Gnostic Atheism

[Bradski]

No, no. Not a subset. Two different points on a continuum between “perfect uncertainly” and “perfect conviction”.

There are facts about the world. Or at least, there are statements about any given matter which you might accept or reject (or put on hold until further evidence is produced).

Knowledge can be described as facts that you accept or reject as being true. So if someone says that they have a cat and you accept that statement, you can say that you have knowledge about that person (he has a cat). If you reject that statement, it is also knowledge about that person (he doesn’t have a cat).

Let me reiterate at this point that the term ‘fact’ as I am using it here is a statement which you accept or reject as being true, not that which is objectively true (or false). That’s because these facts are going to form the basis of your belief about any given matter and as we all know, just accepting (or rejecting) facts does not mean that any given matter is true (or false).

You can look on belief as a flywheel. If you know nothing at all about any given matter, then the flywheel is stationary. If you receive a statement about any given matter (let’s call it G) and you reject that statement, you have knowledge about G and the flywheel will start to turn in one direction – spinning towards non-belief. If you receive further statements which you reject, then that knowledge spins the wheel a little faster.

However, if you are given statements about G which you accept, then that knowledge slows the spin of the wheel. Accept enough statements and the wheel will slow to a stop and begin to spin in the opposite direction.

So knowledge (statements which you accept or reject) is the force that drives the wheel (belief). The more knowledge that you have, the faster the wheel spins and the greater your belief (or lack of belief depending on which way it is spinning). The two are entirely different, but the one depends upon the other.

 

[Vonsalza]

…Knowledge can be described as facts that you accept or reject as being true…
…You can look on belief as a flywheel…

Interesting to compare the distinction between knowledge and belief you’ve given to how Russell gave it. I’m sure any attempt to harmonize the differences should also be treated with the same respect many of your stripe give Catholic attempts at harmonizing doctrine across the centuries.

Like it or not, Mr Bradski, the existence of a clear boundary between “knowing” something and “believing” something is purely axiomatic. Conclusions cannot be used to retroactively justify premises, even if the conclusions are reasonable to the one arguing them and chain as such - as occurs on all sides.

The zealot “knows” his cause is objectively best, after all. It’s not some mere “belief”!

It seems atheists of some stripe have simply replaced the priests of religion with the “priests” of secularism. In both cases, the extraordinary claims of both have been witnessed by just a few who give loud assurance that what they say is true and if you were to follow their path, you’d feel the same way.

Again, when it turns out that gravity is caused by displaced space-time rather than being an inherent property of matter (which replaced the “push” of the ether) -or- it turns out priests of some stripe can actually be married, a very technical and convincing explanation will be given by the elite of either class and the laity will typically accept.

As to the discarded idea, did we previously “believe” it or did we previously “know” it?
How perfectly arbitrary the distinction…

 

[Russell_SA]

No, no. Not a subset. Two different points on a continuum between “perfect uncertainly” and “perfect conviction”.

I don’t find people operate in absolute certainty or have every solved the problem of hard solipsism. We all appear to operate by proportioning our believes to the preponderance of the evidence. I am pretty dam certain I am sitting in a chair now, but am I 100% certain that that is correct? No. Absolute certainty is an absurd bar to hold people accountable to.

For the Christian theist, Christ was foretold as being a Nazarene and would be betrayed for the pieces of silver. Lo and behold, what did Christians say happened?
The men in funny hats were predicting things and then validating those predictions millennia before the men in funny coats started doing the very same thing today. “The Annual Review of Astronomy” is your Bible. The Septuagint was theirs.
This is essentially your “fairy” in the everlasting “my blue-eyed sky-fairy is better than your brown-eyed sky-fairy” conflict.

If I deal out a perfect hand of cards, was it a deity that did it? My lucky rabbit’s foot? Was I able to trick you some how? How can you tell the difference? There has never been a causal link between event A and a deity was the cause of it that we can confirm that to be the case. Because people experience an event, how can they be justified in concluding the cause of that event was a deity if we can’t investigate that the deity is even there at all vs just being mistaken about the assumed cause of the event or any other cause of the event? Science can be replicated on demand, but put three christians together to pray for an amputee to be healed and yet nothing happens by any difference than random chance. Matthew 18:20.

