocrisy under the carpet
> > > > and render your faith blind. There is nothing useful about it.
> > > > There are thousands and thousands of children and adults in the present time,
> > > > victims of sexual and physical abuse who might have a different persective about blind faith.
> > > > Sorry Simone, blind faith makes for brutal religions. Hence the suicide bombers.
> > > > > Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:52:55 -0800
> > > > > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)?
> > > > > From: advocatesim...@hotmail.com
> > > > > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > > > > Prem Das, faith doesn’t have to be a religious word. It is a good
> > > > > word. We use it when we talk about having faith in mankind, being
> > > > > faithful to eachother, being "faithful to the text" et cetera. Though
> > > > > sometimes it means trust and loyalty to another individual/group/etc.,
> > > > > it can also mean loyalty to the truth, to reality. Theists believe and
> > > > > have faith lacking certainty just like everyone else—the difference is
> > > > > their belief, their faith, is blind.
> > > > > On Nov 7, 1:29 am, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Faith, by its very nature, can only exist in the domain of ignorance.
> > > > > > Its only when we do not have a definite answer about something that
> > > > > > we form a theory about it based on our beliefs and our prejudices and
> > > > > > call it faith.
> > > > > > So if atheists do not have definite proof, it is a belief base on sheer
> > > > > > contrariness.
> > > > > > > Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 09:24:38 -0700
> > > > > > > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)?
> > > > > > > From: ichthu...@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > > That wasn't the question. The question was whether atheism is a
> > > > > > > belief, and your answer seems to be that it is. Regarding faith--
> > > > > > > faith (belief) is stronger when evidence is stronger, weaker when
> > > > > > > evidence is weaker, unless the faith/belief is blind.
> > > > > > > On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Some beliefs are
> > > > > > > > based on evidence. For example, I believe that it will rain
> > > > > > > > soon because I see dark clouds in the sky.
> > > > > > > > > Doesn't that poll (based of Richard Dawkins' belief scale) show that
> > > > > > > > > atheism (last two options) is a belief like (poly/pan)theism (first
> > > > > > > > > two options) and that only agnosticism/apisticism (middle option) is a
> > > > > > > > > lack of faith?
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.-Hidequotedtext-
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > --
> > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.-Hidequotedtext -
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> > > - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Hide quoted text -
Has anyone stopped to think the 'Unknowable' is so because it does not exists in our dimension that it is not an entity with tangible form and existance.
We too are not of the corporeal body. Without the spirit underpining this corporealness we do not exist.
It is our spirit that would have the ability to know the 'Unknowable'.
> Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:54:16 -0800 > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)? > From: ichthu...@hotmail.com > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> On Nov 7, 4:48 pm, David J Bailey <davidjbai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think, amos, that you can say we are all agnostics: certainly > > some theists claim to "know" that god exists, and certainly some > > atheists claim to "know" that god doesn't.
> > For myself I think that there are different forms of atheism - one > > which is very much like theism, in which its adherents claim > > certainty, and another (which I think most atheists fall into) which > > is a simple lack of belief in god - usually due to a lack of > > evidence.
> > The latter doesn't call for any faith at all, to say it does is like > > saying that a lack of belief in the loch ness monster calls for faith. > > It doesn't. All it calls for is skepticism until some valid evidence > > is in. And no, you don't even have to seriously consider that god, or > > the loch ness monster does exist in the absence of evidence, then > > you'd have to consider a ton of other things that people believe, but > > have no evidence for - ghosts, fairies, santa claus, zeus, thor, etc, > > etc, etc.
> > Simply stating that no, you don't believe, and no, you don't know but > > you think it highly unlikely, doesn't call for any faith as far as I > > can see (or feel.)
> > David
> > On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We are all agnostics: no one knows whether God exists or not. I > > > don't think that even the Pope would claim that he knows that God > > > exists. An agnostic is someone who does not know. Some of > > > us, including myself, believe that God does not exist.
> > > Not all beliefs are faith: my belief that it will rain tomorrow, > > > based on the weather forecast and on the clouds, would not > > > normally be seen as an instance of faith. What's more, "faith" > > > is used in certain contexts, generally religious contexts: my > > > belief that Obama is an intelligent person is not generally considered > > > as a faith in his intelligence. I can give reasons why I consider > > > him to be intelligent.
> > > It may be that we should stop talking about faith, which is a > > > theological virtue and is not used much in philosophy, and begin to > > > talk in terms of belief and of knowledge. In that context, I > > > agree with Icthus 77 that atheism is a belief system. Actually, > > > there are very few things that we can know with certainty.
> > > However, in the real world, most of us choose, insofar as we > > > choose, to live our lives as if God exists or as if God does not > > > exist. That is a real existential choice, and that choice is > > > based on belief, not on knowledge.
> > > On 7 nov, 20:53, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I agree that everyone, lacking absolute certainty, has faith to > > > > varying degrees. I disagree (simone) that all theists' faith is > > > > blind, or that atheists are just being "contrary" (Prem Das). In > > > > order to say that theism is wrong, atheism has to be "right"...just > > > > like in order for atheism to be wrong, (poly/pan)theism has to be > > > > right. Theists aren't just being contrary about atheism, and atheists > > > > aren't just being contrary about theism. The ones who lack belief > > > > either way are agnostics/apistics--defaulting to neither atheism, nor > > > > theism.
> > > > Interesting website, simone.
> > > > On Nov 7, 3:37 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I am a card carrying 'Believer'. But I don't believe in the 'you offer me prayers > > > > > and I will heap blessings on you interactive God"
> > > > > If you know God beyond the 'word', beyond religions, beyond reason, you may > > > > > perhaps begin to see a glimmer of the majesty of all that is God.
> > > > > Look up the history of religions and see if they have ever kept faith with any > > > > > of all that they profess to teach. Do not sweep all the hypocrisy under the carpet > > > > > and render your faith blind. There is nothing useful about it.
> > > > > There are thousands and thousands of children and adults in the present time, > > > > > victims of sexual and physical abuse who might have a different persective about blind faith.
> > > > > Sorry Simone, blind faith makes for brutal religions. Hence the suicide bombers.
> > > > > > Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:52:55 -0800 > > > > > > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)? > > > > > > From: advocatesim...@hotmail.com > > > > > > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > Prem Das, faith doesn’t have to be a religious word. It is a good > > > > > > word. We use it when we talk about having faith in mankind, being > > > > > > faithful to eachother, being "faithful to the text" et cetera. Though > > > > > > sometimes it means trust and loyalty to another individual/group/etc., > > > > > > it can also mean loyalty to the truth, to reality. Theists believe and > > > > > > have faith lacking certainty just like everyone else—the difference is > > > > > > their belief, their faith, is blind.
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 1:29 am, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Faith, by its very nature, can only exist in the domain of ignorance.
> > > > > > > Its only when we do not have a definite answer about something that > > > > > > > we form a theory about it based on our beliefs and our prejudices and > > > > > > > call it faith.
> > > > > > > So if atheists do not have definite proof, it is a belief base on sheer > > > > > > > contrariness.
> > > > > > > > That wasn't the question. The question was whether atheism is a > > > > > > > > belief, and your answer seems to be that it is. Regarding faith-- > > > > > > > > faith (belief) is stronger when evidence is stronger, weaker when > > > > > > > > evidence is weaker, unless the faith/belief is blind.
> > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Some beliefs are > > > > > > > > > based on evidence. For example, I believe that it will rain > > > > > > > > > soon because I see dark clouds in the sky.
> > > > > > > > > > Doesn't that poll (based of Richard Dawkins' belief scale) show that > > > > > > > > > > atheism (last two options) is a belief like (poly/pan)theism (first > > > > > > > > > > two options) and that only agnosticism/apisticism (middle option) is a > > > > > > > > > > lack of faith?
> > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.-Hidequotedtext-
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > > -- > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.-Hidequotedtext -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> > > > - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.
I don't know all that much about theology, but I do know that
faith is one of the three most important virtues in traditional
Catholic theology. I also have read Pascal and Kierkegaard,
perhaps not the most representative Christian thinkers, and for
both, Christianity is a matter of faith, not of knowledge.
Undoubtedly, some Christian fundamentalists claim to know that
Christianity is true, but isn't the truth of Christianity a matter
of faith, not knowledge, for mainstream Christian thought?
I've never read Aquinas, but perhaps someone who has read him can
inform me about the role of faith in the Christian tradition.
Thank you.
On 7 nov, 21:48, David J Bailey <davidjbai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think, amos, that you can say we are all agnostics: certainly
> some theists claim to "know" that god exists, and certainly some
> atheists claim to "know" that god doesn't.
> For myself I think that there are different forms of atheism - one
> which is very much like theism, in which its adherents claim
> certainty, and another (which I think most atheists fall into) which
> is a simple lack of belief in god - usually due to a lack of
> evidence.
> The latter doesn't call for any faith at all, to say it does is like
> saying that a lack of belief in the loch ness monster calls for faith.
> It doesn't. All it calls for is skepticism until some valid evidence
> is in. And no, you don't even have to seriously consider that god, or
> the loch ness monster does exist in the absence of evidence, then
> you'd have to consider a ton of other things that people believe, but
> have no evidence for - ghosts, fairies, santa claus, zeus, thor, etc,
> etc, etc.
> Simply stating that no, you don't believe, and no, you don't know but
> you think it highly unlikely, doesn't call for any faith as far as I
> can see (or feel.)
> David
> On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We are all agnostics: no one knows whether God exists or not. I
> > don't think that even the Pope would claim that he knows that God
> > exists. An agnostic is someone who does not know. Some of
> > us, including myself, believe that God does not exist.
> > Not all beliefs are faith: my belief that it will rain tomorrow,
> > based on the weather forecast and on the clouds, would not
> > normally be seen as an instance of faith. What's more, "faith"
> > is used in certain contexts, generally religious contexts: my
> > belief that Obama is an intelligent person is not generally considered
> > as a faith in his intelligence. I can give reasons why I consider
> > him to be intelligent.
> > It may be that we should stop talking about faith, which is a
> > theological virtue and is not used much in philosophy, and begin to
> > talk in terms of belief and of knowledge. In that context, I
> > agree with Icthus 77 that atheism is a belief system. Actually,
> > there are very few things that we can know with certainty.
> > However, in the real world, most of us choose, insofar as we
> > choose, to live our lives as if God exists or as if God does not
> > exist. That is a real existential choice, and that choice is
> > based on belief, not on knowledge.
> > On 7 nov, 20:53, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I agree that everyone, lacking absolute certainty, has faith to
> > > varying degrees. I disagree (simone) that all theists' faith is
> > > blind, or that atheists are just being "contrary" (Prem Das). In
> > > order to say that theism is wrong, atheism has to be "right"...just
> > > like in order for atheism to be wrong, (poly/pan)theism has to be
> > > right. Theists aren't just being contrary about atheism, and atheists
> > > aren't just being contrary about theism. The ones who lack belief
> > > either way are agnostics/apistics--defaulting to neither atheism, nor
> > > theism.
