Two questions

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=-

What are the requirements?

 

[lightgigantic]

-=-

What are the requirements?

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger

Once again, this is just a general introduction to it. Further reading is required to pin down the context and nuances.

In that sense, you could say that a requirement (at least for a person composed of healthy reserves of doubt as yourself) is to undergo some reading.

 

[wynn]

So the key IMO to any epistemological consideration regarding knowledge is justification.

Sure. Like I said earlier in the thread:

The basic requirements for sound epistemology are 1. know that something is true and 2. know why it is true and why we know that it is true.
Even a child can fulfill the first requirement. The second one, I am afraid is beyond the reach of a human, as I think it would require omnipotence.

The question is what you consider to be a valid instance of justification.
The mind? The senses? Tradition? Logic? General social consesus? The consensus of a particular group? Experience? ...?

 

[jpappl]

LG

But there is the wider philosophical issue of epistemology that extends to who it is justifiable to.

For instance, suppose one is watching the football game under the impression it is a live telecast and the other person is fully aware it is a replay, having already watched it.

Or suppose you have an apple in a room that is dark, but one of the persons is wearing infrared goggles.

Or you could just answer the original question.

You can make as many changes to the situation you want, all that does is make a new answer more appropriate, so it's really away to avoid the question in the first place and is disengenious.

So let me ask again. Does the person who believes the blue team will win with 10 minutes to go have knowledge at this point if the blue team eventually wins ?

Or at the other end of the scale, of knowledge with a faulty foundation.

eg of mistaking one thing for another/correlation=causation. For instance suppose someone runs away from a rope, thinking it is a snake

So they are hallucinating, and ?

 

[jpappl]

signal,

The question is what you consider to be a valid instance of justification.
The mind? The senses? Tradition? Logic? General social consesus? The consensus of a particular group? Experience? ...?

This is an excellent question and the only answer to me is it depends on what the claim is.

When we look at reasons or justification for the belief we also would consider reasons not to believe.

For example, if I hold and apple in my hand and show it to you. You have reason to believe the apple is in my hand because you can see it. If I held the apple behind my back and asked you to pick, you would know which hand I have the apple in but you have reason to expect the apple is in one of my hands because you saw it before I put it behind my back.

However, if I had my hands behind my back without knowing that I had an apple in my hand before, what is the justification for believing I have an apple in my hand at all.

So when we look at the first and second scenario the establishment of the apple in a hand is known. We used seeing the apple to justify it.

In the third scenario, we don't know, but we may use things to justify believing I have an apple in my hand. For example, the person asking the question. If we fully trust them and don't have reasons to doubt them we may believe them. However, we can't know until the apple is revealed.

But what if I said, I am holding a 7ft surfboard in one hand behind my back, can you guess which one. Well, even if we trust the person asking the question. We have more information from our experience and knowledge of the surfboard to have reasons not to believe then to believe, and those same reason can now justify doubt there is a surfboard in one hand behind his back.

So there is a separation between what we believe and what we know, reasons and justification can be applied both ways.

This is why I question the religious texts as a basis for belief in a god. It's not that there isn't any reason or justification to believe in a god, but is there justification in the religious texts ?

When the texts have so many major errors when compared to what we have come to know as reality, then there are more reasons or justification to discard the texts as the word of god than to accept them.

If that is the case, and the texts are understood to be the word of god, what does that say about the reasons or justifications people have for the belief.

So there seems to be a lack of reason or justification and faith is all that is left.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG



Or you could just answer the original question.

You can make as many changes to the situation you want, all that does is make a new answer more appropriate, so it's really away to avoid the question in the first place and is disengenious.

So let me ask again. Does the person who believes the blue team will win with 10 minutes to go have knowledge at this point if the blue team eventually wins ?

depends what reason they have for believing. For instance, if they've watched the replay previously, payed off the players to lose, etc their belief is certainly under ridden by an aspect of knowledge.

In short, there is no argument for determining belief and knowledge as mutually exclusive/inclusive without calling upon further details.

So they are hallucinating, and ?

they're making a claim of knowledge on a subject that doesn't exist.