Sure. And the religious communities all the world over are made up of people who affirm practically identical experiences within their community.

So does every child that has a santa experience as well and the tooth fairy leaving money.

Every group does this. The effect of “bandwagon” is just as documented within the halls of the academy as it is everywhere else.

To be sure, I’m on-board with the likely existence of gravity waves. But I’m no more sure about it than I am anything else I’ve not personally experienced or verified; as a reasonable person should be, no?

I proportion my belief to the evidence, scientific process has a track record of correctly studying reality. Or do you take medicine from the snake oil saleswoman because of faith? They are the experts in studying reality. I’d follow anyone’s good ideas that has a justified process for coming to the most predictive conclusions about reality. Fair-minded readers, is this really a representative of what religion does to people? Where they equate scientists to the clergy for who’s better at understanding reality? This is just an argument for hard solipsism which no one can solve yet. Without absolute knowledge, the witch doctor is just as valid as the astrophysist. Ok class for equal time, since we don’t know absolutely everything, we’ll finish up chemistry and start our alchemy class. Then after astronomy it’s off to astrology. This is really messed up if this is what religion does to people.

 

[Vonsalza]

I don’t find people operate in absolute certainty or have every solved the problem of hard solipsism. We all appear to operate by proportioning our believes to the preponderance of the evidence. I am pretty dam certain I am sitting in a chair now, but am I 100% certain that that is correct? No. Absolute certainty is an absurd bar to hold people accountable to.

Such certainty as well as any other level of certainty is in the mind of the one professing it. No one can hold anyone else “accountable”. Odd concept.

The point remains; the difference between knowing and believing is arbitrary.

I do, however, sympathize as this creates a foundational problem for the decidedly dogmatic secularist.

Science can be replicated on demand…

So we’ve been told since we we’re school age.

Ever replicated the experiments that prove quarks are real? Or seen one species become another? Or did you just take the word of someone who seemed like they confidently know what they were talking about and spent a lot of time studying it?

Religious and non-religious folks do the same.

I proportion my belief to the evidence

As does every person on the planet. The primary variable is what they subjectively consider as evidence.

Fair-minded readers, is this really a representative of what religion does to people?

Fair-minded readers, here is a fine example of a person who, just like a traditional religious person, believes in a myriad of systematic concepts they have not personally verified and then cannot believe the incredulity of someone questioning their oh-so-certain belief.

Goes to show not all dogmatic secularist are very capable of proper skepticism.

We all love our own “god” and thus balk when someone else lodges an objection, don’t we?

QED

 

[Bradski]

Fair-minded readers, here is a fine example of a person who, just like a traditional religious person, believes in a myriad of systematic concepts they have not personally verified and then cannot believe the incredulity of someone questioning their oh-so-certain belief.

But that is not an accurate representation of the situation and I’m pretty certain that you are aware of that. In fact, our friend from Texas has spent a couple of posts explaining that we can never be certain of anything. Indeed, as Mr. Feynma says:

‘I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and of many things I don’t know anything about, but I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell’.

Any scientist worth his salt will tell you exactly the same. That this is the best explanation that we have for any given situation. But as sure as God made little green apples, it will suffice ONLY until such time there is a better explanation.

Maybe you can give me a similar quote froma Christian on the matter of God.

And as I said earlier, knowledge is simply facts that have been accepted as true. Whether they are tue or not is another matter. Nevertheless, that knowlege determines your belief.

 

[tonyrey]

But that is not an accurate representation of the situation and I’m pretty certain that you are aware of that. In fact, our friend from Texas has spent a couple of posts explaining that we can never be certain of anything. Indeed, as Mr. Feynma says:

‘I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and of many things I don’t know anything about, but I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell’.

Any scientist worth his salt will tell you exactly the same. That this is the best explanation that we have for any given situation. But as sure as God made little green apples, it will suffice ONLY until such time there is a better explanation.

Maybe you can give me a similar quote froma Christian on the matter of God.

And as I said earlier, knowledge is simply facts that have been accepted as true. Whether they are tue or not is another matter. Nevertheless, that knowlege determines your belief.

If you’re uncertain truth exists you may as well stop trying to find it! Total scepticism is self-destructive because in an irrational universe there would be no reason for anything. That is why atheism is incoherent. Our sole certainty is the fact that we are thinking and reasoning, an incredible achievement science cannot possibly explain because science itself is a product of mental activity. The power of the mind is clear evidence that materialism is false and there must be a Supreme Mind. That should be our starting point because it enables us to understand**** why**** we exist - which is far more important than everything else.

 

[o_mlly]

…

You can look on belief as a flywheel. If you know nothing at all about any given matter, then the flywheel is stationary. If you receive a statement about any given matter (let’s call it G) and you reject that statement, you have knowledge about G and the flywheel will start to turn in one direction – spinning towards non-belief. …

Excellent epistemological insight!

The hurdle from materialist to theist is impossibly high. To begin the race, the materialist must first jump the spiritual hurdle that proves the existence of non-material things. I recommend Kreeft’s, “Primitive Man’s Argument from Dead Cow.”
*Primitive Man has two cows. One dies. What is the difference between Dead Cow and Live Cow? Primitive man looks. (He’s really quite bright.) There appears no material difference in size or weight immediately upon death. Yet there is an enormous difference; something is missing. What? Life, of course. And what is that? The answer is obvious to any intelligent observer whose head is not clouded with theories: life is what makes Live Cow breathe. Life is breath. (The word for ‘soul’, or ‘life’, and ‘breath’ is the same in many ancient languages.) Soul is not air, which is still in Dead Cow’s lungs, but the power to move it. *
If one stumbles at this hurdle then there is not much sense continuing the race.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The hurdle from materialist to theist is impossibly high.

What do you mean? It is the theist who needs to substantiate his ideas to the materialist.

To begin the race, the materialist must first jump the spiritual hurdle that proves the existence of non-material things.

Non-material things are “dime a dozen”. Every concept, idea, abstraction belongs to this category. What is missing is the idea of a non-physical “thing” which is physically active. But that is not a problem for the materialist, it is the problem for the theist. (Ah, and what the heck is a “spiritual” hurdle?)

I recommend Kreeft’s, “Primitive Man’s Argument from Dead Cow.”

Is there anything about the Brownian motion of the molecules that is hard to understand? Motion, change are integral parts of the material world. Of course the ancient philosophers had no idea about this reality. In their cosmological landscape there was an “absolute time” and an “absolute space” and within them an inert, non-moving, non-changing “matter”. They thought that the “resting” was the default state of affairs, that in order to get motion, one needs an external “mover”. Just look at the “argument from motion” in Aquinas’ essay.

This worldview has been made obsolete by the advancement of physics. And for Kreeft’s definition, here is an excellent article about the subject: khanacademy.org/science/biology/intro-to-biology/what-is-biology/a/what-is-life

However, the final definition would be: “life is simply complex reaction to complex stimuli”. So, to answer Kreeft’s question, the difference between the live and dead cow is the breakdown of the electro-chemical interactions of the molecules. They will NOT stop completely, the dead animal still has chemical actions - decomposition, but the complex stimuli do not result in complex responses any more.

Now the word “complex” can be the focus of contention. There is no hard dividing line between “living” and “inorganic” material. Viruses do not exhibit all the usual characteristics we tend to associate with life. As such, some people consider them, living organisms, while others consider them crystalline structures.

Of course the ancient people had no idea about this. They speculated about some mysterious “life-force”, which needs to be “breathed into the nostrils” of the inanimate matter. Some people still cling to this outdated model. Their loss. The actual reality is so much more interesting. It is a waste of time to speculate on “life-forces” and other imaginary constructs.

 

[o_mlly]

…
“Thou then who hast trials and troubles, rejoice because of them, for in them is Strength, and by their means is a pathway opened unto that Light.”

- Liber Librae​

Joy and woe are woven fine,
A clothing for the soul divine,
Under every grief and pine,
Runs a joy with silken twine.
It is right it should be so,
We were made for joy and woe,
And when this we rightly know,
Through the world we safely go.
~ by William Blake

 

[o_mlly]

Gnostic atheist? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

An agnostic person is one who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Gnostic theist? Now, that makes sense.

The gnostic theist has the capability and capacity to know everything knowable to the atheist.

