Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:

Anyway, it seems to me that this supposed absolute knowledge would fit into two categories: 
(1) consciously received:  I would hope we can both agree on what this phrase means, but if there is any hint of doubt we can discuss it.  [edit: Described in another post as "You receive data and are aware of the fact".]
(2) not consciously received:  i.e. one just HAS it.  [edit: Also described in another post as "your mind/memories/beliefs are altered and you are not aware of it".]

I don’t see the two categories you’re making.

    The first thing you say I could only understand to be the knowledge of “knowing you are receiving knowledge” which sounds somewhat similar to knowing where you are getting your knowledge from. Either way, it’s just one of many things you can be given to know.

    The second thing sounds like just knowing something… apart from knowing anything else about it (e.g. where it came from) since that would be just another thing to know. And that’s just what is meant in revelation.

    If these are not what you mean…*sigh* I don’t think we’re gonna get anywhere fast cause it’s just another sign that we don’t speak the same “language”.

 

Now, if (1) is the case, how do we know it is in fact absolute knowledge?  It seems to me that you are saying that one is also given absolute knowledge that the other absolute knowledge is actually absolute knowledge.  I hope you can see the infinite loop this devolves into, no better than "just because", or "the bible is always correct because it says so, and we know the bible is correct in saying that it is always correct because it is always correct, which we know because it says so". 
     The only way to avoid this problem is to simply trust that the giver is both honest and correct, which is clearly "faith" by any reasonable definition. 

 

    I just wrote about this with donothos. I mean, as I don’t understand the distinction you made, it still seems like you are simply criticizing revelation as a way of gaining knowledge by saying, in some sense, “How do you really know you have absolute knowledge”.

    Asking this basically just dismisses the method of revelation right from the start. If suddenly you have absolute knowledge of X… how could you ask “wait… even though I have absolute knowledge of X… how do I really know X?”. If you ask that, apparently you don’t have absolute knowledge of X, so, really, it’s not happening to suggest in the first place.

    Receiving absolute knowledge is not dependant on whether or not you know who or what imputed it to you (that’s just another thing to know). If, however, one does think that’s important I do respond to that in the post with donothos.

    No, it’s not like an argument that says “I know the bible is true because the bible says it is true”. That’s certainly not the method of revelation I’m proposing. In this context a person would say “I know the bible is true because it has been revealed to me.” Realize something very important here. There’s a difference between “proving your belief to someone else – aka giving them your absolute knowledge” (side note: if that is even possible) and merely receiving absolute knowledge yourself. That is to say, a person telling you he knows the bible is true by revelation isn’t supposed to convince you of anything (as that would assume a method of truth you could call believing-what-your-told-ism). Certainly it would still remain in question to you… until you find yourself absolutely knowing about it. As I’ve been saying to donothos: This question of epistemology is in your head.

 

If (2) is the case, I do not see any way we can differentiate it from a "belief" that comes from within us and is not trustable.  It would take "faith" that this is absolute knowledge and not just a belief. 

 

    The differentiating between absolute knowledge and anything else would already be in your mind. If it’s something you’re not absolute sure about or rather, are able to question in your mind, then it’s not absolute knowledge.

    Addressing the use of faith: The use of “faith” as I see it used just seems to imply that one “doesn’t really know” but he’s taking a guess at it or something lol. Well, that wouldn’t be absolute knowledge either if used in that sense. If faith is meant as in “knowledge you cannot demonstratively prove to another person” then I think you could indeed call the knowledge of revelation “faith”.

 

Your "quite logical" explanation only works because it PRESUMES that the absolute knowledge is actually absolute knowledge, which is begging the question.  (Note:  Unless you're saying that absolute certainty (no matter the origin of said certainty) that it is absolute knowledge makes it so ... I hope you can truly assure me that you are not saying this.) 

 

    Presumes? Actually that’s been called the law of identity (aka logic) to say that X is X and not non-X. In this case, absolute knowledge is absolute knowledge and not anything that it's not. I don’t see that as some sort of random presupposition. It’s not begging the question, it’s an analytical proposition.

    If you find yourself all the sudden with absolute knowledge of something… what question is there to beg? If you are able to doubt it, then apparently it’s not absolute knowledge as you are inevitably aware of the moment you doubt it.

