Fallibilism

Originally posted by DeepThought
Yes, I read his Wikipedia page which gave a summary of Wittgenstein's comments. Frazer's a bit painful to read, as he hammers the square pegs of facts into the round holes of his theory. It's the abridged version I'm reading which is quite long enough, I doubt I could get through 12 volumes of that. My purpose in bringing it up was just to illustrate that the origins of religious ideas are not simple.

Indeed, they are anything but simple. Wittgenstein's point, as I understand it, is that one fails to understand religion (a foreign one or one's own even) if one thinks its purpose is to explain anything (such as the origin of the world). If one makes the assumption that religion is supposed to explain something, then the obvious objection arises that the explanations don't work, and then you're left wondering how people could have been so stupid as to have thought, for example, that doing a rain dance would make it rain. Somebody must have noticed that it rains sooner or later anyway, even if you don't do the dance. One has to keep reminding oneself that ancient peoples were no less intelligent than we are.

Originally posted by moonbus
Indeed, they are anything but simple. Wittgenstein's point, as I understand it, is that one fails to understand religion (a foreign one or one's own even) if one thinks its purpose is to explain anything (such as the origin of the world). If one makes the assumption that religion is supposed to explain something, then the obvious objection arises tha ...[text shortened]... ce. One has to keep reminding oneself that ancient peoples were no less intelligent than we are.

Yes and sizeable numbers of supposedly educated modern-day people go outside
with windolene** spray to combat 'chem-trails'.

Religions are obviously not solely there to explain things.

It is absolutely ONE of the things that they are supposed to do.

And no fancy gymnastics are required to explain how people fall for these apparently absurd tales
because with the number of biases and heuristics humans are known to have and use it's a wonder
that we have figured out as much as we have. Not that we have fallen for [with hindsight and modern
science] such 'obviously' preposterous 'explanations'.

I can explain people believing in the efficacy of a rain dance in two words. Confirmation Bias.

**Or whatever.

Originally posted by moonbus
Indeed, they are anything but simple. Wittgenstein's point, as I understand it, is that one fails to understand religion (a foreign one or one's own even) if one thinks its purpose is to explain anything (such as the origin of the world).

Religions mean different things to different people. There is no doubt that some people find uses for religion other than as and explanatory device. Nevertheless many religions and adherents of religions to claim to have explanations and when those explanations do not work, or are false, there is clearly a problem.

Somebody must have noticed that it rains sooner or later anyway, even if you don't do the dance.
You would think so, but most people just aren't that logical. See the success of astrology for example.

One has to keep reminding oneself that ancient peoples were no less intelligent than we are.
Not only is that not true, but a significant number of people even today are less intelligent than we are.

Originally posted by moonbus
Indeed, they are anything but simple. Wittgenstein's point, as I understand it, is that one fails to understand religion (a foreign one or one's own even) if one thinks its purpose is to explain anything (such as the origin of the world).

If one assumes that a religion necessarily has a purpose one is already going down the wrong path. Religions are at least in part, memes.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The statement: "I am certain that nothing can be known with certainty." is self-contradictory. GF's post is a joke to illustrate that.

Doesn't take long for you guys to twist away from my original question.

Where's vistesd? The following is my perspective on how I engaged in this thread, and the responses I recieved.

Originally posted by vistesd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

"The critical rationalist Hans Albert argues that it is impossible to prove any truth with certainty, even in logic and mathematics."

My reply to vistesd:

Is that what the Münchhausen trilemma is? To state as true that any truth can't be proven to be true?

To which googlefudge replied:

"I am certain about my uncertainty... But I am not certain about that."

To which I replied:

So you're both certain about your uncertainty, and uncertain about being certain simultaneously?

Then along comes DeepThough who says it's a joke:

"The statement: "I am certain that nothing can be known with certainty." is self-contradictory. GF's post is a joke to illustrate that."

Are you fellas even certain you know what you're talking about? I asked a question and it was twisted into a joke. Very funny. 😞

Originally posted by josephw
Doesn't take long for you guys to twist away from my original question.

Where's vistesd? The following is my perspective on how I engaged in this thread, and the responses I recieved.

Originally posted by vistesd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

[b]"The critical rationalist Hans Albert argues that it is impossible to prov ...[text shortened]... now what you're talking about? I asked a question and it was twisted into a joke. Very funny. 😞

It was both an accurate reply to your question and a joke. vistesd posted a Wikipedia page you could look at for your answer as it seems to give a reasonably clear explanation. Since all knowledge, at least human knowledge, is fallible there is some uncertainty associated with it. That statement represents some human knowledge and so is itself uncertain.