By a natural faith in the scientific method, both theist and atheist believe a reliable path to knowledge exists. However, much, if not all, of scientific knowledge remains in the realm of doubt for two reasons. A scientific judgment is subject to doubt if there is any possibility at all (1) of its being challenged in the light of additional or more accurate observations or (2) of its being criticized on the basis of more cogent or more comprehensive reasoning. More importantly, “scientific knowledge” is more accurately called “scientific belief” because this knowledge is rooted in faith.

Everything that the atheist claims to know is equally knowable to the theist with the same level of certitude. For the theist, the certitude of knowledge gained by faith or mystical experience exceeds the certitude of mere scientific knowledge.

Atheists do not know more than theists; they know less.

 

[Vonsalza]

In fact, our friend from Texas has spent a couple of posts explaining that we can never be certain of anything.

This should also include the supposed reality of God.

He then went on an axiomatic tirade about the clear hedge-rows that separate knowledge and belief, like someone else I know around here.

I’m merely letting him know that the hedge-rows are imagined and arbitrary.

I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things…

That makes two of us. I think that poor little scapegoat is dragged out by atheists far too often and usually erroneously.

 

[Bradski]

This should also include the supposed reality of God.

No. This DOES include the supposed reality of God. You live your life as if He exists. I live mine as if He doesn’t.

If we knew one way or the other for certain, I’m pretty much certain that nothing would change.

 

[Vonsalza]

No. This DOES include the supposed reality of God. You live your life as if He exists. I live mine as if He doesn’t.

If we knew one way or the other for certain, I’m pretty much certain that nothing would change.

…I thought we were talking about those specific posts…

Are we still talking about the same thing? The distinction between knowing and believing being arbitrary and Russell (and you) balking because that distinction is critical to secularism?

 

[Bradski]

…I thought we were talking about those specific posts…

Are we still talking about the same thing? The distinction between knowing and believing being arbitrary and Russell (and you) balking because that distinction is critical to secularism?

Uh? Who said the link was arbitrary? You can’t have belief without knowledge. And knowledge consists of statements which you determine as being true or false.

Are we talking past each other? Because this is so blazingly obvious that I think we might be.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The distinction between knowing and believing being arbitrary

You kidding, right? One of the definitions of “knowledge” is “justified true belief”. (I prefer “information about something”, but then again I like the discipline of “information theory”.) How is that arbitrary?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You kidding, right? One of the definitions of “knowledge” is “justified true belief”. (I prefer “information about something”, but then again I like the discipline of “information theory”.) How is that arbitrary?

Kidding about what? What do you believe in? What do you know?

 

[Vonsalza]

You kidding, right? One of the definitions of “knowledge” is “justified true belief”. (I prefer “information about something”, but then again I like the discipline of “information theory”.) How is that arbitrary?

For those dogmatically sure of the JTB model, please see the “Gettier Problem”.

Particularly the sheep.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

For those dogmatically sure of the JTB model, please see the “Gettier Problem”.

Particularly the sheep.

I am aware of it. The question is the “justified”.

 

[Vonsalza]

I am aware of it. The question is the “justified”.

Then you’re not aware of it.

The question in that example is the “truth”.

The observer was 100% positive he was looking at a sheep. He was wrong.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Then you’re not aware of it.

The question in that example is the “truth”.

The observer was 100% positive he was looking at a sheep. He was wrong.

Not enough. The observer might have been 100% sure that he is correct. But he used only some of his senses. So he assumed that using some of his senses is “justified” to accept their “reporting”. But that is insufficient. Precisely because the “seeing” and the “hearing” are non-contact sensory (name removed by moderator)uts. Feeling, touching, tasting are NOT. To rely on only a subset of the senses is insufficient for “justification”.

That is why the “duck-principle” is so important. It takes ALL of our senses into consideration. And if ALL of our senses agree, then it is irrational to consider ALL of them have an incorrect (name removed by moderator)ut. Consider it again: "if it looks like a duck (visual), quacks like a duck (auditory), feels like a duck (tactile), tastes like a duck (gustatory), smells like a duck (olfactory), then it is a duck.

Maybe one can say: “all our senses report a ‘duck’, but MAYBE it is not really a ‘duck’. Fine… How do you decide it? What else is there?”.