27 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiI think it was Lao Tzu who said "those who know don't say and those that say don't know."
What is the difference between what one believes and what one knows? This is not a trick question.
What we often hear is that if one believes, he must proclaim (say).
There is a famous interview with Carl Jung in which he was asked if he believed in God. His response was "I know."
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiYou are correct. I should have said "anyone else's" instead of "anyone's". But that still means that I am the one who can tell what I believe. You can believe about me whatever you wish and whatever fits your worldview. If it fits your worldview to believe that I have some knowledge about god which I don't know about, go ahead (and I won't even tell you that you don't really believe that). But don't come and say that's what I believe, because only I can know what I believe.
What you believe or don't believe has everything to do with your world view.
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiI am sure bbarr can answer this far better than I can. I am not a philosopher. But I'll think some more about it and may come back to you tomorrow (really need to go to bed now). But I'll ask you a question, too - is it possible to have knowledge one doesn't know about oneself? It sounds like a paradoxon to me, but if I understand you correctly, you believe this exists. Otherwise, what you said about us "pseudo-atheists" makes even less sense, because I certainly don't have conscious knowledge of the existence of a god.
What is the difference between what one believes and what one knows? This is not a trick question.
27 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiThis coming from a guy who can not justify his own existence is laughable.
This coming from a guy who can not justify his own existence is laughable. I don't think you even know what you believe - who are you to criticize what I believe? I have the guts to let people know what I believe and why. You on ...[text shortened]... he other hand have nothing to offer, nothing more than hot air.
Why is it that I need to justify my existence? It seems to me to be a brute fact; of course I might be deluded about my own existence—but then, I would not exist to be deluded, would I?
And to whom is it that I must justify my existence? You (that's a general "you" )? I decline. God? But if God were my creator, how could I possibly do that?
Frankly, the notion of “justifying” my existence seems rather absurd to me.
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by Coletti1. You be in danger of being embarrassed by my (or someone else) showing you are being inconsistent or self-contradictory.
Like I said - you believe you are an atheist. But then believing you are a rubber duck does not make you a rubber duck.
Can you cite the "book" that says I am a Satanist? If you could, and you claimed to believe the precepts of said book, then I would acknowledge that your claim is consistent within your world view. I may disagree - but unless I can ...[text shortened]... you to say you believe the no1 is a god. That would not be consistent with your atheism.
2. I say that no person is a true atheist
3. For instants - I do not know what the Koran teaches - but if it says that all atheists are a rubber ducks, then it would be consistent for them to say that bbarr is a rubber duck...It would be absurd to say they believe the Koran, and deny bbarr is a ducky.
3. seems inconsistent with 2. because 3. seems to imply that bbarr is an atheist. Therefore Coletti is self-contradictory and by 1. Coletti is now embarrassed. Oh the shame!
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiWhat is the difference between what one believes and what one knows? This is not a trick question.
What is the difference between what one believes and what one knows? This is not a trick question.
When I use the phrase “I believe,” I always mean something like 1) what I think, as an at least provisional conclusion or opinion, 2) based on whatever evidence, 3) under conditions of uncertainty—as in “I believe it is going to rain today.”
I use the word “know” in two senses: 1) epistemically, as a) a certainty, and b) a “justified true belief”; 2) somewhat more “existentially” to mean something like “an intimate familiarity with,” such as “I know my wife” or “I know myself.” (It is with regard to this second usage that you and I have reached impasse, I think.)
28 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI would be embarrassed but I am trying to make the point that what one thinks is true depends on one's world view.
[b]1. You be in danger of being embarrassed by my (or someone else) showing you are being inconsistent or self-contradictory.
2. I say that no person is a true atheist
3. For instants - I do not know what the Kora ...[text shortened]... radictory and by 1. Coletti is now embarrassed. Oh the shame![/b]
1) bbarr is a theist in my world view.
2) bbarr is an atheist in his world view.
3) bbarr is a rubber ducky in the hypothetical world view that teaches bbarr is a rubber ducky.
Therefore I have not contradicted myself. My view that all self-proclaimed atheist are really theists is in accorded to my world view - which includes the reliability of scripture.
I do not accept bbarr's word that he is a true atheist because scripture is more authoritative than bbarr according to my world-view. To believe that a person is a atheist because he says he is, would be absurd on my part. But this is not in accord to bbarr's world-view, so he may honestly say that according to his own world-view, he is an atheist. But he can not tell me I am wrong without proving my world-view is incorrect. And maybe we are both wrong and bbarr is a rubber ducky. Can bbarr prove the rubber ducky world-view is incorrect? I hope so, or I might be a dog chew toy. 🙂
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiFrom your “worldview,” anyone who says they are not a theist is either 1) deluded (about their own beliefs), or 2) dishonest? Is there a third option?
I would be embarrassed but I am trying to make the point that what one thinks is true depends on one's world view.
1) bbarr is a theist in my world view.
2) bbarr is an atheist in his world view.
3) bbarr is a rubber ducky in the hypothetical world view that teaches bbarr is a rubber ducky.
Therefore I have not contradicted myself. My view that a ...[text shortened]... barr prove the rubber ducky world-view is incorrect? I hope so, or I might be a dog chew toy. 🙂
28 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiAh. I guess ignorance—as in simply not knowing and so speaking wrongly—could perhaps be separated from delusion…. But, then, we would be speaking here of being ignorant about one’s own beliefs, and yet declaring a belief…. So I guess we’re back to delusional or dishonest.
hmmm.... I can't think of any. You?
Since your worldview is Christian, would you assume the same a priori position vis-à-vis, say a Hindu or a Buddhist? Or a Jew who says they believe the Messiah has not come? (Remember—if I am reading you correctly—we are talking about being delusional, not in the sense of whether one’s belief is correct or incorrect, but about whether they actually, honestly hold that belief or not.)