    I’m not sure what you meant in your side note. It almost sounds like what you may have meant what I’m saying though. I’m reading it over and over again and it eludes me. “Absolute certainty”? hmmm Then “absolute certainly” does something (interesting).

Sections divided by bolded excerpts: 
(1)
You don't see them?  I'm not trying to infer some mystical difference between those two categories and any other way of dividing anything -- just that you necessarily either realize you're receiving input or you don't.  And since it seems to me that you understand and recognize that distinction, we are in agreement on that. 
     Where we part ways is that you don't seem to understand that "consciously received" doesn't mean you know WHERE it came from, just that it came from SOMEWHERE (outside of yourself).  So "not consciously received" means, conversely, that you are NOT aware that it came from outside yourself.  In fact, you may not even be aware that there was any change at all!  (e.g. if God made you swap interpretations of "purple" and "orange" without your knowledge, and you'd never notice unless you saw an object from before the swap.)  More on this later. 

(2)
I read what you wrote, but it didn't seem to concretely address the issue.  I think this is for reasons I'll be able to address in a response below.  For now I'll just say you seem to be saying, "but it's ABSOLUTE knowledge, so obviously it's absolute, QED" which is fairly obviously begging the question. 
     Actually, now that I look at your response more closely it's clear that your "revelation" is a complete sidestepping of the issue of establishing that something is absolute knowledge by saying that revealed knowledge is ipso facto absolute. 
     I still have response to this, but see (4). 

(3) "Hopefully I made it clear above that this is not my position. Although I believe I even addressed the contention, not mine, that absolute knowledge had to be accompanied by the absolute knowledge that it came from the absolute knowledge source thing 0_o. That’s not really a problem. It just says that both bits of absolute knowledge are dependent on one another and must be revealed at the same time."
     Unfortunately this will not resolve much as you say this is not your position, but I want to note that this faces exactly the same issue as my hypothetical "the bible is always correct because it says so, and we know the bible is correct in saying that it is always correct because it is always correct, which we know because it says so".  I.e. the one is proven by assuming the other.  THIS is begging the question beyond any shadow of a doubt.  The only way it can be "resolved" is by falling back on your revelation, which means that this is not in fact different at all from your prior answer. 

(4)  "The use of “faith” as I see it used just seems to imply that one “doesn’t really know” but he’s taking a guess at it or something lol. Well, that wouldn’t be absolute knowledge either if used in that sense. If faith is meant as in “knowledge you cannot demonstratively prove to another person” then I think you could indeed call the knowledge of revelation “faith”."
THIS IS KEY
Forget "another person".  You can't even PROVE it to yourself*.  You just "know" it without need for proof beyond the fact that you "know" it.  This is a fucking definition of faith. 
     And given that what you are calling "absolute knowledge" is faith-based, I dispute and deny in the most strenuous way imaginable that you are correct in calling it "absolute knowledge" instead of, say, "absolute faith" or "absolute belief" or "absolute certainty".**  Your feeling was correct -- this is indeed EXACTLY what I meant when I hypothesized, "you're saying that absolute certainty (no matter the origin of said certainty) that it is absolute knowledge makes it so".  Revelation, as you describe it, does not depend on being able to somehow determine the veracity of the source -- it just makes you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of what you now believe (now that it's been revealed). 

(5)  Your absolute certainty that the knowledge is correct does not MAKE it correct (except in your opinion).  So in that sense faith-based "absolute knowledge" cannot vouch for itself in the abstract, only in your own estimation.  That is what I mean when you say you beg the question by saying (for example) "The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it".  It settles it FOR YOU -- but that's all. 

*Proof implies that you approach a question in order to substantiate it.  In this case there is no question, and no substantiation. 

**To be sure, the word "know" is used colloquially when it is really only an extremely well-educated guess.  example "Do you know when the train is scheduled to arrive?"  "Yes, it's 8:00, right there on the sheet."  But maybe the sheet is outdated.  He doesn't actually KNOW.  /example But I consider "absolute knowledge" to imply much more than mere certainty, especially when you say other people do not have absolute knowledge that the world really exists.  I'm sure that millions and millions of people are very absolutely certain of it.