> > > Interesting website, simone.
> > > On Nov 7, 3:37 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I am a card carrying 'Believer'. But I don't believe in the 'you offer me prayers
> > > > and I will heap blessings on you interactive God"
> > > > If you know God beyond the 'word', beyond religions, beyond reason, you may
> > > > perhaps begin to see a glimmer of the majesty of all that is God.
> > > > Look up the history of religions and see if they have ever kept faith with any
> > > > of all that they profess to teach. Do not sweep all the hypocrisy under the carpet
> > > > and render your faith blind. There is nothing useful about it.
> > > > There are thousands and thousands of children and adults in the present time,
> > > > victims of sexual and physical abuse who might have a different persective about blind faith.
> > > > Sorry Simone, blind faith makes for brutal religions. Hence the suicide bombers.
> > > > > Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:52:55 -0800
> > > > > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)?
> > > > > From: advocatesim...@hotmail.com
> > > > > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > > > > Prem Das, faith doesn’t have to be a religious word. It is a good
> > > > > word. We use it when we talk about having faith in mankind, being
> > > > > faithful to eachother, being "faithful to the text" et cetera. Though
> > > > > sometimes it means trust and loyalty to another individual/group/etc.,
> > > > > it can also mean loyalty to the truth, to reality. Theists believe and
> > > > > have faith lacking certainty just like everyone else—the difference is
> > > > > their belief, their faith, is blind.
> > > > > On Nov 7, 1:29 am, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Faith, by its very nature, can only exist in the domain of ignorance.
> > > > > > Its only when we do not have a definite answer about something that
> > > > > > we form a theory about it based on our beliefs and our prejudices and
> > > > > > call it faith.
> > > > > > So if atheists do not have definite proof, it is a belief base on sheer
> > > > > > contrariness.
> > > > > > > Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 09:24:38 -0700
> > > > > > > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)?
> > > > > > > From: ichthu...@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > > That wasn't the question. The question was whether atheism is a
> > > > > > > belief, and your answer seems to be that it is. Regarding faith--
> > > > > > > faith (belief) is stronger when evidence is stronger, weaker when
> > > > > > > evidence is weaker, unless the faith/belief is blind.
> > > > > > > On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Some beliefs are
> > > > > > > > based on evidence. For example, I believe that it will rain
> > > > > > > > soon because I see dark clouds in the sky.
> > > > > > > > > Doesn't that poll (based of Richard Dawkins' belief scale) show that
> > > > > > > > > atheism (last two options) is a belief like (poly/pan)theism (first
> > > > > > > > > two options) and that only agnosticism/apisticism (middle option) is a
> > > > > > > > > lack of faith?
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.-Hidequotedtext-
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > --
> > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.-Hidequotedtext -
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> > > - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
My take is that all knowledge below absolute certainty involves
varying degrees of faith, as not even science can prove anything with
absolute certainty. Follow the link in my last post, which not only
discusses evidence, but faith also (including atheist faith). Faith
is a virtue when we believe the evidence (say, God's promises) despite
things like peer pressure and other feared consequences. Epistemic
faith and knowledge are not distinct--sometimes believing is also
knowing--but knowing is never absolute certainty, for those lacking
omniscience.
Kierkegaard understood that sort of faith to be central, he was not a
fideist the way most people think. He was angered by clergy who
focused on evidence and never had faith. That's why he focused so
much on faith. But he wasn't "against" evidence--he just knew nothing
could be proved w/ certainty (and that much of Christianty felt like
counter-evidence...like the God-man, which seems paradoxical), and
that faith (trust in God) was being neglected.
On Nov 8, 3:52 am, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know all that much about theology, but I do know that
> faith is one of the three most important virtues in traditional
> Catholic theology. I also have read Pascal and Kierkegaard,
> perhaps not the most representative Christian thinkers, and for
> both, Christianity is a matter of faith, not of knowledge.
> Undoubtedly, some Christian fundamentalists claim to know that
> Christianity is true, but isn't the truth of Christianity a matter
> of faith, not knowledge, for mainstream Christian thought?
> I've never read Aquinas, but perhaps someone who has read him can
> inform me about the role of faith in the Christian tradition.
> Thank you.
> On 7 nov, 21:48, David J Bailey <davidjbai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think, amos, that you can say we are all agnostics: certainly
> > some theists claim to "know" that god exists, and certainly some
> > atheists claim to "know" that god doesn't.
> > For myself I think that there are different forms of atheism - one
> > which is very much like theism, in which its adherents claim
> > certainty, and another (which I think most atheists fall into) which
> > is a simple lack of belief in god - usually due to a lack of
> > evidence.
> > The latter doesn't call for any faith at all, to say it does is like
> > saying that a lack of belief in the loch ness monster calls for faith.
> > It doesn't. All it calls for is skepticism until some valid evidence
> > is in. And no, you don't even have to seriously consider that god, or
> > the loch ness monster does exist in the absence of evidence, then
> > you'd have to consider a ton of other things that people believe, but
> > have no evidence for - ghosts, fairies, santa claus, zeus, thor, etc,
> > etc, etc.
> > Simply stating that no, you don't believe, and no, you don't know but
> > you think it highly unlikely, doesn't call for any faith as far as I
> > can see (or feel.)
> > David
> > On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We are all agnostics: no one knows whether God exists or not. I
> > > don't think that even the Pope would claim that he knows that God
> > > exists. An agnostic is someone who does not know. Some of
> > > us, including myself, believe that God does not exist.
> > > Not all beliefs are faith: my belief that it will rain tomorrow,
> > > based on the weather forecast and on the clouds, would not
> > > normally be seen as an instance of faith. What's more, "faith"
> > > is used in certain contexts, generally religious contexts: my
> > > belief that Obama is an intelligent person is not generally considered
> > > as a faith in his intelligence. I can give reasons why I consider
> > > him to be intelligent.
> > > It may be that we should stop talking about faith, which is a
> > > theological virtue and is not used much in philosophy, and begin to
> > > talk in terms of belief and of knowledge. In that context, I
> > > agree with Icthus 77 that atheism is a belief system. Actually,
> > > there are very few things that we can know with certainty.
> > > However, in the real world, most of us choose, insofar as we
> > > choose, to live our lives as if God exists or as if God does not
> > > exist. That is a real existential choice, and that choice is
> > > based on belief, not on knowledge.
> > > On 7 nov, 20:53, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I agree that everyone, lacking absolute certainty, has faith to
> > > > varying degrees. I disagree (simone) that all theists' faith is
> > > > blind, or that atheists are just being "contrary" (Prem Das). In
> > > > order to say that theism is wrong, atheism has to be "right"...just
> > > > like in order for atheism to be wrong, (poly/pan)theism has to be
> > > > right. Theists aren't just being contrary about atheism, and atheists
> > > > aren't just being contrary about theism. The ones who lack belief
> > > > either way are agnostics/apistics--defaulting to neither atheism, nor
> > > > theism.
> > > > Interesting website, simone.
> > > > On Nov 7, 3:37 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I am a card carrying 'Believer'. But I don't believe in the 'you offer me prayers
> > > > > and I will heap blessings on you interactive God"
> > > > > If you know God beyond the 'word', beyond religions, beyond reason, you may
> > > > > perhaps begin to see a glimmer of the majesty of all that is God.
> > > > > Look up the history of religions and see if they have ever kept faith with any
> > > > > of all that they profess to teach. Do not sweep all the hypocrisy under the carpet
> > > > > and render your faith blind. There is nothing useful about it.
> > > > > There are thousands and thousands of children and adults in the present time,
> > > > > victims of sexual and physical abuse who might have a different persective about blind faith.
> > > > > Sorry Simone, blind faith makes for brutal religions. Hence the suicide bombers.
> > > > > > Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:52:55 -0800
> > > > > > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)?
> > > > > > From: advocatesim...@hotmail.com
> > > > > > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > Prem Das, faith doesn’t have to be a religious word. It is a good
> > > > > > word. We use it when we talk about having faith in mankind, being
> > > > > > faithful to eachother, being "faithful to the text" et cetera. Though
> > > > > > sometimes it means trust and loyalty to another individual/group/etc.,
> > > > > > it can also mean loyalty to the truth, to reality. Theists believe and
> > > > > > have faith lacking certainty just like everyone else—the difference is
> > > > > > their belief, their faith, is blind.
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 1:29 am, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Faith, by its very nature, can only exist in the domain of ignorance.
> > > > > > > Its only when we do not have a definite answer about something that
> > > > > > > we form a theory about it based on our beliefs and our prejudices and
> > > > > > > call it faith.
> > > > > > > So if atheists do not have definite proof, it is a belief base on sheer
> > > > > > > contrariness.
> > > > > > > > That wasn't the question. The question was whether atheism is a
> > > > > > > > belief, and your answer seems to be that it is. Regarding faith--
> > > > > > > > faith (belief) is stronger when evidence is stronger, weaker when
> > > > > > > > evidence is weaker, unless the faith/belief is blind.
> > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Some beliefs are
> > > > > > > > > based on evidence. For example, I believe that it will rain
> > > > > > > > > soon because I see dark clouds in the sky.
> > > > > > > > > > Doesn't that poll (based of Richard Dawkins' belief scale) show that
> > > > > > > > > > atheism (last two options) is a belief like (poly/pan)theism (first
> > > > > > > > > > two options) and that only agnosticism/apisticism (middle option) is a
> > > > > > > > > > lack of faith?
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.-Hidequotedtext-
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to
> I don't know all that much about theology, but I do know that
> faith is one of the three most important virtues in traditional
> Catholic theology. I also have read Pascal and Kierkegaard,
> perhaps not the most representative Christian thinkers, and for
> both, Christianity is a matter of faith, not of knowledge.
> Undoubtedly, some Christian fundamentalists claim to know that
> Christianity is true, but isn't the truth of Christianity a matter
> of faith, not knowledge, for mainstream Christian thought?
> I've never read Aquinas, but perhaps someone who has read him can
> inform me about the role of faith in the Christian tradition.
> Thank you.
> On 7 nov, 21:48, David J Bailey <davidjbai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think, amos, that you can say we are all agnostics: certainly
> > some theists claim to "know" that god exists, and certainly some
> > atheists claim to "know" that god doesn't.
> > For myself I think that there are different forms of atheism - one
> > which is very much like theism, in which its adherents claim
> > certainty, and another (which I think most atheists fall into) which
> > is a simple lack of belief in god - usually due to a lack of
> > evidence.
> > The latter doesn't call for any faith at all, to say it does is like
> > saying that a lack of belief in the loch ness monster calls for faith.
> > It doesn't. All it calls for is skepticism until some valid evidence
> > is in. And no, you don't even have to seriously consider that god, or
> > the loch ness monster does exist in the absence of evidence, then
> > you'd have to consider a ton of other things that people believe, but
> > have no evidence for - ghosts, fairies, santa claus, zeus, thor, etc,
> > etc, etc.
> > Simply stating that no, you don't believe, and no, you don't know but
> > you think it highly unlikely, doesn't call for any faith as far as I
> > can see (or feel.)
> > David
> > On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We are all agnostics: no one knows whether God exists or not. I
> > > don't think that even the Pope would claim that he knows that God
> > > exists. An agnostic is someone who does not know. Some of
> > > us, including myself, believe that God does not exist.
> > > Not all beliefs are faith: my belief that it will rain tomorrow,
> > > based on the weather forecast and on the clouds, would not
> > > normally be seen as an instance of faith. What's more, "faith"
> > > is used in certain contexts, generally religious contexts: my
> > > belief that Obama is an intelligent person is not generally considered
> > > as a faith in his intelligence. I can give reasons why I consider
> > > him to be intelligent.
> > > It may be that we should stop talking about faith, which is a
> > > theological virtue and is not used much in philosophy, and begin to
> > > talk in terms of belief and of knowledge. In that context, I
> > > agree with Icthus 77 that atheism is a belief system. Actually,
> > > there are very few things that we can know with certainty.
> > > However, in the real world, most of us choose, insofar as we
> > > choose, to live our lives as if God exists or as if God does not
> > > exist. That is a real existential choice, and that choice is
> > > based on belief, not on knowledge.
> > > On 7 nov, 20:53, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I agree that everyone, lacking absolute certainty, has faith to
> > > > varying degrees. I disagree (simone) that all theists' faith is
> > > > blind, or that atheists are just being "contrary" (Prem Das). In
> > > > order to say that theism is wrong, atheism has to be "right"...just
> > > > like in order for atheism to be wrong, (poly/pan)theism has to be
> > > > right. Theists aren't just being contrary about atheism, and atheists
> > > > aren't just being contrary about theism. The ones who lack belief
> > > > either way are agnostics/apistics--defaulting to neither atheism, nor
> > > > theism.
> > > > Interesting website, simone.
> > > > On Nov 7, 3:37 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I am a card carrying 'Believer'. But I don't believe in the 'you offer me prayers
> > > > > and I will heap blessings on you interactive God"
> > > > > If you know God beyond the 'word', beyond religions, beyond reason, you may
> > > > > perhaps begin to see a glimmer of the majesty of all that is God.
> > > > > Look up the history of religions and see if they have ever kept faith with any
> > > > > of all that they profess to teach. Do not sweep all the hypocrisy under the carpet
> > > > > and render your faith blind. There is nothing useful about it.
> > > > > There are thousands and thousands of children and adults in the present time,
> > > > > victims of sexual and physical abuse who might have a different persective about blind faith.
> > > > > Sorry Simone, blind faith makes for brutal religions. Hence the suicide bombers.
> > > > > > Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:52:55 -0800
> > > > > > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)?
> > > > > > From: advocatesim...@hotmail.com
> > > > > > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > Prem Das, faith doesn’t have to be a religious word. It is a good
> > > > > > word. We use it when we talk about having faith in mankind, being
> > > > > > faithful to eachother, being "faithful to the text" et cetera. Though
> > > > > > sometimes it means trust and loyalty to another individual/group/etc.,
> > > > > > it can also mean loyalty to the truth, to reality. Theists believe and
> > > > > > have faith lacking certainty just like everyone else—the difference is
> > > > > > their belief, their faith, is blind.
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 1:29 am, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Faith, by its very nature, can only exist in the domain of ignorance.
> > > > > > > Its only when we do not have a definite answer about something that
> > > > > > > we form a theory about it based on our beliefs and our prejudices and
> > > > > > > call it faith.
> > > > > > > So if atheists do not have definite proof, it is a belief base on sheer
> > > > > > > contrariness.
> > > > > > > > That wasn't the question. The question was whether atheism is a
> > > > > > > > belief, and your answer seems to be that it is. Regarding faith--
> > > > > > > > faith (belief) is stronger when evidence is stronger, weaker when
> > > > > > > > evidence is weaker, unless the faith/belief is blind.
> > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Some beliefs are
> > > > > > > > > based on evidence. For example, I believe that it will rain
> > > > > > > > > soon because I see dark clouds in the sky.
> > > > > > > > > > Doesn't that poll (based of Richard Dawkins' belief scale) show that
> > > > > > > > > > atheism (last two options) is a belief like (poly/pan)theism (first
> > > > > > > > > > two options) and that only agnosticism/apisticism (middle option) is a
> > > > > > > > > > lack of faith?
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.-Hidequotedtext-
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.-Hidequotedtext-
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> > > > - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> > - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Hide quoted text -
Ichthus: Thanks for the link. The link confirms what I've been
saying: that mainstream Christianity (of which Aquinas is an
example) does not claim that we can know with certainty the truths of
Christianity. In that sense, most Christians are agnostics in
the root sense of the word (they don't know with certainty), as are
most atheists. The Pope, being a Thomist (I suppose), would
be an agnostic in the root sense of the word. It may be that some
fundamentalist Christians (or Muslims or Jews) claim that they know
with certainty that religion is true just as some fundamentalist
atheists may claim that they know with certainty that religion is not
true. However, the rest of us are agnostics in the root sense of
the word: we believe that religion is either true or not true, but
we cannot know with certainty nor do we claim that we know with
certainty.
On 8 nov, 11:24, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My take is that all knowledge below absolute certainty involves
> varying degrees of faith, as not even science can prove anything with
> absolute certainty. Follow the link in my last post, which not only
> discusses evidence, but faith also (including atheist faith). Faith
> is a virtue when we believe the evidence (say, God's promises) despite
> things like peer pressure and other feared consequences. Epistemic
> faith and knowledge are not distinct--sometimes believing is also
> knowing--but knowing is never absolute certainty, for those lacking
> omniscience.
> Kierkegaard understood that sort of faith to be central, he was not a
> fideist the way most people think. He was angered by clergy who
> focused on evidence and never had faith. That's why he focused so
> much on faith. But he wasn't "against" evidence--he just knew nothing
> could be proved w/ certainty (and that much of Christianty felt like
> counter-evidence...like the God-man, which seems paradoxical), and
> that faith (trust in God) was being neglected.
> On Nov 8, 3:52 am, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't know all that much about theology, but I do know that
> > faith is one of the three most important virtues in traditional
> > Catholic theology. I also have read Pascal and Kierkegaard,
> > perhaps not the most representative Christian thinkers, and for
> > both, Christianity is a matter of faith, not of knowledge.
> > Undoubtedly, some Christian fundamentalists claim to know that
> > Christianity is true, but isn't the truth of Christianity a matter
> > of faith, not knowledge, for mainstream Christian thought?
> > I've never read Aquinas, but perhaps someone who has read him can
> > inform me about the role of faith in the Christian tradition.
> > Thank you.
> > On 7 nov, 21:48, David J Bailey <davidjbai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't think, amos, that you can say we are all agnostics: certainly
> > > some theists claim to "know" that god exists, and certainly some
> > > atheists claim to "know" that god doesn't.
> > > For myself I think that there are different forms of atheism - one
> > > which is very much like theism, in which its adherents claim
> > > certainty, and another (which I think most atheists fall into) which
> > > is a simple lack of belief in god - usually due to a lack of
> > > evidence.
> > > The latter doesn't call for any faith at all, to say it does is like
> > > saying that a lack of belief in the loch ness monster calls for faith.
> > > It doesn't. All it calls for is skepticism until some valid evidence
> > > is in. And no, you don't even have to seriously consider that god, or
> > > the loch ness monster does exist in the absence of evidence, then
> > > you'd have to consider a ton of other things that people believe, but
> > > have no evidence for - ghosts, fairies, santa claus, zeus, thor, etc,
> > > etc, etc.
> > > Simply stating that no, you don't believe, and no, you don't know but
> > > you think it highly unlikely, doesn't call for any faith as far as I
> > > can see (or feel.)
> > > David
> > > On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > We are all agnostics: no one knows whether God exists or not. I
> > > > don't think that even the Pope would claim that he knows that God
> > > > exists. An agnostic is someone who does not know. Some of
> > > > us, including myself, believe that God does not exist.
> > > > Not all beliefs are faith: my belief that it will rain tomorrow,
> > > > based on the weather forecast and on the clouds, would not
> > > > normally be seen as an instance of faith. What's more, "faith"
> > > > is used in certain contexts, generally religious contexts: my
> > > > belief that Obama is an intelligent person is not generally considered
> > > > as a faith in his intelligence. I can give reasons why I consider
> > > > him to be intelligent.
> > > > It may be that we should stop talking about faith, which is a
> > > > theological virtue and is not used much in philosophy, and begin to
> > > > talk in terms of belief and of knowledge. In that context, I
> > > > agree with Icthus 77 that atheism is a belief system. Actually,
> > > > there are very few things that we can know with certainty.
> > > > However, in the real world, most of us choose, insofar as we
> > > > choose, to live our lives as if God exists or as if God does not
> > > > exist. That is a real existential choice, and that choice is
> > > > based on belief, not on knowledge.
> > > > > I agree that everyone, lacking absolute certainty, has faith to
> > > > > varying degrees. I disagree (simone) that all theists' faith is
> > > > > blind, or that atheists are just being "contrary" (Prem Das). In
> > > > > order to say that theism is wrong, atheism has to be "right"...just
> > > > > like in order for atheism to be wrong, (poly/pan)theism has to be
> > > > > right. Theists aren't just being contrary about atheism, and atheists
> > > > > aren't just being contrary about theism. The ones who lack belief
> > > > > either way are agnostics/apistics--defaulting to neither atheism, nor
> > > > > theism.
> > > > > Interesting website, simone.
> > > > > On Nov 7, 3:37 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I am a card carrying 'Believer'. But I don't believe in the 'you offer me prayers
> > > > > > and I will heap blessings on you interactive God"
> > > > > > If you know God beyond the 'word', beyond religions, beyond reason, you may
> > > > > > perhaps begin to see a glimmer of the majesty of all that is God.
> > > > > > Look up the history of religions and see if they have ever kept faith with any
> > > > > > of all that they profess to teach. Do not sweep all the hypocrisy under the carpet
> > > > > > and render your faith blind. There is nothing useful about it.
> > > > > > There are thousands and thousands of children and adults in the present time,
> > > > > > victims of sexual and physical abuse who might have a different persective about blind faith.
> > > > > > Sorry Simone, blind faith makes for brutal religions. Hence the suicide bombers.
> > > > > > > Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:52:55 -0800
> > > > > > > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Do you "believe" no god(s) exist(s)?
> > > > > > > From: advocatesim...@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > To: askphilosophers@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > > Prem Das, faith doesn’t have to be a religious word. It is a good
> > > > > > > word. We use it when we talk about having faith in mankind, being
> > > > > > > faithful to eachother, being "faithful to the text" et cetera. Though
> > > > > > > sometimes it means trust and loyalty to another individual/group/etc.,
> > > > > > > it can also mean loyalty to the truth, to reality. Theists believe and
> > > > > > > have faith lacking certainty just like everyone else—the difference is
> > > > > > > their belief, their faith, is blind.