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by vistesd(Sorry about the long answer - the direct answer is in the last paragraph.)
...Since your worldview is Christian, would you assume the same a priori position vis-à-vis, say a Hindu or a Buddhist? Or a Jew who says they believe the Messiah has not come? (Remember—if I am reading you correctly—we are talking about being delusional, not in the sense of whether one’s belief is correct or incorrect, but about whether they actually, honestly hold that belief or not.)
The position that one is either self-deluded or dishonest would apply most clearly to the atheist. The position for other forms of theism or polytheism might be similar.
All men are given a knowledge of God. So it is more in man's nature to acknowledge some sort of deity. But not all men have been given the knowledge of Jesus Christ. (In effect I am saying the knowledge is belief in the truth, which is in effect the same as faith. )
So there is the innate knowledge of God (the existence of God, his nature and attributes) that God has made know to all men. This I believe also include a general understand of the law of God (one shall not to murder, steal, cheat, etc.) Then there is the saving knowledge of Christ given to some. This knowledge is not innate. But it is given by God alone. The innate knowledge is universal (given to all), the saving knowledge is particular (given to some).
The Hindu might be considered as going against his innate knowledge of there being only one God. The Buddhist might be considered as going against his innate knowledge of the true nature of God. The Jew who does not believe the Messiah has a unique position. If he truly understood the Old Testament, he would know that Jesus is the Messiah. But if he has rejected this, he has rejected God, even though he had the evidence there before him. So even his understanding of the OT god is not the one true God, because God includes Christ.
28 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Coletti(Sorry about the long answer - the direct answer is in the last paragraph.)
(Sorry about the long answer - the direct answer is in the last paragraph.)
The position that one is either self-deluded or dishonest would apply most clearly to the atheist. The position for other forms of theism or polytheism might be ...[text shortened]... the OT god is not the one true God, because God includes Christ.
No problem! I’m just trying to make sure I understand you, even if my questioning is critical questioning. So here are some long questions….
In effect I am saying the knowledge is belief in the truth, which is in effect the same as faith.
It may just be your wording here (or I may simply not recall correctly), but this does not seem to jibe with your comments elsewhere about knowledge entailing only propositional truths, and knowledge requiring certainty. (Or are you just referring here to something like the fact that I believe something necessarily implies that I believe I believe it—in this case, saying that I believe I know the truth necessarily implies that I accept that “truth” as the truth? That would seem trivial to me, but maybe it goes to your understanding of delusion?)
The innate knowledge is universal (given to all), the saving knowledge is particular (given to some).
On your view, the “saving knowledge” is given a priori to whomever God has selected, without regard to anything that person does or may do in their life (although you may take a person’s actions as signs that such election has been given)—is that correct? Can one be given that “saving knowledge” and 1) not know it, or 2) by rejecting it actually undo God’s election? (That seems to be what you’re implying about Judaism; but that would imply that one’s actions/decisions can determine one’s salvation status—or does that salvation status require “saving knowledge?&rdquo😉
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by Colettii think you are a master of redistributing responsibility and burden of proof. world views do not become established through unsupported claims. your argument is that unless someone explicitly disproves your world view, then you are justified in its implications. actually, however, if you want anyone to respect anything you say, you need to offer your own proof of your world view.
I would be embarrassed but I am trying to make the point that what one thinks is true depends on one's world view.
1) bbarr is a theist in my world view.
2) bbarr is an atheist in his world view.
3) bbarr is a rubber ducky in the hypothetical world view that teaches bbarr is a rubber ducky.
Therefore I have not contradicted myself. My view that a ...[text shortened]... barr prove the rubber ducky world-view is incorrect? I hope so, or I might be a dog chew toy. 🙂
I do not accept bbarr's word that he is a true atheist because scripture is more authoritative than bbarr according to my world-view.
this statement for example means nothing to me. you have not offered any proof that scripture is in any way authoritative, and so likewise, you should not complain when i offer no proof when i say that your scripture is no more authoritative than bbarr, cooking instructions, or kermit the frog to name just a few. i reject your world view, and i don't think you can complain about that unless you start offering some justification for your world view. bbarr is an atheist; so am i.
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by NordlysWell, it's always good to wait - someone else will give an answer which is better than what I could have come up with myself. 😉 I basically agree with vistesd's definitions, although I am not entirely sure about the second meaning of "knowledge". I think I sort of understand what he means, but not entirely. I wonder if that may be the type of knowledge you talk about when you say that every person has a knowledge of god according to your worldview? I would really like to hear what exactly you mean by "knowledge" in this context, as it still doesn't make much sense to me. It also still doesn't make sense to me to say "you don't believe what you think you believe". My belief may be unjustified and might even go against things I know because I haven't thought it through. For example, it would be possible to believe that 2+2=5 even if you have the necessary knowledge to figure out that this is wrong. In this case, your belief would be false, but it would still be your belief (of course, if you would become aware that your belief does not fit with your knowledge, you would probably change it).
I am sure bbarr can answer this far better than I can. I am not a philosopher. But I'll think some more about it and may come back to you tomorrow (really need to go to bed now). But I'll ask you a question, too - is it possible to have knowledge one doesn't know about oneself? It sounds like a paradoxon to me, but if I understand you correctly, you belie ...[text shortened]... even less sense, because I certainly don't have conscious knowledge of the existence of a god.
If I say "I don't believe in a god", what I mean is "I don't know whether there is a god or not". According to you this belief is false because I have knowledge of the existence of god (obviously knowledge I don't know about, which, as I have said before, sounds like a paradoxon to me). Even if I accept your view of knowledge, this still doesn't mean that I don't believe what I believe I believe, it only means my belief is false.
If I now have some knots in my brain, it's your fault. 😉