• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments

#134: Dec. - Feb. 2015 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments

Unread post

DWill wrote:I mean by 'degree of truth,' that it's quite understandable for someone who doesn't believe in God, but knows that it is a cherished concept of his listeners, to soften the blow by identifying as agnostic. So that could be interpreted as a failure of nerve. Agnostic doesn't sound nearly as bad to people. If you really feel that you're undecided about God, I don't mean that you're hedging in order not to get in trouble in case he's real.
The way I understand the terms, it is personal belief that most people assess themselves by when they claim a label. I don't believe god exists. But that is belief and not knowledge. For knowledge, the belief must be justified and true, and I don't think that's possible to determine either way regarding all definitions of a god. The truth is, no one "knows", at the same time we have our beliefs.

Is an atheist someone who merely believes god doesn't exist? Or must it be knowledge? I've always gone by what I know(as far as I can determine). Which means I'm agnostic. I've never seen this as a cowardly stance. To me, it's always been the more honest position. To acknowledge where we lack knowledge is a virtue.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments

Unread post

To acknowledge where we lack knowledge is a virtue.
i think i just saw Socrates smile, or was it a twinkle in Plato's eye, no matter, the 'Great Unruffled One' continues to demonstrate consistency!

if you were an american indian i do believe "straight arrow" would suit well.

as always, thanks a felt 'n meltin' million, you are a constant scource of inspiration.

long may you run.
User avatar
Movie Nerd
Intelligent
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:36 am
9
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments

Unread post

To speak again on the concept of agnostic and atheists, I would say that these terms answer two different claims. To be an atheist means you simply don't believe in a God. To be an agnostic means you don't know if there is a God, and don't think there is a way to know. One answers belief claims, while the other answers knowledge claims.
I am just your typical movie nerd, postcard collector and aspiring writer.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments

Unread post

Thanks, MN, but are belief and knowledge claims really any different? The chemical composition of water seems for me as much a belief as it does knowledge.

The problem with claiming that God doesn't exist seems to be as interbane says, that the concept is so inclusive that we can't possibly rule out all that it might be said to cover. But if we agree beforehand on what we mean by "God," I think we can say that we know he isn't real as a matter of knowledge and belief. The book doesn't make this explicit, but it's clear the writers are talking about the Judeo-Christian, biblical God. Do you feel agnostic toward this God, believing he might exist, or do you know he doesn't? My way of thinking is that "believe" and "know" aren't separate but are on a continuum.
User avatar
Movie Nerd
Intelligent
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:36 am
9
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
DWill wrote:I mean by 'degree of truth,' that it's quite understandable for someone who doesn't believe in God, but knows that it is a cherished concept of his listeners, to soften the blow by identifying as agnostic. So that could be interpreted as a failure of nerve. Agnostic doesn't sound nearly as bad to people. If you really feel that you're undecided about God, I don't mean that you're hedging in order not to get in trouble in case he's real.
The way I understand the terms, it is personal belief that most people assess themselves by when they claim a label. I don't believe god exists. But that is belief and not knowledge. For knowledge, the belief must be justified and true, and I don't think that's possible to determine either way regarding all definitions of a god. The truth is, no one "knows", at the same time we have our beliefs.

Is an atheist someone who merely believes god doesn't exist? Or must it be knowledge? I've always gone by what I know(as far as I can determine). Which means I'm agnostic. I've never seen this as a cowardly stance. To me, it's always been the more honest position. To acknowledge where we lack knowledge is a virtue.
The terms gnostic and agnostic address knowledge claims, while theist and atheist are terms dealing with belief. You can have a gnostic atheist and an agnostic Christian in this regard.

I think what DWill is arguing against is the idea of people who label themselves as agnostic so they won't have to admit to being an atheist--there is still a stigma in America (and perhaps in other countries to) regarding atheists, so I personally won't begrudge a person who doesn't feel comfortable to admit what they are within their local environment. It'll be similar to coming out as gay--if the person does not feel safe, secure, or comfortable in divulging such personal information (and sexuality and religious belief are personal), then they should be allowed to go about it as they see fit. To me it should be a matter of changing the environment.
I am just your typical movie nerd, postcard collector and aspiring writer.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments

Unread post

Movie Nerd wrote:To speak again on the concept of agnostic and atheists, I would say that these terms answer two different claims. To be an atheist means you simply don't believe in a God. To be an agnostic means you don't know if there is a God, and don't think there is a way to know. One answers belief claims, while the other answers knowledge claims.
It could be out of perverse stubbornness, or just not getting it, but currently I'm not seeing a meaningful distinction between beliefs (the word needs to be plural to be parallel) and knowledge. You've made a neat verbal separation, but is it a distinction with a difference? I'm not the one to do a philosophical dissection of these words, but I'd like to see someone do it.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments

Unread post

DWill wrote:It could be out of perverse stubbornness, or just not getting it, but currently I'm not seeing a meaningful distinction between beliefs (the word needs to be plural to be parallel) and knowledge.
There are different types of knowledge. What you're referring to here is propositional knowledge, as opposed to knowledge by acquaintance(riding a bike or recognizing a face).

Belief is something you think is true, but admit could be false. But that admission isn't necessary. Some people mistakenly think that what they believe is knowledge.

Knowledge(propositional) is belief that meets two additional criteria: it must be justified and true. Justification of belief is the core debate in epistemology(the philosophy of knowledge). There are many schools of thought in epistemology, and depending on what you think is proper justification determines which school of thought you ascribe to.

I have many beliefs that I admit are not knowledge. I don't have time to examine all my beliefs, so some are accepted because they aren't critical, or they are difficult to justify so I accept them as axiomatic. It is okay to believe things that aren't justified in many cases.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowl ... is/#TruCon
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments

Unread post

I'll think about this some more and see where I arrive. I guess it's not surprising that a philosophical treatment of the terms would result in having to produce another term or two, in order to compensate for the generality of popular language.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments

Unread post

DWill wrote:Thanks, MN, but are belief and knowledge claims really any different? The chemical composition of water seems for me as much a belief as it does knowledge.

The problem with claiming that God doesn't exist seems to be as interbane says, that the concept is so inclusive that we can't possibly rule out all that it might be said to cover. But if we agree beforehand on what we mean by "God," I think we can say that we know he isn't real as a matter of knowledge and belief. The book doesn't make this explicit, but it's clear the writers are talking about the Judeo-Christian, biblical God. Do you feel agnostic toward this God, believing he might exist, or do you know he doesn't? My way of thinking is that "believe" and "know" aren't separate but are on a continuum.
The continuum between belief and knowledge was defined by Plato in The Republic in the analogy of the divided line, separating conjecture, belief, knowledge and understanding in that order as four modes of apprehension with increasing reliability and accuracy. It is interesting to consider how the evolution of science and philosophy since Plato may have changed views on the content of the parts of this epistemology. For example, I would class factual information about the physics of water as knowledge, not belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_of ... vided_Line
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:. For example, I would class factual information about the physics of water as knowledge, not belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_of ... vided_Line
I am trusting that he physics of water has indeed been verified. To what extent is that my knowledge?
Post Reply

Return to “Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-first Century - by Lex Bayer and John Figdor”