> > > > > > > On Nov 7, 1:29 am, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Faith, by its very nature, can only exist in the domain of ignorance.
> > > > > > > > Its only when we do not have a definite answer about something that
> > > > > > > > we form a theory about it based on our beliefs and our prejudices and
> > > > > > > > call it faith.
> > > > > > > > So if atheists do not have definite proof, it is a belief base on sheer
> > > > > > > > contrariness.
> > > > > > > > > That wasn't the question. The question was whether atheism is a
> > > > > > > > > belief, and your answer seems to be that it is. Regarding faith--
> > > > > > > > > faith (belief) is stronger when evidence is stronger, weaker when
> > > > > > > > > evidence is weaker, unless the faith/belief is blind.
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 5:50 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Some beliefs are
> > > > > > > > > > based on evidence. For example, I believe that it will rain
> > > > > > > > > > soon because I see dark clouds in the sky.
Nobody knows anything w/ absolute certainty--that isn't the same as
"not knowing" (not the same thing as "being agnostic"). One can claim
to "know" without it being a "knowing with certainty"--and, really,
only the omniscient can know with certainty. Still, a knowledge
claim does not always count as actual knowledge--sometimes a person is
wrong. And a person who is very uncertain may prefer to claim to
believe rather than to claim to know. This is why it would be more
useful to use the word "apistic" instead of agnostic, and "pistic"
instead of gnostic, because, 1) all knowing is believing, but not all
believing is knowing, 2) whereas a claim to know (to "be gnostic")
can be wrong, a claim to believe (to "be pistic") is always right
(unless of course they're lying), and 3) the absence of belief
(apisticism) is not the same thing as the absence of knowing
(agnosticism)...knowing is a special type of believing (justified,
true)...though, granted, the 'gnostic' (as opposed to agnostic) theist/
atheist is merely gnostic because they make a knowledge claim, not
because they necessarily 'know'. It would prevent confusion if
'gnostic' only mean 'know' rather than 'claiming to know'...which is
really just believing.
On Nov 8, 6:50 am, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ichthus: Thanks for the link. The link confirms what I've been
> saying: that mainstream Christianity (of which Aquinas is an
> example) does not claim that we can know with certainty the truths of
> Christianity. In that sense, most Christians are agnostics in
> the root sense of the word (they don't know with certainty), as are
> most atheists. The Pope, being a Thomist (I suppose), would
> be an agnostic in the root sense of the word. It may be that some
> fundamentalist Christians (or Muslims or Jews) claim that they know
> with certainty that religion is true just as some fundamentalist
> atheists may claim that they know with certainty that religion is not
> true. However, the rest of us are agnostics in the root sense of
> the word: we believe that religion is either true or not true, but
> we cannot know with certainty nor do we claim that we know with
> certainty.
> On 8 nov, 11:24, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > My take is that all knowledge below absolute certainty involves
> > varying degrees of faith, as not even science can prove anything with
> > absolute certainty. Follow the link in my last post, which not only
> > discusses evidence, but faith also (including atheist faith). Faith
> > is a virtue when we believe the evidence (say, God's promises) despite
> > things like peer pressure and other feared consequences. Epistemic
> > faith and knowledge are not distinct--sometimes believing is also
> > knowing--but knowing is never absolute certainty, for those lacking
> > omniscience.
> > Kierkegaard understood that sort of faith to be central, he was not a
> > fideist the way most people think. He was angered by clergy who
> > focused on evidence and never had faith. That's why he focused so
> > much on faith. But he wasn't "against" evidence--he just knew nothing
> > could be proved w/ certainty (and that much of Christianty felt like
> > counter-evidence...like the God-man, which seems paradoxical), and
> > that faith (trust in God) was being neglected.
> > On Nov 8, 3:52 am, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't know all that much about theology, but I do know that
> > > faith is one of the three most important virtues in traditional
> > > Catholic theology. I also have read Pascal and Kierkegaard,
> > > perhaps not the most representative Christian thinkers, and for
> > > both, Christianity is a matter of faith, not of knowledge.
> > > Undoubtedly, some Christian fundamentalists claim to know that
> > > Christianity is true, but isn't the truth of Christianity a matter
> > > of faith, not knowledge, for mainstream Christian thought?
> > > I've never read Aquinas, but perhaps someone who has read him can
> > > inform me about the role of faith in the Christian tradition.
> > > Thank you.
> > > On 7 nov, 21:48, David J Bailey <davidjbai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I don't think, amos, that you can say we are all agnostics: certainly
> > > > some theists claim to "know" that god exists, and certainly some
> > > > atheists claim to "know" that god doesn't.
> > > > For myself I think that there are different forms of atheism - one
> > > > which is very much like theism, in which its adherents claim
> > > > certainty, and another (which I think most atheists fall into) which
> > > > is a simple lack of belief in god - usually due to a lack of
> > > > evidence.
> > > > The latter doesn't call for any faith at all, to say it does is like
> > > > saying that a lack of belief in the loch ness monster calls for faith.
> > > > It doesn't. All it calls for is skepticism until some valid evidence
> > > > is in. And no, you don't even have to seriously consider that god, or
> > > > the loch ness monster does exist in the absence of evidence, then
> > > > you'd have to consider a ton of other things that people believe, but
> > > > have no evidence for - ghosts, fairies, santa claus, zeus, thor, etc,
> > > > etc, etc.
> > > > Simply stating that no, you don't believe, and no, you don't know but
> > > > you think it highly unlikely, doesn't call for any faith as far as I
> > > > can see (or feel.)
> > > > David
> > > > On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > We are all agnostics: no one knows whether God exists or not. I
> > > > > don't think that even the Pope would claim that he knows that God
> > > > > exists. An agnostic is someone who does not know. Some of
> > > > > us, including myself, believe that God does not exist.
> > > > > Not all beliefs are faith: my belief that it will rain tomorrow,
> > > > > based on the weather forecast and on the clouds, would not
> > > > > normally be seen as an instance of faith. What's more, "faith"
> > > > > is used in certain contexts, generally religious contexts: my
> > > > > belief that Obama is an intelligent person is not generally considered
> > > > > as a faith in his intelligence. I can give reasons why I consider
> > > > > him to be intelligent.
> > > > > It may be that we should stop talking about faith, which is a
> > > > > theological virtue and is not used much in philosophy, and begin to
> > > > > talk in terms of belief and of knowledge. In that context, I
> > > > > agree with Icthus 77 that atheism is a belief system. Actually,
> > > > > there are very few things that we can know with certainty.
> > > > > However, in the real world, most of us choose, insofar as we
> > > > > choose, to live our lives as if God exists or as if God does not
> > > > > exist. That is a real existential choice, and that choice is
> > > > > based on belief, not on knowledge.
> > > > > > I agree that everyone, lacking absolute certainty, has faith to
> > > > > > varying degrees. I disagree (simone) that all theists' faith is
> > > > > > blind, or that atheists are just being "contrary" (Prem Das). In
> > > > > > order to say that theism is wrong, atheism has to be "right"...just
> > > > > > like in order for atheism to be wrong, (poly/pan)theism has to be
> > > > > > right. Theists aren't just being contrary about atheism, and atheists
> > > > > > aren't just being contrary about theism. The ones who lack belief
> > > > > > either way are agnostics/apistics--defaulting to neither atheism, nor
> > > > > > theism.
> > > > > > Interesting website, simone.
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 3:37 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I am a card carrying 'Believer'. But I don't believe in the 'you offer me prayers
> > > > > > > and I will heap blessings on you interactive God"
> > > > > > > If you know God beyond the 'word', beyond religions, beyond reason, you may
> > > > > > > perhaps begin to see a glimmer of the majesty of all that is God.
> > > > > > > Look up the history of religions and see if they have ever kept faith with any
> > > > > > > of all that they profess to teach. Do not sweep all the hypocrisy under the carpet
> > > > > > > and render your faith blind. There is nothing useful about it.
> > > > > > > There are thousands and thousands of children and adults in the present time,
> > > > > > > victims of sexual and physical abuse who might have a different persective about blind faith.
> > > > > > > Sorry Simone, blind faith makes for brutal religions. Hence the suicide bombers.
> > > > > > > > Prem Das, faith doesn’t have to be a religious word. It is a good
> > > > > > > > word. We use it when we talk about having faith in mankind, being
> > > > > > > > faithful to eachother, being "faithful to the text" et cetera. Though
> > > > > > > > sometimes it means trust and loyalty to another individual/group/etc.,
> > > > > > > > it can also mean loyalty to the truth, to reality. Theists believe and
> > > > > > > > have faith lacking certainty just like everyone else—the difference is
> > > > > > > > their belief, their faith, is blind.
I think that we're getting into a complicated discussion about how
"know" and "believe" are or should be used. I know my name.
I know who the president is. I know what time it is. I know that
it is not raining now. I'm not absolutely certain about those
things, but I'm certain enough to use the verb "know".
"Believe" indicates a lesser degree of certainty: I believe that it
will rain tomorrow. I believe that Tom is honest. I believe
that there is no after-life. That distinction exists not only in
English, but in the other languages which I know: Spanish,
Portuguese and French. It's interesting that while in
English, "I know other languages", in Spanish "hablo otros
idiomas", that is, "I speak other languages". We seem to
have gotten into the territory where everyday use of language becomes
confused or at least isn't exact.
On 8 nov, 21:13, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nobody knows anything w/ absolute certainty--that isn't the same as
> "not knowing" (not the same thing as "being agnostic"). One can claim
> to "know" without it being a "knowing with certainty"--and, really,
> only the omniscient can know with certainty. Still, a knowledge
> claim does not always count as actual knowledge--sometimes a person is
> wrong. And a person who is very uncertain may prefer to claim to
> believe rather than to claim to know. This is why it would be more
> useful to use the word "apistic" instead of agnostic, and "pistic"
> instead of gnostic, because, 1) all knowing is believing, but not all
> believing is knowing, 2) whereas a claim to know (to "be gnostic")
> can be wrong, a claim to believe (to "be pistic") is always right
> (unless of course they're lying), and 3) the absence of belief
> (apisticism) is not the same thing as the absence of knowing
> (agnosticism)...knowing is a special type of believing (justified,
> true)...though, granted, the 'gnostic' (as opposed to agnostic) theist/
> atheist is merely gnostic because they make a knowledge claim, not
> because they necessarily 'know'. It would prevent confusion if
> 'gnostic' only mean 'know' rather than 'claiming to know'...which is
> really just believing.
