Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:55 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments 
Author Message
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5974
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1582
Thanked: 1694 times in 1309 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments
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.



Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:39 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6949
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1030
Thanked: 1992 times in 1603 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments
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


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
DWill
Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:57 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5974
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1582
Thanked: 1694 times in 1309 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments
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.



Wed Dec 17, 2014 6:15 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5468
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1979
Thanked: 1896 times in 1440 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments
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


_________________
http://rtulip.net


The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
youkrst
Thu Dec 18, 2014 3:34 pm
Profile Email WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5974
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1582
Thanked: 1694 times in 1309 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments
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?



Thu Dec 18, 2014 11:27 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5468
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1979
Thanked: 1896 times in 1440 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments
DWill wrote:
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?


The problem here is that we can know some of the properties of a substance but not all. For example, water is made of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. There is abundant scientific information which allows no explanation other than factual accurate certain knowledge. The simpler the information the clearer is our justification in classing it as knowledge rather than belief.

I am not sure if there are areas of research regarding the properties of water, but one that comes to mind regarding a belief is homeopathy, the idea that water can retain mystical traces of another substance it previously contained. There is no evidence in support of this belief, and it has been supported up to the level of the British royalty. I am not sure if homeopathic claims can be definitively disproved, but they illustrate the hold of Shakespeare's line that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy.

Another issue here is that while the physics of water is a matter of scientific knowledge, I have not myself studied the science in sufficient depth to explain things like quantum physics, or even the basic physics of the properties of subatomic particles and how water physically forms. Yet so much technology rests on the correctness of this basic science that I have no alternative but to say it is objective knowledge and not mere belief.

I know the boiling and freezing points of water from memory, but I don't know these same facts for other chemicals and elements. Nonetheless all this information is basic unchanging knowledge about the fundamental properties of matter which anyone can easily find. We really should consider basic science to be absolute knowledge, while recognising that there is much that is unknown, and is therefore only the subject of conjecture or belief or ignorance.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Fri Dec 19, 2014 4:23 pm
Profile Email WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5974
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1582
Thanked: 1694 times in 1309 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 1: Rewriting the Ten Commandments
The fact is, I think, that as social animals we attach ourselves to communities of different types, including knowledge communities. None of us really believes anything in isolation; we must seek the aid and support of others for our beliefs/knowledge. Again, I do not distinguish. I do accept the physics of water, and many other things long established by science because I attach myself to this community; I trust it. Those such as a certain very bright participant on BT who believes the Bible is literal truth attaches himself to a community that denies science, although in a selective fashion.

Robert Tulip wrote:
We really should consider basic science to be absolute knowledge, while recognising that there is much that is unknown, and is therefore only the subject of conjecture or belief or ignorance.

Do you mean that it is a moral obligation to consider science as truth? The matter does have a moral feel to it.



Sat Dec 20, 2014 11:22 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Newsletter 



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2017. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank