Is it possible to KNOW which religion is the most true

[Gorgias]

If God really wanted us to follow the correct religion why did he make it unclear which one was most true

The Church started by Jesus Christ himself is the true one

This!

After all, I’m thinking that having His Divine Son found a Church would have been a dead giveaway…

How would you prove Jesus was God or sent by God though?

By virtue of the same standard of evidence that we use for events in antiquity: accounts by eyewitnesses and those scribed from eyewitnesses.

Or even that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus

Again: eyewitness accounts (which, in this case, would include all those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry and became members of His Church!

The problem with the trilemma is that it avoids other options - the possibility of Jesus as we conceptualize him today being the product of legend.

This is just an extension of the ‘liar’ option – with someone other than Jesus being the liar.

Also a possibility of Jesus’ claim to divinity being meant more in the guru sense; that he is God like in the conceptualization of pantheism.

To make this claim, you have to throw away the witness of the Gospels. After all, in those accounts, the religious leaders of the Jews understood Jesus to be making claims of divinity that were “God”, not merely “God’s Rabbi”.

By definition, ’knowledge’ is a justified, true belief.

Gettier problem, please.

All religions have some truth in them - some have more truth than others.

The question, of course, is what the source of that truth is, and whether these religions ‘have’ these truths or merely ‘reflect’ truths found elsewhere.

However, all religions have some misconceptions, superstitions or false beliefs.

Please substantiate this assertion.

God does not mind which religion you follow or what you believe.

Umm… pardon? Care to substantiate that position, then?

More important are what the Christ mentions regarding the treatment of your fellow human beings

That’s not the way Christ frames it up. The first great commandment is “Love God”, which speaks to an understanding of who God is and what you believe about Him, I’d suggest. “The treatment of your fellow human beings” is only the second great commandment. Inverting these two leads to the errors you’re asserting, here, I’d suggest.

 

[Ilkka]

Gettier problem , please

Sure. Let’s just say that knowledge is correctly justified true belief.

 

[Gorgias]

Sure. Let’s just say that knowledge is correctly justified true belief.

Ahh… but how does one assert ‘correctly justified’…?

 

[rosejmj]

It seems everyone uses faith as an excuse to not have good reasons or evidence to believe. You could use the concept of supernatural faith to say any religion is true.

Isn’t it also a bit prideful to assume you happen to know the Truth and many other people are just misled. Somehow you were able to come to the conclusion your faith is true but others were wrong in the religion they follow. Why would anyone even trust their judgement on something humans just will never be able to fully grasp?

We are so limited as humans anyway and even someone who follows the true religion must have a distorted view of God. There is no way any person can ever understand or know God if he is so great

 

[Ilkka]

Gettier problem tries to tackle the JTB definition by asserting that a true belief can be justified based on a false analysis and is therefore not true knowledge. So for knowledge to be achieved a true belief must also be correctly justified meaning that the justification is reached by a correct and coherent method of analysis. How to tell something is believed for the right reasons is (nearly) impossible and that’s why I’m not a fan of the Gettier definition.

 

[Gorgias]

How to tell something is believed for the right reasons is (nearly) impossible

Quite. In other words, seeking epistemological certainty is a fool’s errand.

and that’s why I’m not a fan of the Gettier definition.

Because it points out an unpalatable truth? Or because you disagree with its assertion?

 

[Ilkka]

Because it points out an unpalatable truth? Or because you disagree with its assertion?

Because I disagree with its assertion. I believe it draws the line of knowledge too high. According to the Gettier definition, there is no way for any human being to know something because there is no way of evaluating whether a justification is correctly assessed or not.

 

[Gorgias]

I believe it draws the line of knowledge too high.

Isn’t it really just demonstrating that one may have a false assurance of the truth of a proposition? And if so, then isn’t that precisely not a bar too high?

 

[lelinator]

Isn’t it really just demonstrating that one may have a false assurance of the truth of a proposition? And if so, then isn’t that precisely not a bar too high?

Indeed, in fact some would assert that even “cogitio ergo sum” isn’t a justified true belief.

Thus the question is…does that set a bar that’s too high to reach?

 

[Ilkka]

I personally think that the JTB is enough because you first have to believe and justify your belief AND it also has to objectively be the truth.

An example:

Objective truth: Christ is risen.

1. ’A’ believes that Christ is risen.
2. ’A’ has faulty reasoning behind the belief that Christ is risen.
3. Disregarding the faulty reasoning, ’A’ has still arrived at the objectively truthful conclusion that Christ is indeed risen.
4. Thus, ’A’ knows that Christ is risen because Christ having risen is an objective truth despite any faulty reasoning that may lead one to believe and know it.