> On Nov 8, 6:50 am, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ichthus: Thanks for the link. The link confirms what I've been
> > saying: that mainstream Christianity (of which Aquinas is an
> > example) does not claim that we can know with certainty the truths of
> > Christianity. In that sense, most Christians are agnostics in
> > the root sense of the word (they don't know with certainty), as are
> > most atheists. The Pope, being a Thomist (I suppose), would
> > be an agnostic in the root sense of the word. It may be that some
> > fundamentalist Christians (or Muslims or Jews) claim that they know
> > with certainty that religion is true just as some fundamentalist
> > atheists may claim that they know with certainty that religion is not
> > true. However, the rest of us are agnostics in the root sense of
> > the word: we believe that religion is either true or not true, but
> > we cannot know with certainty nor do we claim that we know with
> > certainty.
> > On 8 nov, 11:24, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > My take is that all knowledge below absolute certainty involves
> > > varying degrees of faith, as not even science can prove anything with
> > > absolute certainty. Follow the link in my last post, which not only
> > > discusses evidence, but faith also (including atheist faith). Faith
> > > is a virtue when we believe the evidence (say, God's promises) despite
> > > things like peer pressure and other feared consequences. Epistemic
> > > faith and knowledge are not distinct--sometimes believing is also
> > > knowing--but knowing is never absolute certainty, for those lacking
> > > omniscience.
> > > Kierkegaard understood that sort of faith to be central, he was not a
> > > fideist the way most people think. He was angered by clergy who
> > > focused on evidence and never had faith. That's why he focused so
> > > much on faith. But he wasn't "against" evidence--he just knew nothing
> > > could be proved w/ certainty (and that much of Christianty felt like
> > > counter-evidence...like the God-man, which seems paradoxical), and
> > > that faith (trust in God) was being neglected.
> > > On Nov 8, 3:52 am, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I don't know all that much about theology, but I do know that
> > > > faith is one of the three most important virtues in traditional
> > > > Catholic theology. I also have read Pascal and Kierkegaard,
> > > > perhaps not the most representative Christian thinkers, and for
> > > > both, Christianity is a matter of faith, not of knowledge.
> > > > Undoubtedly, some Christian fundamentalists claim to know that
> > > > Christianity is true, but isn't the truth of Christianity a matter
> > > > of faith, not knowledge, for mainstream Christian thought?
> > > > I've never read Aquinas, but perhaps someone who has read him can
> > > > inform me about the role of faith in the Christian tradition.
> > > > Thank you.
> > > > On 7 nov, 21:48, David J Bailey <davidjbai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I don't think, amos, that you can say we are all agnostics: certainly
> > > > > some theists claim to "know" that god exists, and certainly some
> > > > > atheists claim to "know" that god doesn't.
> > > > > For myself I think that there are different forms of atheism - one
> > > > > which is very much like theism, in which its adherents claim
> > > > > certainty, and another (which I think most atheists fall into) which
> > > > > is a simple lack of belief in god - usually due to a lack of
> > > > > evidence.
> > > > > The latter doesn't call for any faith at all, to say it does is like
> > > > > saying that a lack of belief in the loch ness monster calls for faith.
> > > > > It doesn't. All it calls for is skepticism until some valid evidence
> > > > > is in. And no, you don't even have to seriously consider that god, or
> > > > > the loch ness monster does exist in the absence of evidence, then
> > > > > you'd have to consider a ton of other things that people believe, but
> > > > > have no evidence for - ghosts, fairies, santa claus, zeus, thor, etc,
> > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > Simply stating that no, you don't believe, and no, you don't know but
> > > > > you think it highly unlikely, doesn't call for any faith as far as I
> > > > > can see (or feel.)
> > > > > David
> > > > > On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > We are all agnostics: no one knows whether God exists or not. I
> > > > > > don't think that even the Pope would claim that he knows that God
> > > > > > exists. An agnostic is someone who does not know. Some of
> > > > > > us, including myself, believe that God does not exist.
> > > > > > Not all beliefs are faith: my belief that it will rain tomorrow,
> > > > > > based on the weather forecast and on the clouds, would not
> > > > > > normally be seen as an instance of faith. What's more, "faith"
> > > > > > is used in certain contexts, generally religious contexts: my
> > > > > > belief that Obama is an intelligent person is not generally considered
> > > > > > as a faith in his intelligence. I can give reasons why I consider
> > > > > > him to be intelligent.
> > > > > > It may be that we should stop talking about faith, which is a
> > > > > > theological virtue and is not used much in philosophy, and begin to
> > > > > > talk in terms of belief and of knowledge. In that context, I
> > > > > > agree with Icthus 77 that atheism is a belief system. Actually,
> > > > > > there are very few things that we can know with certainty.
> > > > > > However, in the real world, most of us choose, insofar as we
> > > > > > choose, to live our lives as if God exists or as if God does not
> > > > > > exist. That is a real existential choice, and that choice is
> > > > > > based on belief, not on knowledge.
> > > > > > > I agree that everyone, lacking absolute certainty, has faith to
> > > > > > > varying degrees. I disagree (simone) that all theists' faith is
> > > > > > > blind, or that atheists are just being "contrary" (Prem Das). In
> > > > > > > order to say that theism is wrong, atheism has to be "right"...just
> > > > > > > like in order for atheism to be wrong, (poly/pan)theism has to be
> > > > > > > right. Theists aren't just being contrary about atheism, and atheists
> > > > > > > aren't just being contrary about theism. The ones who lack belief
> > > > > > > either way are agnostics/apistics--defaulting to neither atheism, nor
> > > > > > > theism.
> > > > > > > Interesting website, simone.
> > > > > > > On Nov 7, 3:37 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I am a card carrying 'Believer'. But I don't believe in the 'you offer me prayers
> > > > > > > > and I will heap blessings on you interactive God"
> > > > > > > > If you know God beyond the 'word', beyond religions, beyond reason, you may
> > > > > > > > perhaps begin to see a glimmer of the majesty of all that is God.
> > > > > > > > Look up the history of religions and see if they have ever kept faith with any
> > > > > > > > of all that they profess to teach. Do not sweep all the hypocrisy under the carpet
Apart from "knowing" things where are true by definition, like
"1+1=2" (true by definition of 1, 2, +, and =) and "All bachelors are
men" (true by definition of bachelor) I don't think you can be said to
KNOW anything in a strong / absolute sense.
Somehow, though, I don't think that's the intention people have when
they talk about faith being "Knowledge without Proof".
I think for these purposes that level of knowledge is unwieldy, it
might be more fruitful to say that you CAN "know" things (like the
fact that I'm sitting on a chair and typing at my laptop at this
moment.)
On Nov 8, 9:02 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that we're getting into a complicated discussion about how
> "know" and "believe" are or should be used. I know my name.
> I know who the president is. I know what time it is. I know that
> it is not raining now. I'm not absolutely certain about those
> things, but I'm certain enough to use the verb "know".
> "Believe" indicates a lesser degree of certainty: I believe that it
> will rain tomorrow. I believe that Tom is honest. I believe
> that there is no after-life. That distinction exists not only in
> English, but in the other languages which I know: Spanish,
> Portuguese and French. It's interesting that while in
> English, "I know other languages", in Spanish "hablo otros
> idiomas", that is, "I speak other languages". We seem to
> have gotten into the territory where everyday use of language becomes
> confused or at least isn't exact.
> On 8 nov, 21:13, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Nobody knows anything w/ absolute certainty--that isn't the same as
> > "not knowing" (not the same thing as "being agnostic"). One can claim
> > to "know" without it being a "knowing with certainty"--and, really,
> > only the omniscient can know with certainty. Still, a knowledge
> > claim does not always count as actual knowledge--sometimes a person is
> > wrong. And a person who is very uncertain may prefer to claim to
> > believe rather than to claim to know. This is why it would be more
> > useful to use the word "apistic" instead of agnostic, and "pistic"
> > instead of gnostic, because, 1) all knowing is believing, but not all
> > believing is knowing, 2) whereas a claim to know (to "be gnostic")
> > can be wrong, a claim to believe (to "be pistic") is always right
> > (unless of course they're lying), and 3) the absence of belief
> > (apisticism) is not the same thing as the absence of knowing
> > (agnosticism)...knowing is a special type of believing (justified,
> > true)...though, granted, the 'gnostic' (as opposed to agnostic) theist/
> > atheist is merely gnostic because they make a knowledge claim, not
> > because they necessarily 'know'. It would prevent confusion if
> > 'gnostic' only mean 'know' rather than 'claiming to know'...which is
> > really just believing.
> > On Nov 8, 6:50 am, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ichthus: Thanks for the link. The link confirms what I've been
> > > saying: that mainstream Christianity (of which Aquinas is an
> > > example) does not claim that we can know with certainty the truths of
> > > Christianity. In that sense, most Christians are agnostics in
> > > the root sense of the word (they don't know with certainty), as are
> > > most atheists. The Pope, being a Thomist (I suppose), would
> > > be an agnostic in the root sense of the word. It may be that some
> > > fundamentalist Christians (or Muslims or Jews) claim that they know
> > > with certainty that religion is true just as some fundamentalist
> > > atheists may claim that they know with certainty that religion is not
> > > true. However, the rest of us are agnostics in the root sense of
> > > the word: we believe that religion is either true or not true, but
> > > we cannot know with certainty nor do we claim that we know with
> > > certainty.
> > > On 8 nov, 11:24, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > My take is that all knowledge below absolute certainty involves
> > > > varying degrees of faith, as not even science can prove anything with
> > > > absolute certainty. Follow the link in my last post, which not only
> > > > discusses evidence, but faith also (including atheist faith). Faith
> > > > is a virtue when we believe the evidence (say, God's promises) despite
> > > > things like peer pressure and other feared consequences. Epistemic
> > > > faith and knowledge are not distinct--sometimes believing is also
> > > > knowing--but knowing is never absolute certainty, for those lacking
> > > > omniscience.
> > > > Kierkegaard understood that sort of faith to be central, he was not a
> > > > fideist the way most people think. He was angered by clergy who
> > > > focused on evidence and never had faith. That's why he focused so
> > > > much on faith. But he wasn't "against" evidence--he just knew nothing
> > > > could be proved w/ certainty (and that much of Christianty felt like
> > > > counter-evidence...like the God-man, which seems paradoxical), and
> > > > that faith (trust in God) was being neglected.
> > > > On Nov 8, 3:52 am, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I don't know all that much about theology, but I do know that
> > > > > faith is one of the three most important virtues in traditional
> > > > > Catholic theology. I also have read Pascal and Kierkegaard,
> > > > > perhaps not the most representative Christian thinkers, and for
> > > > > both, Christianity is a matter of faith, not of knowledge.
> > > > > Undoubtedly, some Christian fundamentalists claim to know that
> > > > > Christianity is true, but isn't the truth of Christianity a matter
> > > > > of faith, not knowledge, for mainstream Christian thought?
> > > > > I've never read Aquinas, but perhaps someone who has read him can
> > > > > inform me about the role of faith in the Christian tradition.
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > On 7 nov, 21:48, David J Bailey <davidjbai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I don't think, amos, that you can say we are all agnostics: certainly
> > > > > > some theists claim to "know" that god exists, and certainly some
> > > > > > atheists claim to "know" that god doesn't.