At one end of the scale you have hallucination and at the other end you have correlation=causation (which often crops up in science - for instance, a cladistical error in paleontology is more often seen as an error or correlation as opposed to a hallucination).

 

[jpappl]

LG,

depends what reason they have for believing. For instance, if they've watched the replay previously, payed off the players to lose, etc their belief is certainly under ridden by an aspect of knowledge.

In short, there is no argument for determining belief and knowledge as mutually exclusive/inclusive without calling upon further details.

Understood, and I can understand why you are not willing to commit. That is my error. Sorry.

So let me add details to the question for clarification.

Nobody has taped the game, it is live and per the original question, the score is tied with 10 minutes to go, I believe the blue team is going to win. They do win. 10 minutes ago when I said I believed they were going to win, did I have knowledge ?

they're making a claim of knowledge on a subject that doesn't exist.

At one end of the scale you have hallucination and at the other end you have correlation=causation (which often crops up in science - for instance, a cladistical error in paleontology is more often seen as an error or correlation as opposed to a hallucination).

Anyone can make a claim of knowledge about anything. This is why we make demands for evidence, it is not only the burden of the person making the claim to provide the evidence but the burden is also on that person to use reasons and justifications to prove it to themselves.

So that one doesn't delude themselves.

IOW, can my beliefs be justified.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

What are the requirements?

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger

Once again, this is just a general introduction to it. Further reading is required to pin down the context and nuances.

In that sense, you could say that a requirement (at least for a person composed of healthy reserves of doubt as yourself) is to undergo some reading.

In order for you to prove your claims, I must be indoctrinated.

 

[wynn]

Anyone can make a claim of knowledge about anything. This is why we make demands for evidence, it is not only the burden of the person making the claim to provide the evidence but the burden is also on that person to use reasons and justifications to prove it to themselves.

So that one doesn't delude themselves.

Sure. Hence in many religious/spiritual traditions, there is emphasis on graduality, on gradual development, gradual acceptance of tenets and practices.


On the other hand, there is Pascal's Wager, where an "all or nothing, now or never" attitude is put forward. This is closer to a case of true guessing.


There are all kinds of theists and atheists. Some operate by the principle of gradual development, some by the principle of Pascal's Wager.

IOW, can my beliefs be justified.

Again, it depends on whom you see as the instance by whose standards you try to justify yourself or your beliefs.

 

[wynn]

So when we look at the first and second scenario the establishment of the apple in a hand is known. We used seeing the apple to justify it.

Personally, I do not consider this seeing to be the ultimate justification for valid knowledge.

Declaring the mind and the senses as the ones who are the authority on what is justified knowledge or belief and what is not, means we are ignoring where these mind and senses come from, how they operate.
How can we acknowledge that the mind and senses are reliable? Everyday life shows us that they are not.

For example, if I hold and apple in my hand and show it to you. You have reason to believe the apple is in my hand because you can see it. If I held the apple behind my back and asked you to pick, you would know which hand I have the apple in but you have reason to expect the apple is in one of my hands because you saw it before I put it behind my back.

However, if I had my hands behind my back without knowing that I had an apple in my hand before, what is the justification for believing I have an apple in my hand at all.

In the third scenario, we don't know, but we may use things to justify believing I have an apple in my hand. For example, the person asking the question. If we fully trust them and don't have reasons to doubt them we may believe them. However, we can't know until the apple is revealed.

But what if I said, I am holding a 7ft surfboard in one hand behind my back, can you guess which one. Well, even if we trust the person asking the question. We have more information from our experience and knowledge of the surfboard to have reasons not to believe then to believe, and those same reason can now justify doubt there is a surfboard in one hand behind his back.

So there is a separation between what we believe and what we know, reasons and justification can be applied both ways.

I think your scenarios above do not apply to religion/spirituality, I think those scenarios are too simplistic for that. I think they try to do too much at once, kind of like the Pascal's Wager way of thinking. Of course things look pretty absurd that way.

This is why I question the religious texts as a basis for belief in a god. It's not that there isn't any reason or justification to believe in a god, but is there justification in the religious texts ?

The religious texts and the traditions based on them sometimes purport that one will gain this justification if one follows the practices as prescribed in the texts and traditions.
Some say it can take a person many many lifetimes of practice to come to a reliable knowledge about the truthfulness of the textual statements.