 

[lelinator]

1. Disregarding the faulty reasoning, ’A’ has still arrived at the objectively truthful conclusion that Christ is indeed risen.

What makes it an “objectively truthful conclusion”?

 

[Ilkka]

I mentioned that as an example. In my example, ’Christ is risen’ was to be considered an objective truth. I could’ve said ’brown is a color’ to replace ’Christ is risen’ because I was simply making a point that required using an example which I just happened to choose ’Christ is risen’ as.

Having said that, I do believe that Christ indeed IS risen and I hold it to be the objective truth. I don’t know if I have arrived at that conclusion using the proper reasoning but if it happens to be objectively true, I indeed have knowledge.

 

[Dan123]

Having said that, I do believe that Christ indeed IS risen and I hold it to be the objective truth. I don’t know if I have arrived at that conclusion using the proper reasoning but if it happens to be objectively true, I indeed have knowledge .

It feels like you just kicked the can down the road a bit though. So now we in theory have to differentiate between justified true knowledge and justified false knowledge. Are we actually any closer to any particular goal?

 

[Ilkka]

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. By the JTB standard there either is knowledge or there isn’t. If you are lacking any one of the three requirements, (all of which have to be mutually present at the same time) you do not possess knowledge. The most common scenario is that someone has a justification for a belief that isn’t objectively true and, therefore, they do not possess knowledge.

 

[lelinator]

I mentioned that as an example . In my example, ’Christ is risen’ was to be considered an objective truth. I could’ve said ’brown is a color’ to replace ’Christ is risen’ because I was simply making a point that required using an example which I just happened to choose ’Christ is risen’ as.

But as objectively justified beliefs go, “Christ is risen” would seem to be much closer to a subjectively justified belief rather than an objectively justified one. A subjectively justified belief being a belief who’s merit is dependent upon one’s personal interpretation of the evidence.

Having said that, I do believe that Christ indeed IS risen and I hold it to be the objective truth. I don’t know if I have arrived at that conclusion using the proper reasoning but if it happens to be objectively true, I indeed have knowledge .

Which leads me to ask, on what basis do you claim that “Christ is risen” is an objectively justified belief? If it’s just your personal opinion, then it hardly rises to the level of being an objectively justified belief.

 

[Dan123]

The most common scenario is that someone has a justification for a belief that isn’t objectively true and, therefore, they do not possess knowledge.

Right, so how do you discern between a justified belief that’s objectively true and a justified believe that isn’t objectively true? Or what about a belief that someone thinks is justified but isn’t, or isn’t justified but is. Maybe I’ll being too practical instead of philosophical.

 

[Dan123]

I could’ve said ’brown is a color’ to replace ’Christ is risen’

Except ‘brown is a color’ is true by definition. We define brown to be a color, it can’t possibly not be a color assuming we’re speaking the same language and such. ‘Christ is risen’ may or may not be true, but we didn’t defined Christ into existence the same way we defined brown as a concept into existence.

 

[Ilkka]

as objectively justified beliefs go, “ Christ is risen ” would seem to be much closer to a subjectively justified belief rather than an objectively justified one.

And I would argue that the nature of the justification doesn’t matter. I would also argue that one cannot objectively justify a belief because to objectively justify something would require omniscience.

on what basis do you claim that “ Christ is risen ” is an objectively justified belief?

I never claimed it to be objectively justified but rather objectively truthful.

As I already mentioned, I am unable to justify any belief objectively but I can still subjectively justify my belief that it is an objective truth. And if that happens to be the case and my subjectively justified belief indeed IS an objective truth, I am in possession of knowledge. If not, then I do not have knowledge and my subjectively justified belief is false.

 

[Ilkka]

‘brown is a color’ is true by definition

Brown is a color by definition of men who are not omniscient and cannot possibly objectively justify their belief that brown is indeed a color. The fact that humans have agreed brown to be considered a color doesn’t define it objectively being so. It only defines brown as being considered a color by men who accept this definition.

we didn’t defined Christ into existence the same way we defined brown as a concept into existence.

The color brown as a light-reflecting surface exists even without our definitions much like Christ exists whether we define Him as existing or not.

 

[Dan123]

Brown is a color by definition of men who are not omniscient and cannot possibly objectively justify their belief that brown is indeed a color. The fact that humans have agreed brown to be considered a color doesn’t define it objectively being so. It only defines brown as being considered a color by men who accept this definition.

If we agree on the definition we can make objective statements about whether a thing is brown. If everyone else in the world decides brown is something else, that’s fine too because they’re talking about something else, not what we defined as brown. We still have the ability to make objective observations based on shared, defined concepts.