> > > > > > For myself I think that there are different forms of atheism - one
> > > > > > which is very much like theism, in which its adherents claim
> > > > > > certainty, and another (which I think most atheists fall into) which
> > > > > > is a simple lack of belief in god - usually due to a lack of
> > > > > > evidence.
> > > > > > The latter doesn't call for any faith at all, to say it does is like
> > > > > > saying that a lack of belief in the loch ness monster calls for faith.
> > > > > > It doesn't. All it calls for is skepticism until some valid evidence
> > > > > > is in. And no, you don't even have to seriously consider that god, or
> > > > > > the loch ness monster does exist in the absence of evidence, then
> > > > > > you'd have to consider a ton of other things that people believe, but
> > > > > > have no evidence for - ghosts, fairies, santa claus, zeus, thor, etc,
> > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > Simply stating that no, you don't believe, and no, you don't know but
> > > > > > you think it highly unlikely, doesn't call for any faith as far as I
> > > > > > can see (or feel.)
> > > > > > David
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > We are all agnostics: no one knows whether God exists or not. I
> > > > > > > don't think that even the Pope would claim that he knows that God
> > > > > > > exists. An agnostic is someone who does not know. Some of
> > > > > > > us, including myself, believe that God does not exist.
> > > > > > > Not all beliefs are faith: my belief that it will rain tomorrow,
> > > > > > > based on the weather forecast and on the clouds, would not
> > > > > > > normally be seen as an instance of faith. What's more, "faith"
> > > > > > > is used in certain contexts, generally religious contexts: my
> > > > > > > belief that Obama is an intelligent person is not generally considered
> > > > > > > as a faith in his intelligence. I can give reasons why I consider
> > > > > > > him to be intelligent.
> > > > > > > It may be that we should stop talking about faith, which is a
> > > > > > > theological virtue and is not used much in philosophy, and begin to
> > > > > > > talk in terms of belief and of knowledge. In that context, I
> > > > > > > agree with Icthus 77 that atheism is a belief system. Actually,
> > > > > > > there are very few things that we can know with certainty.
> > > > > > > However, in the real world, most of us choose, insofar as we
> > > > > > > choose, to live our lives as if God exists or as if God does not
> > > > > > > exist. That is a real existential choice, and that choice is
> > > > > > > based on belief, not on knowledge.
> > > > > > > > I agree that everyone, lacking absolute certainty, has faith to
> > > > > > > > varying degrees. I disagree (simone) that all theists' faith is
> > > > > > > > blind, or that atheists are just being "contrary" (Prem Das). In
> > > > > > > > order to say that theism is wrong, atheism has to be "right"...just
> > > > > > > > like in order for atheism to be wrong, (poly/pan)theism has
amos, sometimes those claims to know are wrong, and 'believe' does not
'necessarily' indicate a lesser degree of (subjective) certainty (how
certain we are does not necessarily translate into how 'right' we are,
btw), though it can intentionally be used that way.
On Nov 8, 5:02 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that we're getting into a complicated discussion about how
> "know" and "believe" are or should be used. I know my name.
> I know who the president is. I know what time it is. I know that
> it is not raining now. I'm not absolutely certain about those
> things, but I'm certain enough to use the verb "know".
> "Believe" indicates a lesser degree of certainty: I believe that it
> will rain tomorrow. I believe that Tom is honest. I believe
> that there is no after-life. That distinction exists not only in
> English, but in the other languages which I know: Spanish,
> Portuguese and French. It's interesting that while in
> English, "I know other languages", in Spanish "hablo otros
> idiomas", that is, "I speak other languages". We seem to
> have gotten into the territory where everyday use of language becomes
> confused or at least isn't exact.
> On 8 nov, 21:13, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Nobody knows anything w/ absolute certainty--that isn't the same as
> > "not knowing" (not the same thing as "being agnostic"). One can claim
> > to "know" without it being a "knowing with certainty"--and, really,
> > only the omniscient can know with certainty. Still, a knowledge
> > claim does not always count as actual knowledge--sometimes a person is
> > wrong. And a person who is very uncertain may prefer to claim to
> > believe rather than to claim to know. This is why it would be more
> > useful to use the word "apistic" instead of agnostic, and "pistic"
> > instead of gnostic, because, 1) all knowing is believing, but not all
> > believing is knowing, 2) whereas a claim to know (to "be gnostic")
> > can be wrong, a claim to believe (to "be pistic") is always right
> > (unless of course they're lying), and 3) the absence of belief
> > (apisticism) is not the same thing as the absence of knowing
> > (agnosticism)...knowing is a special type of believing (justified,
> > true)...though, granted, the 'gnostic' (as opposed to agnostic) theist/
> > atheist is merely gnostic because they make a knowledge claim, not
> > because they necessarily 'know'. It would prevent confusion if
> > 'gnostic' only mean 'know' rather than 'claiming to know'...which is
> > really just believing.
> > On Nov 8, 6:50 am, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ichthus: Thanks for the link. The link confirms what I've been
> > > saying: that mainstream Christianity (of which Aquinas is an
> > > example) does not claim that we can know with certainty the truths of
> > > Christianity. In that sense, most Christians are agnostics in
> > > the root sense of the word (they don't know with certainty), as are
> > > most atheists. The Pope, being a Thomist (I suppose), would
> > > be an agnostic in the root sense of the word. It may be that some
> > > fundamentalist Christians (or Muslims or Jews) claim that they know
> > > with certainty that religion is true just as some fundamentalist
> > > atheists may claim that they know with certainty that religion is not
> > > true. However, the rest of us are agnostics in the root sense of
> > > the word: we believe that religion is either true or not true, but
> > > we cannot know with certainty nor do we claim that we know with
> > > certainty.
> > > On 8 nov, 11:24, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > My take is that all knowledge below absolute certainty involves
> > > > varying degrees of faith, as not even science can prove anything with
> > > > absolute certainty. Follow the link in my last post, which not only
> > > > discusses evidence, but faith also (including atheist faith). Faith
> > > > is a virtue when we believe the evidence (say, God's promises) despite
> > > > things like peer pressure and other feared consequences. Epistemic
> > > > faith and knowledge are not distinct--sometimes believing is also
> > > > knowing--but knowing is never absolute certainty, for those lacking
> > > > omniscience.
> > > > Kierkegaard understood that sort of faith to be central, he was not a
> > > > fideist the way most people think. He was angered by clergy who
> > > > focused on evidence and never had faith. That's why he focused so
> > > > much on faith. But he wasn't "against" evidence--he just knew nothing
> > > > could be proved w/ certainty (and that much of Christianty felt like
> > > > counter-evidence...like the God-man, which seems paradoxical), and
> > > > that faith (trust in God) was being neglected.
> > > > On Nov 8, 3:52 am, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I don't know all that much about theology, but I do know that
> > > > > faith is one of the three most important virtues in traditional
> > > > > Catholic theology. I also have read Pascal and Kierkegaard,
> > > > > perhaps not the most representative Christian thinkers, and for
> > > > > both, Christianity is a matter of faith, not of knowledge.
> > > > > Undoubtedly, some Christian fundamentalists claim to know that
> > > > > Christianity is true, but isn't the truth of Christianity a matter
> > > > > of faith, not knowledge, for mainstream Christian thought?
> > > > > I've never read Aquinas, but perhaps someone who has read him can
> > > > > inform me about the role of faith in the Christian tradition.
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > On 7 nov, 21:48, David J Bailey <davidjbai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I don't think, amos, that you can say we are all agnostics: certainly
> > > > > > some theists claim to "know" that god exists, and certainly some
> > > > > > atheists claim to "know" that god doesn't.
> > > > > > For myself I think that there are different forms of atheism - one
> > > > > > which is very much like theism, in which its adherents claim
> > > > > > certainty, and another (which I think most atheists fall into) which
> > > > > > is a simple lack of belief in god - usually due to a lack of
> > > > > > evidence.
> > > > > > The latter doesn't call for any faith at all, to say it does is like
> > > > > > saying that a lack of belief in the loch ness monster calls for faith.
> > > > > > It doesn't. All it calls for is skepticism until some valid evidence
> > > > > > is in. And no, you don't even have to seriously consider that god, or
> > > > > > the loch ness monster does exist in the absence of evidence, then
> > > > > > you'd have to consider a ton of other things that people believe, but
> > > > > > have no evidence for - ghosts, fairies, santa claus, zeus, thor, etc,
> > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > Simply stating that no, you don't believe, and no, you don't know but
> > > > > > you think it highly unlikely, doesn't call for any faith as far as I
> > > > > > can see (or feel.)
> > > > > > David
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > We are all agnostics: no one knows whether God exists or not. I
> > > > > > > don't think that even the Pope would claim that he knows that God
> > > > > > > exists. An agnostic is someone who does not know. Some of
> > > > > > > us, including myself, believe that God does not exist.
> > > > > > > Not all beliefs are faith: my belief that it will rain tomorrow,
> > > > > > > based on the weather forecast and on the clouds, would not
> > > > > > > normally be seen as an instance of faith. What's more, "faith"
> > > > > > > is used in certain contexts, generally religious contexts: my
> > > > > > > belief that Obama is an intelligent person is not generally considered
> > > > > > > as a faith in his intelligence. I can give reasons why I consider
> > > > > > > him to be intelligent.
> > > > > > > It may be that we should stop talking about faith, which is a
> > > > > > > theological virtue and is not used much in philosophy, and begin to
> > > > > > > talk in terms of belief and of knowledge. In that context, I
> > > > > > > agree with Icthus 77 that atheism is a belief system. Actually,
> > > > > > > there are very few things that we can know with certainty.
> > > > > > > However, in the real world, most of us choose, insofar as we
> > > > > > > choose, to live our lives as if God exists or as if God does not
> > > > > > > exist. That is a real existential choice, and that choice is
> > > > > > > based on belief, not on knowledge.
> > > > > > > > I agree that everyone, lacking absolute certainty, has faith to
> > > > > > > > varying degrees. I disagree (simone) that all theists' faith is
> > > > > > > > blind, or that atheists are just being "contrary" (Prem Das). In
> > > > > > > > order to say that theism is wrong, atheism has to be "right"...just
> > > > > > > > like in order for atheism to be wrong, (poly/pan)theism has to be
> > > > > > > > right. Theists aren't just being contrary about atheism, and atheists
> > > > > > > > aren't just being contrary about theism. The ones who lack belief
> > > > > > > > either way are agnostics/apistics--defaulting to neither atheism, nor
> > > > > > > > theism.
David, faith (belief) is not necessarily knowledge, but it 'can' be
("when our faith/belief is both justified and true"), and we agree
that "absolute certainty" is reserved for the omniscient (and so is
"without proof").
> Apart from "knowing" things where are true by definition, like
> "1+1=2" (true by definition of 1, 2, +, and =) and "All bachelors are
> men" (true by definition of bachelor) I don't think you can be said to
> KNOW anything in a strong / absolute sense.