When the texts have so many major errors when compared to what we have come to know as reality, then there are more reasons or justification to discard the texts as the word of god than to accept them.

This suggests that somehow, you are sure you know what reality is and what it is not.
Where do you get that certainty from?

If that is the case, and the texts are understood to be the word of god, what does that say about the reasons or justifications people have for the belief.

I think a lot comes down to your own motivations for engaging in this sort of discussion.
What is in it for you that other people have proper justifications for their beliefs?
Why are you interested in other people's beliefs?

So there seems to be a lack of reason or justification and faith is all that is left.

Without sufficient practice - yes, some faith, blind faith, is probably all that there is.

 

[jpappl]

Signal

When the texts have so many major errors when compared to what we have come to know as reality, then there are more reasons or justification to discard the texts as the word of god than to accept them. ”

This suggests that somehow, you are sure you know what reality is and what it is not.
Where do you get that certainty from?

I don't have certainty about the future nor do I claim to know how it all started.

Claiming that I don't know doesn't change the fact that the texts are in error based upon what we do know. So I have justification to discard the texts and I don't have an answer to questions such as how did it all start ? or what happens to us after we die ?

“ If that is the case, and the texts are understood to be the word of god, what does that say about the reasons or justifications people have for the belief. ”

I think a lot comes down to your own motivations for engaging in this sort of discussion.
What is in it for you that other people have proper justifications for their beliefs?
Why are you interested in other people's beliefs?

I don't have any motive. However, I guess that I am trying to figure out how those who claim the religious texts can be the word of god and if that is the resource that justifies their belief or strengthens it and why.

Justification for a belief in god is one thing, justification for the religious texts being the word of god is questionable at best.

“ So there seems to be a lack of reason or justification and faith is all that is left. ”

Without sufficient practice - yes, some faith, blind faith, is probably all that there is.

This is my issue with LG, how is practicing going to change the texts, which lead to a leap of faith. Faith it is. That should be sufficient for god.

 

[lightgigantic]

In order for you to prove your claims, I must be indoctrinated.

only if you are already indoctrinated to a state of animosity towards reading as a means of making an informed decision

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Jppapl

In short, there is no argument for determining belief and knowledge as mutually exclusive/inclusive without calling upon further details.
”
Understood, and I can understand why you are not willing to commit. That is my error. Sorry.

So let me add details to the question for clarification.

Nobody has taped the game, it is live and per the original question, the score is tied with 10 minutes to go, I believe the blue team is going to win. They do win. 10 minutes ago when I said I believed they were going to win, did I have knowledge ?

Once again, you have to analyze the reason for a person's stated belief.
For instance if the said person is simply believing they are going to win because its their home team or something, then there isn't any intrinsic elements of knowledge (aside from the knowledge of one's hometown etc).
IOW if you take the position of person coming in on a complete blank slate to any variables that actually influence the outcome, then sure.

But alternatively there could be other sorts of knowledge, such as knowledge based on previous performance. So you could talk about the type of statistical knowledge that punters call upon when they place their bets.

I'm not clear how this example applies to the wider picture of theism/atheism though.

“
they're making a claim of knowledge on a subject that doesn't exist.

At one end of the scale you have hallucination and at the other end you have correlation=causation (which often crops up in science - for instance, a cladistical error in paleontology is more often seen as an error or correlation as opposed to a hallucination).
”
Anyone can make a claim of knowledge about anything. This is why we make demands for evidence, it is not only the burden of the person making the claim to provide the evidence but the burden is also on that person to use reasons and justifications to prove it to themselves.

there's also the further point that evidence requires certain qualifications of the beholder in order to be verified.

IOW a demand for evidence that isn't followed up by application doesn't look good.

So that one doesn't delude themselves.

If one is of the opinion that they are already qualified to evidence a claim when they are not, they are already in a position of delusion.

Amateur handyman husbands do it all the time when they destroy the plumbing and electrics of their households in the name of repair.

IOW, can my beliefs be justified.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

What are the requirements?

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger

Once again, this is just a general introduction to it. Further reading is required to pin down the context and nuances.