Originally posted by DeepThought
It was both an accurate reply to your question and a joke. vistesd posted a Wikipedia page you could look at for your answer as it seems to give a reasonably clear explanation. Since all knowledge, at least human knowledge, is fallible there is some uncertainty associated with it. That statement represents some human knowledge and so is itself uncertain.

"Since all knowledge, at least human knowledge, is fallible there is some uncertainty associated with it."

Agreed. And if we can say we are certain that we can't be certain based on our infallibility, why can't we say that the possibility exists that there is knowledge which is infallible?

Originally posted by josephw
Agreed. And if we can say we are certain that we can't be certain based on our infallibility, why can't we say that the possibility exists that there is knowledge which is infallible?

We can say that. What we can't do, is say that we infallibly know that that knowledge exists. We also shouldn't make the mistake of thinking the Bible contains such knowledge given that there are very good reasons to think it is fallible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We can say that. What we can't do, is say that we infallibly know that that knowledge exists. We also shouldn't make the mistake of thinking the Bible contains such knowledge given that there are very good reasons to think it is fallible.

You can think you don't know, or can't know, that infallible knowledge, or truth, exists, but you can only say that about yourself. Just because you've reasoned it out that way in your own mind doesn't make it true in another's.

Is it not an a priori tenet of atheism that infallible knowledge does not exists, and/or that there is a being capable of possessing such knowledge?

It is irrational and illogical to assert as true that truth (infallible knowledge) cannot be known by asserting infallibly that it's true that such knowledge doesn't exist.

"We also shouldn't make the mistake of thinking the Bible contains such knowledge given that there are very good reasons to think it is fallible."

Such irony! To make such a claim, and yet no one has ever proved the Bible to be wrong. Why do atheists continue to belch out that assertion, which has never been proven true, while maintaining that infallible knowledge is unknowable? It's an irrational mindset.

Originally posted by josephw
You can think you don't know, or can't know, that infallible knowledge, or truth, exists, but you can only say that about yourself. Just because you've reasoned it out that way in your own mind doesn't make it true in another's.

I thought you agreed that we cannot claim to have infallible knowledge? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Is it not an a priori tenet of atheism that infallible knowledge does not exists,
No. Atheism is not a religion and has not tenets of any kind.

and/or that there is a being capable of possessing such knowledge?
Again, no. Athiesm is only the lack of belief in a god or gods. It doesn't rule out such beings nor does it rule out other beings capable of possessing infallible knowledge. I could perfectly well be an atheist and hold that Einstein was infallible about the formula E=mc2.

It is irrational and illogical to assert as true that truth (infallible knowledge) cannot be known by asserting infallibly that it's true that such knowledge doesn't exist.
I agree. But I am not asserting it infallibly. I am merely asserting it. I make no claim of infallibility.

Such irony! To make such a claim, and yet no one has ever proved the Bible to be wrong.
Well we could discuss that some time. The only way you can get away with that statement is to either claim that 'the Bible' doesn't actually exist, or to hold your hands over your ears and sing 'la la la la'.

Why do atheists continue to belch out that assertion, which has never been proven true, while maintaining that infallible knowledge is unknowable? It's an irrational mindset.
Again, I am not claiming to be making the assertion infallibly. You don't seem to be understanding the difference between infallible assertions and just plain assertions. I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that what is generally called 'the Bible' is fallible. I cannot prove it infallibly as I am a fallibilist.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Since all knowledge, at least human knowledge, is fallible there is some uncertainty associated with it."

Agreed. And if we can say we are certain that we can't be certain based on our infallibility, why can't we say that the possibility exists that there is knowledge which is infallible?[/b]

I think we can individually infallibly know that we exist. It could be that we're data structures in a simulation or some such, but that doesn't mean we don't exist. Clearly I can't infallibly know you exist and vice versa, but there's a bit of infallible knowledge. When I said "all human knowledge" I should have excluded various odds and ends of logic and mathematics. So yes, and as an agnostic I don't rule out the possibility of an infallible entity.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I think we can individually infallibly know that we exist. It could be that we're data structures in a simulation or some such, but that doesn't mean we don't exist. Clearly I can't infallibly know you exist and vice versa, but there's a bit of infallible knowledge.

If a data structure can claim existence, then it can similarly claim the existence of other data structures. So you should at least be able to infallibly claim he exists in as much as he is a data structure to you.