> Somehow, though, I don't think that's the intention people have when
> they talk about faith being "Knowledge without Proof".
> I think for these purposes that level of knowledge is unwieldy, it
> might be more fruitful to say that you CAN "know" things (like the
> fact that I'm sitting on a chair and typing at my laptop at this
> moment.)
> On Nov 8, 9:02 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think that we're getting into a complicated discussion about how
> > "know" and "believe" are or should be used. I know my name.
> > I know who the president is. I know what time it is. I know that
> > it is not raining now. I'm not absolutely certain about those
> > things, but I'm certain enough to use the verb "know".
> > "Believe" indicates a lesser degree of certainty: I believe that it
> > will rain tomorrow. I believe that Tom is honest. I believe
> > that there is no after-life. That distinction exists not only in
> > English, but in the other languages which I know: Spanish,
> > Portuguese and French. It's interesting that while in
> > English, "I know other languages", in Spanish "hablo otros
> > idiomas", that is, "I speak other languages". We seem to
> > have gotten into the territory where everyday use of language becomes
> > confused or at least isn't exact.
> > On 8 nov, 21:13, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Nobody knows anything w/ absolute certainty--that isn't the same as
> > > "not knowing" (not the same thing as "being agnostic"). One can claim
> > > to "know" without it being a "knowing with certainty"--and, really,
> > > only the omniscient can know with certainty. Still, a knowledge
> > > claim does not always count as actual knowledge--sometimes a person is
> > > wrong. And a person who is very uncertain may prefer to claim to
> > > believe rather than to claim to know. This is why it would be more
> > > useful to use the word "apistic" instead of agnostic, and "pistic"
> > > instead of gnostic, because, 1) all knowing is believing, but not all
> > > believing is knowing, 2) whereas a claim to know (to "be gnostic")
> > > can be wrong, a claim to believe (to "be pistic") is always right
> > > (unless of course they're lying), and 3) the absence of belief
> > > (apisticism) is not the same thing as the absence of knowing
> > > (agnosticism)...knowing is a special type of believing (justified,
> > > true)...though, granted, the 'gnostic' (as opposed to agnostic) theist/
> > > atheist is merely gnostic because they make a knowledge claim, not
> > > because they necessarily 'know'. It would prevent confusion if
> > > 'gnostic' only mean 'know' rather than 'claiming to know'...which is
> > > really just believing.
> > > On Nov 8, 6:50 am, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ichthus: Thanks for the link. The link confirms what I've been
> > > > saying: that mainstream Christianity (of which Aquinas is an
> > > > example) does not claim that we can know with certainty the truths of
> > > > Christianity. In that sense, most Christians are agnostics in
> > > > the root sense of the word (they don't know with certainty), as are
> > > > most atheists. The Pope, being a Thomist (I suppose), would
> > > > be an agnostic in the root sense of the word. It may be that some
> > > > fundamentalist Christians (or Muslims or Jews) claim that they know
> > > > with certainty that religion is true just as some fundamentalist
> > > > atheists may claim that they know with certainty that religion is not
> > > > true. However, the rest of us are agnostics in the root sense of
> > > > the word: we believe that religion is either true or not true, but
> > > > we cannot know with certainty nor do we claim that we know with
> > > > certainty.
> > > > > My take is that all knowledge below absolute certainty involves
> > > > > varying degrees of faith, as not even science can prove anything with
> > > > > absolute certainty. Follow the link in my last post, which not only
> > > > > discusses evidence, but faith also (including atheist faith). Faith
> > > > > is a virtue when we believe the evidence (say, God's promises) despite
> > > > > things like peer pressure and other feared consequences. Epistemic
> > > > > faith and knowledge are not distinct--sometimes believing is also
> > > > > knowing--but knowing is never absolute certainty, for those lacking
> > > > > omniscience.
> > > > > Kierkegaard understood that sort of faith to be central, he was not a
> > > > > fideist the way most people think. He was angered by clergy who
> > > > > focused on evidence and never had faith. That's why he focused so
> > > > > much on faith. But he wasn't "against" evidence--he just knew nothing
> > > > > could be proved w/ certainty (and that much of Christianty felt like
> > > > > counter-evidence...like the God-man, which seems paradoxical), and
> > > > > that faith (trust in God) was being neglected.
> > > > > On Nov 8, 3:52 am, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I don't know all that much about theology, but I do know that
> > > > > > faith is one of the three most important virtues in traditional
> > > > > > Catholic theology. I also have read Pascal and Kierkegaard,
> > > > > > perhaps not the most representative Christian thinkers, and for
> > > > > > both, Christianity is a matter of faith, not of knowledge.
> > > > > > Undoubtedly, some Christian fundamentalists claim to know that
> > > > > > Christianity is true, but isn't the truth of Christianity a matter
> > > > > > of faith, not knowledge, for mainstream Christian thought?
> > > > > > I've never read Aquinas, but perhaps someone who has read him can
> > > > > > inform me about the role of faith in the Christian tradition.
> > > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > > On 7 nov, 21:48, David J Bailey <davidjbai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I don't think, amos, that you can say we are all agnostics: certainly
> > > > > > > some theists claim to "know" that god exists, and certainly some
> > > > > > > atheists claim to "know" that god doesn't.
> > > > > > > For myself I think that there are different forms of atheism - one
> > > > > > > which is very much like theism, in which its adherents claim
> > > > > > > certainty, and another (which I think most atheists fall into) which
> > > > > > > is a simple lack of belief in god - usually due to a lack of
> > > > > > > evidence.
> > > > > > > The latter doesn't call for any faith at all, to say it does is like
> > > > > > > saying that a lack of belief in the loch ness monster calls for faith.
> > > > > > > It doesn't. All it calls for is skepticism until some valid evidence
> > > > > > > is in. And no, you don't even have to seriously consider that god, or
> > > > > > > the loch ness monster does exist in the absence of evidence, then
> > > > > > > you'd have to consider a ton of other things that people believe, but
> > > > > > > have no evidence for - ghosts, fairies, santa claus, zeus, thor, etc,
> > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > Simply stating that no, you don't believe, and no, you don't know but
> > > > > > > you think it highly unlikely, doesn't call for any faith as far as I
> > > > > > > can see (or feel.)
> > > > > > > David
> > > > > > > On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > We are all agnostics: no one knows whether God exists or not. I
> > > > > > > > don't think that even the Pope would claim that he knows that God
> > > > > > > > exists. An agnostic is someone who does not know. Some of
> > > > > > > > us, including myself, believe that God does not exist.
> > > > > > > > Not all beliefs are faith: my belief that it will rain tomorrow,
> > > > > > > > based on the weather forecast and on the clouds, would not
> > > > > > > > normally be seen as an instance of faith. What's more, "faith"
> > > > > > > > is used in certain contexts, generally religious contexts: my
> > > > > > > > belief that Obama is an intelligent person is not generally considered
> > > > > > > > as a faith in his intelligence. I can give reasons why I consider
> > > > > > > > him to be intelligent.
> > > > > > > > It may be that we should stop talking about faith, which is a
> > > > > > > > theological virtue and is not used much in philosophy, and begin to
> > > > > > > > talk in terms of belief and of knowledge. In that context, I
> > > > > > > > agree with Icthus 77 that atheism is a belief system. Actually,
> > > > > > > > there are very few things that we can know with certainty.
> > > > > > > > However, in the real world, most of us choose, insofar
This: and we agree that "absolute certainty" is reserved for the
omniscient (and so is
"without proof").
Should read like this: and we agree that "absolute certainty" is
reserved for the omniscient (and so knowledge 'below' absolute
certainty is
"without proof").
Whole paragraph:
David, faith (belief) is not necessarily knowledge, but it 'can' be
("when our faith/belief is both justified and true"), and and we agree
that "absolute certainty" is reserved for the omniscient (and so
knowledge 'below' absolute certainty is "without proof").
On Nov 9, 4:39 pm, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> David, faith (belief) is not necessarily knowledge, but it 'can' be
> ("when our faith/belief is both justified and true"), and we agree
> that "absolute certainty" is reserved for the omniscient (and so is
> "without proof").
> On Nov 9, 12:42 pm, David J Bailey <davidjbai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Apart from "knowing" things where are true by definition, like
> > "1+1=2" (true by definition of 1, 2, +, and =) and "All bachelors are
> > men" (true by definition of bachelor) I don't think you can be said to
> > KNOW anything in a strong / absolute sense.
> > Somehow, though, I don't think that's the intention people have when
> > they talk about faith being "Knowledge without Proof".
> > I think for these purposes that level of knowledge is unwieldy, it
> > might be more fruitful to say that you CAN "know" things (like the
> > fact that I'm sitting on a chair and typing at my laptop at this
> > moment.)
> > On Nov 8, 9:02 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I think that we're getting into a complicated discussion about how
> > > "know" and "believe" are or should be used. I know my name.
> > > I know who the president is. I know what time it is. I know that
> > > it is not raining now. I'm not absolutely certain about those
> > > things, but I'm certain enough to use the verb "know".
> > > "Believe" indicates a lesser degree of certainty: I believe that it
> > > will rain tomorrow. I believe that Tom is honest. I believe
> > > that there is no after-life. That distinction exists not only in
> > > English, but in the other languages which I know: Spanish,
> > > Portuguese and French. It's interesting that while in
> > > English, "I know other languages", in Spanish "hablo otros
> > > idiomas", that is, "I speak other languages". We seem to
> > > have gotten into the territory where everyday use of language becomes
> > > confused or at least isn't exact.
> > > On 8 nov, 21:13, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Nobody knows anything w/ absolute certainty--that isn't the same as
> > > > "not knowing" (not the same thing as "being agnostic"). One can claim
> > > > to "know" without it being a "knowing with certainty"--and, really,
> > > > only the omniscient can know with certainty. Still, a knowledge
> > > > claim does not always count as actual knowledge--sometimes a person is
> > > > wrong. And a person who is very uncertain may prefer to claim to
> > > > believe rather than to claim to know. This is why it would be more
> > > > useful to use the word "apistic" instead of agnostic, and "pistic"
> > > > instead of gnostic, because, 1) all knowing is believing, but not all
> > > > believing is knowing, 2) whereas a claim to know (to "be gnostic")
> > > > can be wrong, a claim to believe (to "be pistic") is always right
> > > > (unless of course they're lying), and 3) the absence of belief
> > > > (apisticism) is not the same thing as the absence of knowing
> > > > (agnosticism)...knowing is a special type of believing (justified,
> > > > true)...though, granted, the 'gnostic' (as opposed to agnostic) theist/
> > > > atheist is merely gnostic because they make a knowledge claim, not
> > > > because they necessarily 'know'. It would prevent confusion if
> > > > 'gnostic' only mean 'know' rather than 'claiming to know'...which is
> > > > really just believing.