In that sense, you could say that a requirement (at least for a person composed of healthy reserves of doubt as yourself) is to undergo some reading.

In order for you to prove your claims, I must be indoctrinated.

only if you are already indoctrinated to a state of animosity towards reading as a means of making an informed decision

So you will now prove your claims.

 

[lightgigantic]

So you will now prove your claims.

prove to who?
you?

 

[wynn]

I don't have certainty about the future nor do I claim to know how it all started.

Claiming that I don't know doesn't change the fact that the texts are in error based upon what we do know.

So you do imply to have certainty. You have just stated above that what we do know now is for certain, and that therefore whatever does not comply with this (such as religious texts) is in error. So you do imply to have certainty.

So I have justification to discard the texts and I don't have an answer to questions such as how did it all start ? or what happens to us after we die ?

You only have such justification on the presumption that "what we do know" is certain, and authoritative.

Justification for a belief in god is one thing, justification for the religious texts being the word of god is questionable at best.

Sure, if we place some particular "what we do know" as the final authority on what is real and what is imaginary.

This is my issue with LG, how is practicing going to change the texts,

Practicing isn't supposed to change the texts, but the perspective of the practitioner.

which lead to a leap of faith. Faith it is. That should be sufficient for god.

So you are the one to decide what should suffice for God?

 

[jpappl]

Signal,

You have just stated above that what we do know now is for certain

No, you missing it. Why I gave the apple example. We do know for certain that there are apples, all kinds of apples in fact. If you had one in your hand, I could say with certainty that you have an apple in your hand.

Do we know everything, no of course not.

and that therefore whatever does not comply with this (such as religious texts) is in error. So you do imply to have certainty.

I don't have certainty about gods or the lack of them. I do have certainty that the religious texts are full of errors. As certain as I am about the apple.

“ So I have justification to discard the texts and I don't have an answer to questions such as how did it all start ? or what happens to us after we die ? ”

You only have such justification on the presumption that "what we do know" is certain, and authoritative.

So do you believe in dinosaurs. Do you think the bones were placed their by scientists trying to trick everyone. As certain as there are apples, there are those bones. This is pretty strong evidence to justify a position don't you think.

“ Justification for a belief in god is one thing, justification for the religious texts being the word of god is questionable at best. ”

Sure, if we place some particular "what we do know" as the final authority on what is real and what is imaginary.

It's almost like your saying, sure the religious texts are in error if we want to believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago and the earth revolves around the sun.

Don't confuse me with the facts eh.

“ This is my issue with LG, how is practicing going to change the texts, ”

Practicing isn't supposed to change the texts, but the perspective of the practitioner.

So how much practicing does it take to delude myself into believing that the texts are the word of god and don't conflict with reality.

which lead to a leap of faith. Faith it is. That should be sufficient for god. ”

So you are the one to decide what should suffice for God?

No I don't believe in god. I'll leave that to those who believe to decide.

 

[wynn]

No, you missing it. Why I gave the apple example. We do know for certain that there are apples, all kinds of apples in fact. If you had one in your hand, I could say with certainty that you have an apple in your hand.

Do we know everything, no of course not.

I don't have certainty about gods or the lack of them. I do have certainty that the religious texts are full of errors. As certain as I am about the apple.

Well, then for you, it is to stick with looking at apples.


19th century physics rocks, dude!

:shrug:

So how much practicing does it take to delude myself into believing that the texts are the word of god and don't conflict with reality.

With an attitude like that it would probably take you forever.

No I don't believe in god. I'll leave that to those who believe to decide.

But you just said "Faith it is. That should be sufficient for god." You have made a statement about what should suffice for God.

 

[(Q)]

If you believe in god.

Do you believe that your religious text is the word of god ?

Despite the fact that you'll probably get answers from theists in the affirmative, you'll find that they most likely do not follow it and accuse those who do as being fundamentalists.

 

[(Q)]

People can come to believe that a God exists from viewing what exists around them and dwelling on their own being.

I look out the window and see the world as being flat. I "dwell" on it's surface only to find it is flat. Based on your logic, the earth IS flat. Notice that this was the perception of earth based on your logic.