Article, Can a Skeptic believe in God? (page 2)

funkyderek

Somehow I don't think we'll find that definition in a dictionary

From dictionary.com:

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

And what I said:

Faith is belief without good reason

Pretty close, I think

LittleToe

Close (to that specific definition) but not accurate - I stand by my comment - LOL.

I can't believe you're getting to Glastonbury, ya lucky b*gger.
I'll be attempting to get to the Hebridean Celtic Festival to see Capercallie, in a couple of weeks, though.

itsallgoodnow

That's great information. Thanks for posting the link.

logansrun

I just noticed that Timothy Campbell's picture is in the bulletin. He's an ex-JW as I'm sure many of you know. He runs the "Beyond Jehovah's Witnesses" at members.aol.com/beyondjw

I personally can't stand the man.

B.

hehe...j/k

bisous

In my opinion, everything we believe or "know" requires a leap of faith.

Bradley, does this mean your opinion is nothing is provable from a purely factual basis? All knowledge is based on faith?

logansrun

bisous,

Bradley, does this mean your opinion is nothing is provable from a purely factual basis? All knowledge is based on faith?

Strictly speaking, yes. All knowledge requires a leap of "faith" in a sense, and the reality is we will never know anything objectively. We need to make leaps of faith to function normally in the world.

David Hume and Immanuel Kant had a lot to say about this, although they used different terminology. Kant made the distinction between the noumenal world (things as they really are) and the phenomenal world (the world as we perceive it). We will never purely and objectively grasp the noumenal. All we can do is trust the phenomenal world (faith) so as to somehow get by.

All knowledge breaks down. We can never acheive ultimate understanding.

B.

drwtsn32

I think one of the errrors that occurs

Good one, Bradley!

drwtsn32

Strictly speaking, yes. All knowledge requires a leap of "faith" in a sense, and the reality is we will never know anything objectively.

That sounds very Pyrrhonistic.

Your point may be arguably true from a philosophical perspective, but scientifically we can objectively "know" something if it has been proven by the scientific method.

rem

I'm not sure that I would classify phenomenal world as the same thing as faith. Sure we are trusting our sensory perceptions, but I think that's stretching the definition of the word to call that faith. I choose to reserve the word faith for things in which we don't even have sensory evidence.

As drWatson brought out, it's easy to fall into a self-refuting Pyyrhonistic trap to claim that all knowledge is based on faith. If that is truly your position, then you have to admit that my position that objective understaning is possible (or any other hypothetical claim) is just as correct since you have lost your ability to judge alternative claims of knowledge.

rem

logansrun

drwtsn,

That sounds very Pyrrhonistic.

I don't think so. I believe we can progress in our understanding of things. We simply cannot every acheive "total" knowledge nor can we be absolutely certain that we are making accurate progress (although I assume we are, call that faith, trust, whatever suits your taste).

Your point may be arguably true from a philosophical perspective, but scientifically we can objectively "know" something if it has been proven by the scientific method.

At one time Newtonian physics was "proven" by the scientific method. It worked. But, alas, it was subsumed by Einsteinian and quantum physics. Newton wasn't -- and isn't -- necessarily "wrong" -- his model is useful but has been subsumed.

Science actually never produces "facts"; it only makes theories and hypotheses. Sometimes they are useful. Sometimes not.

Ever read Thomas Kuhn, btw?

B.

Article, Can a Skeptic believe in God?

Share this