> > > > On Nov 8, 6:50 am, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Ichthus: Thanks for the link. The link confirms what I've been
> > > > > saying: that mainstream Christianity (of which Aquinas is an
> > > > > example) does not claim that we can know with certainty the truths of
> > > > > Christianity. In that sense, most Christians are agnostics in
> > > > > the root sense of the word (they don't know with certainty), as are
> > > > > most atheists. The Pope, being a Thomist (I suppose), would
> > > > > be an agnostic in the root sense of the word. It may be that some
> > > > > fundamentalist Christians (or Muslims or Jews) claim that they know
> > > > > with certainty that religion is true just as some fundamentalist
> > > > > atheists may claim that they know with certainty that religion is not
> > > > > true. However, the rest of us are agnostics in the root sense of
> > > > > the word: we believe that religion is either true or not true, but
> > > > > we cannot know with certainty nor do we claim that we know with
> > > > > certainty.
> > > > > > My take is that all knowledge below absolute certainty involves
> > > > > > varying degrees of faith, as not even science can prove anything with
> > > > > > absolute certainty. Follow the link in my last post, which not only
> > > > > > discusses evidence, but faith also (including atheist faith). Faith
> > > > > > is a virtue when we believe the evidence (say, God's promises) despite
> > > > > > things like peer pressure and other feared consequences. Epistemic
> > > > > > faith and knowledge are not distinct--sometimes believing is also
> > > > > > knowing--but knowing is never absolute certainty, for those lacking
> > > > > > omniscience.
> > > > > > Kierkegaard understood that sort of faith to be central, he was not a
> > > > > > fideist the way most people think. He was angered by clergy who
> > > > > > focused on evidence and never had faith. That's why he focused so
> > > > > > much on faith. But he wasn't "against" evidence--he just knew nothing
> > > > > > could be proved w/ certainty (and that much of Christianty felt like
> > > > > > counter-evidence...like the God-man, which seems paradoxical), and
> > > > > > that faith (trust in God) was being neglected.
> > > > > > On Nov 8, 3:52 am, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I don't know all that much about theology, but I do know that
> > > > > > > faith is one of the three most important virtues in traditional
> > > > > > > Catholic theology. I also have read Pascal and Kierkegaard,
> > > > > > > perhaps not the most representative Christian thinkers, and for
> > > > > > > both, Christianity is a matter of faith, not of knowledge.
> > > > > > > Undoubtedly, some Christian fundamentalists claim to know that
> > > > > > > Christianity is true, but isn't the truth of Christianity a matter
> > > > > > > of faith, not knowledge, for mainstream Christian thought?
> > > > > > > I've never read Aquinas, but perhaps someone who has read him can
> > > > > > > inform me about the role of faith in the Christian tradition.
> > > > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > > > On 7 nov, 21:48, David J Bailey <davidjbai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I don't think, amos, that you can say we are all agnostics: certainly
> > > > > > > > some theists claim to "know" that god exists, and certainly some
> > > > > > > > atheists claim to "know" that god doesn't.
> > > > > > > > For myself I think that there are different forms of atheism - one
> > > > > > > > which is very much like theism, in which its adherents claim
> > > > > > > > certainty, and another (which I think most atheists fall into) which
> > > > > > > > is a simple lack of belief in god - usually due to a lack of
> > > > > > > > evidence.
> > > > > > > > The latter doesn't call for any faith at all, to say it does is like
> > > > > > > > saying that a lack of belief in the loch ness monster calls for faith.
> > > > > > > > It doesn't. All it calls for is skepticism until some valid evidence
> > > > > > > > is in. And no, you don't even have to seriously consider that god, or
> > > > > > > > the loch ness monster does exist in the absence of evidence, then
> > > > > > > > you'd have to consider a ton of other things that people believe, but
> > > > > > > > have no evidence for - ghosts, fairies, santa claus, zeus, thor, etc,
> > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > Simply stating that no, you don't believe, and no, you don't know but
> > > > > > > > you think it highly unlikely, doesn't call for any faith as far as I
> > > > > > > > can see (or feel.)
> > > > > > > > David
> > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, amos <vivepa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > We are all agnostics: no one knows whether God exists or not. I
> > > > > > > > > don't think that even the Pope would claim that he knows that God
> > > > > > > > > exists. An agnostic is someone who does not know. Some of
> > > > > > > > > us, including myself, believe that God does not exist.
> > > > > > > > > Not all beliefs are faith: my belief that it will rain tomorrow,
> > > > > > > > > based on the weather forecast and on the clouds, would not
> > > > > > > > > normally be seen
Consider this Maryann: Why is "I don't believe either way" different, qua epistemic state, from the other belief-statements? Modally, belief is not well behaved - not-believing-not is not equivalent to knowing-that. If we are discussing the logic of belief-statements, I don't see what it is that stands out to differentiate between "I believe that p" and "I don't believe that p" which ought to be consistent with "I believe that I don't believe that p" (this is controversial but, on the assumption of basic introspective rationality, it goes through...) The assessment of belief-systems or of the psychology of belief or faith is a different matter. It sounds that this is what you are interested in. In that case, what's the difference, again, between "believe that" and "not-believe-that" for your purposes? -- Odysseus Makridis Associate Professor, Philosophy Fairleigh Dickinson University Madison, NJ 973-443-8096
Odysseus, although I haven't studied it at all, I recall reading in
Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" that belief and disbelief both
“showed highly localized signal changes in the caudate” in his
doctoral research (p. 226, note 35). Disbelief involves belief, and
belief involves disbelief. When you say "I don't believe this" it is
because you believe something else ("I don't believe p, I believe
q"). When you say "I believe this" it is to the exclusion of other
alternative beliefs ("I believe q, not p"). "I don't believe either
way" is inconclusive in a way that believing and disbelieving are not
("I don't believe/disbelieve either p or q"). Harris had stuff to say
about uncertainty as well.
Regarding believing/knowing, see above.
On Nov 9, 6:30 pm, Odysseus Makridis <odysseusmakri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Consider this Maryann: Why is "I don't believe either way" different, qua
> epistemic state, from the other belief-statements? Modally, belief is not
> well behaved - not-believing-not is not equivalent to knowing-that. If we
> are discussing the logic of belief-statements, I don't see what it is that
> stands out to differentiate between "I believe that p" and "I don't believe
> that p" which ought to be consistent with "I believe that I don't believe
> that p" (this is controversial but, on the assumption of basic introspective
> rationality, it goes through...)
> The assessment of belief-systems or of the psychology of belief or faith is
> a different matter. It sounds that this is what you are interested in. In
> that case, what's the difference, again, between "believe that" and
> "not-believe-that" for your purposes?
> --
> Odysseus Makridis
> Associate Professor, Philosophy
> Fairleigh Dickinson University
> Madison, NJ
> 973-443-8096
The author you are referring to studies the brain, it sounds like. In the relevant sense of "belief", I see your point. But what sense of "belief" do you need to work with relative to your heuristic purposes?
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Odysseus, although I haven't studied it at all, I recall reading in > Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" that belief and disbelief both > “showed highly localized signal changes in the caudate” in his > doctoral research (p. 226, note 35). Disbelief involves belief, and > belief involves disbelief. When you say "I don't believe this" it is > because you believe something else ("I don't believe p, I believe > q"). When you say "I believe this" it is to the exclusion of other > alternative beliefs ("I believe q, not p"). "I don't believe either > way" is inconclusive in a way that believing and disbelieving are not > ("I don't believe/disbelieve either p or q"). Harris had stuff to say > about uncertainty as well.
> Regarding believing/knowing, see above.
> On Nov 9, 6:30 pm, Odysseus Makridis <odysseusmakri...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Consider this Maryann: Why is "I don't believe either way" different, qua > > epistemic state, from the other belief-statements? Modally, belief is not > > well behaved - not-believing-not is not equivalent to knowing-that. If we > > are discussing the logic of belief-statements, I don't see what it is > that > > stands out to differentiate between "I believe that p" and "I don't > believe > > that p" which ought to be consistent with "I believe that I don't believe > > that p" (this is controversial but, on the assumption of basic > introspective > > rationality, it goes through...) > > The assessment of belief-systems or of the psychology of belief or faith > is > > a different matter. It sounds that this is what you are interested in. In > > that case, what's the difference, again, between "believe that" and > > "not-believe-that" for your purposes? > > -- > > Odysseus Makridis > > Associate Professor, Philosophy > > Fairleigh Dickinson University > > Madison, NJ > > 973-443-8096
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to > AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send > e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, > visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.
-- Odysseus Makridis Associate Professor, Philosophy Fairleigh Dickinson University Madison, NJ 973-443-8096
The sense of belief I am working w/, is the same sense Plato was
working w/ when he spoke of knowledge as justified, true belief. I'm
not sure what you mean otherwise.
On Nov 9, 9:35 pm, Odysseus Makridis <odysseusmakri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The author you are referring to studies the brain, it sounds like. In the
> relevant sense of "belief", I see your point. But what sense of "belief" do
> you need to work with relative to your heuristic purposes?
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Ichthus77 <ichthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Odysseus, although I haven't studied it at all, I recall reading in
> > Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" that belief and disbelief both
> > “showed highly localized signal changes in the caudate” in his
> > doctoral research (p. 226, note 35). Disbelief involves belief, and
> > belief involves disbelief. When you say "I don't believe this" it is
> > because you believe something else ("I don't believe p, I believe
> > q"). When you say "I believe this" it is to the exclusion of other
> > alternative beliefs ("I believe q, not p"). "I don't believe either
> > way" is inconclusive in a way that believing and disbelieving are not
> > ("I don't believe/disbelieve either p or q"). Harris had stuff to say
> > about uncertainty as well.
> > Regarding believing/knowing, see above.
> > On Nov 9, 6:30 pm, Odysseus Makridis <odysseusmakri...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Consider this Maryann: Why is "I don't believe either way" different, qua
> > > epistemic state, from the other belief-statements? Modally, belief is not
> > > well behaved - not-believing-not is not equivalent to knowing-that. If we
> > > are discussing the logic of belief-statements, I don't see what it is
> > that
> > > stands out to differentiate between "I believe that p" and "I don't
> > believe
> > > that p" which ought to be consistent with "I believe that I don't believe
> > > that p" (this is controversial but, on the assumption of basic
> > introspective
> > > rationality, it goes through...)
> > > The assessment of belief-systems or of the psychology of belief or faith
> > is
> > > a different matter. It sounds that this is what you are interested in. In
> > > that case, what's the difference, again, between "believe that" and
> > > "not-believe-that" for your purposes?
> > > --
> > > Odysseus Makridis
> > > Associate Professor, Philosophy
> > > Fairleigh Dickinson University
> > > Madison, NJ
> > > 973-443-8096
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to
> > AskPhilosophers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send
> > e-mail to AskPhilosophers-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options,
> > visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.
> --
> Odysseus Makridis
> Associate Professor, Philosophy
> Fairleigh Dickinson University
> Madison, NJ
> 973-443-8096- Hide quoted text -
