W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
It would not be comparable to the claims of religion. Certainly not to Christianity.
- Status
J
James1215
Guest
Warpspeedpetey,
Is our disagreement fundamentally due to different intuitive understandings of ‘knowledge’?
I reckon this is possible. For you, knowledge might be an appreciation of the absolute Truth/Truths, like understanding the Forms perhaps. Therefore, how odd to limit knowledge purely to what one person or a group might perceive, whose sight is only partial, etc etc. That is like saying the best possible knowledge = believing that the inside of the cave is the total reality. My view seems like saying just this. Empirical evidence can only tell us about the inside of the cave.
My view is different. While it is exceedingly likely that there are truths we have yet to discover or never will be able to, their remaining outside the scope of knowledge is too bad. In the above example, there is a split between the inside/outside of the cave (to condense). However, my cave includes the whole scenario. We understand a cave, we worry that we do not see the light because we already perceive what those things are. The analogy/allegory works because it is grounded in the empirical and intuitive and already perceived. It would be meaningless without being like this. Similarly, we know not to believe that what we see is everything, because we know there are black swans. Therefore, belief is guided by evidence. So my view is that we can only recognise truth if it is in a perceptible format, and for us, that format is the observable, intuitive reality we experience. And knowledge for me is awareness of true belief. Truth may be grand and superior, lording itself over us and looking down, but we are only looking up and out: knowledge comes from our end.
Is our disagreement fundamentally due to different intuitive understandings of ‘knowledge’?
I reckon this is possible. For you, knowledge might be an appreciation of the absolute Truth/Truths, like understanding the Forms perhaps. Therefore, how odd to limit knowledge purely to what one person or a group might perceive, whose sight is only partial, etc etc. That is like saying the best possible knowledge = believing that the inside of the cave is the total reality. My view seems like saying just this. Empirical evidence can only tell us about the inside of the cave.
My view is different. While it is exceedingly likely that there are truths we have yet to discover or never will be able to, their remaining outside the scope of knowledge is too bad. In the above example, there is a split between the inside/outside of the cave (to condense). However, my cave includes the whole scenario. We understand a cave, we worry that we do not see the light because we already perceive what those things are. The analogy/allegory works because it is grounded in the empirical and intuitive and already perceived. It would be meaningless without being like this. Similarly, we know not to believe that what we see is everything, because we know there are black swans. Therefore, belief is guided by evidence. So my view is that we can only recognise truth if it is in a perceptible format, and for us, that format is the observable, intuitive reality we experience. And knowledge for me is awareness of true belief. Truth may be grand and superior, lording itself over us and looking down, but we are only looking up and out: knowledge comes from our end.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
I asking why you reject the demonstrations to the opposite effect? On what basis do you believe that Russell is wrong? What point of logic makes you right and everyone else wrong? You are just telling me your personal opinion here.
J
James1215
Guest
Maybe you can help with the location of the citations based on my description of them:
God = ruler over everything: Whole of Genesis maybe? The reference to God as Lord. Jesus as King of the Jews - the ironic taunt at his death, ironic because it was true.
Heaven = when you join Him after death: In heaven don’t you see the physical form of God? With Him in the sense of having acted morally, where the good is in accordance with God’s will.
Outside time: the fact that Satan is ever present is because he made his act of rebellion from God outside time; even if he changed his mind (however that is conceivable) it would not affect us.
My knowledge of the details may be very shaky, but I think it would be more shaky to deny that these are component of Catholic theology.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
I have no idea what this means.
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
Let me understand your position. You admit that your position is shaky but you assert that your understanding is less shaky than denying what you assert is part of Catholic theology? :banghead:
OK, why do you “think” your position is less shaky?
J
James1215
Guest
Lol I think the ‘demonstration’ of the contradictory nature of empiricism would need some elaboration, given that there are those who actually argue empiricism is fine. Secondly, I don’t think your arguments engage with my position, but keep returning to BR, who may or may not be right on the issues of empiricism. As to everyone being wrong apart from me, as I liken my position to the use of evidence in criminal justice, it’s not just me who would be wrong, but the whole of society. Some people are put to death based on shared valuation of evidence! Hadn’t you better point out the logical contradiction to them, not just me?
J
James1215
Guest
lol! sorry if this appears obtuse. Are you asking me to demonstrate why I’m more right than you are? You do believe in an all-powerful God, or am I wrong on that? As to invisibility, what does God look like? As to being outside time, is God finite and was He created with space and time by the Big Bang? Come now!
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
I have been asking you to use standard terminology for a few days now, but you refuse to do so. So yes, that’s a huge problem. We don’t intuit the definitions of words, we use a dictionary.
J
James1215
Guest
The definitions of words do not come from the Form of the word, they come from conventional use anyway, so it is not a mark of sloppiness for me to try to elucidate the differences in our usage/understanding.
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
No, I’m asking to enlighten us as to why your “shaky” understanding of Catholic theology a more valid position than denying what you assert is not correct, especially when you present no citations to back your position.
J
James1215
Guest
Does it make sense to you anyhow? That was my guess as to what you were thinking, does it help to explain my thinking?
J
James1215
Guest
Well how would I know it was shaky? I’m just being modest. You guys are the believing, practicing Catholics, my guess is you know the details of doctrine better than I do, but I still know the shapes and outlines. On some things, that’s all you need. The outline is that God is omnipotent, the detail does not decide how omnipotent.
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
If I may be so bold is to confirm that your position (in a very simple form) is that empiricism alone is what allows us to understand and interoperate with material reality. Feel free to correct this understanding.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
We can only discuss things based on what you say (type) as this is text based interaction. If you want to believe that a perfunctory exposure to a systematic theology is enough to warrant understanding, I would disagree.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Just use dictionary definitions. Nothing wrong with that is there?
J
James1215
Guest
No I don’t think that’s it. My view is that if one wants to make a claim, one should have evidence for it, and that knowledge is the awareness of the truth of statements made about perceptible reality. Whilst some unevidenced statements can be true, it is perfectly fine not to believe them because knowledge is having reason to believe. Therefore, any potentially true statement necessarily regards physical reality (of the senses) else it is not meaningful, which entails that evidence must be empirical, but not empirical alone.
I realise one can question whether knowledge is not broader than this, and especially whether reason produces knowledge, but apart from these doubts the position is not contradictory and is effective in real life. Given that the strangest and most counter-intuitive cosmological discoveries can result from valuing the evidence of our eyes, it is not a limited perspective. It is evolution which gave rose to the idea of intelligent design, the Big Bang which solidified the Genesis narrative, and science which informs the Catholic faith of the nature of the creation. It is not faith which gives us this knowledge, but faith which results from the perceptible and evidenced. Hence the Gospels - testament! On the knowledge level, Christianity may win. On the supra-knowledge level (extra-perceptive), God battles the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
J
James1215
Guest
Lol, on this topic, I reckon St Thomas Aquinas wouldn’t be able to justify this, if by ‘sense’ he was referring to sense perception:
“Most men seem to live according to sense rather than reason.”
Given that it was sense perception Jesus was relying upon, and reason which makes us doubt miracles. This demonstrates that one cannot try to counter a position by defining the other person’s terms, or trying to fix them in a way you like.
“Most men seem to live according to sense rather than reason.”
Given that it was sense perception Jesus was relying upon, and reason which makes us doubt miracles. This demonstrates that one cannot try to counter a position by defining the other person’s terms, or trying to fix them in a way you like.
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
So, if I understand you correctly, you mean that at least some evidence must be empirical [but not necessarily the totality of evidence], as it pertains to* material* reality only?
- Status