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

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:

(1)    Yes *sigh* what I’ve meant by absolute knowledge is that it is knowledge of the truth. And as if the further qualification must be added, it means its “undoubtable” when you have it. This discussion is about epistemology. So that would make sense for me to bring up a term up with that meaning in the answer to the question of epistemology. Something with truth value.

 

(2)    It appears to me you’re basically finding new wording every time to undermine the meaning of absolute knowledge. The new ways you put forth are 1. put absolute knowledge only through the “window of someone’s perception”. 2. Pose someone only “believing something absolutely” (which then I’m apparently calling absolute knowledge).

 

(3)    The implications of saying you only perceive such and such… is not the meaning of absolute knowledge.

The implications of saying someone “merely believes something absolutely”… is not the meaning of absolute knowledge. The common use of the word belief often does not imply a truth value. “Absolute knowledge” does. If you feel we are inexorably enslaved to a “perception” or a “truth-valueless belief” in relation to the truth about the world this inevitably would mean you don’t believe such truth can be known.

    However, as I’ve pointed out that the status of sense data as a bit of absolute knowledge, it’s a little more obvious, I think, that we wouldn’t think to apply such “stepping stones” between us and itself. When we experience sense data is that merely a perception? Do we merely believe we are aware of sense data? No, sense data is just there and holds the kind of absoluteness I’m talking about. Call sense data whatever you want though. (Bertrand Russell actually addresses this near the beginning of his book “The Problems of Philosophy”).

   In the same way, if there is such an instance of absolute knowledge (“undeniable” as if I must keep making this qualification)... then that's what I'm talking about in regards to revelation. I’m not talking about “mere beliefs” that are shaken by possibilities in your mind. If they can be shaken, if you find they can be doubted, then it is clearly not what I’m talking about. This is the issue of epistemology.

 

I don't think you understand what I mean by interpretation.  It's simply "the sense data means X".  Such a statement can be made with varying levels of certainty.  Obviously if the interpretation and sense data are both absolute knowledge then the level of certainty is 100%, which is my point. 

 

(4)    Varying levels of certainty? Is that in relation to some method of truth you proposed that I’m seeing no connection with? Besides not knowing what you meant by that, I either don’t know what you mean by the last sentence or don’t see the relevancy in it with anything I’ve said.

 

That's right, you haven't explained at all WHY revelation can only work on one instance of sense data and not declare a proper interpretation of a particular arrangement of sense data for all such arrangements, and not just the one time.  Why can't that be revealed as well?

 

(5)    No, I actually think I was clear that revelation could declare a particular arrangement of sense data you will encounter to always hold the same interpretation if that be the case. I said:

 

“There’s no indication from sense data that it does have the same interpretation at any time. You could only know that if revelation told you: “every time you encountered such sense data it meant such and such interpretation” - which would be about the same thing as revelation telling you every time it occurred”

 

    I followed that up with making the point that… this is perfectly in alignment with this answer of revelation. Meaning it’s not a method of empiricism and it’s not building an I/O system from ‘practicality’ or whatever (honestly I just don't know how to say it still).

 

Clarification:  It seems to me that your posts are taking the position that absolute belief either (a) implies, (b) creates, or ( c ) is absolute truth. 

 

(6)    None of the above. I haven’t been using the term absolute belief. I’ve been saying absolute knowledge. Absolute knowledge means knowledge of the truth. I’m not using the term belief, again, because that implies no truth value in the common use of the word. The term absolute knowledge does imply a truth value.

 

(7)    The whole thing is simple: An answer (proposition) that is not contradictory /problematic to the question of epistemology: The source of absolute knowledge (knowledge of the truth) would give us absolute knowledge. Then… we’d have absolute knowledge. I’m only trying to show this would be an answer, I’m not saying you have to believe this is the case (although I will argue you would be left with denying we can have absolute knowledge).

 

Please forgive me if any of this came across as abrasive.

(1) "Yes *sigh*" Yes?  What the hell are you saying "yes" to?  That you said the same thing I said? 

(2)  No, every time I am either trying to find a new way to pierce your barrier of nonunderstanding of my objections or trying a new tack on which objections might best suit the discussion. 

(3) KEY Well then as I see it the problem devolves back to how it is certain*  that revelation confers absolute knowledge.  You once said, "You couldn't be sure... unless absolute knowledge was given to you. That's the point. If absolute knowledge is given to you about whatever, including the information of where it came from, then... you have absolute knowledge."  But I still say this begs the question by presuming that revelation CAN give absolute knowledge.  Or perhaps it might be better to simply say, "You are wrong."  How do you propose to differentiate absolute belief from absolute truth in your own mind?  What proof exists that a belief is true?  Revelation?  I say revelation only confers belief, not necessarily truth.  Prove me wrong.  ** ***

*"How IT is certain", not "How the recipient is certain".  (See postscript.) 

** On truth:  Revelation could only assuredly confer absolute truth as well as belief IMO if truth only existed within oneself, whereas I have the position that it exists outside of oneself.  Thus there is only one real truth set that we try to access. 

(4)  Ugh.  "Varying" could mean between 0% and 100% only and be just as valid.  My last sentence referred firstly back to your statement, "An interpretation of absolute knowledge? Like I’ve said, if it’s absolute knowledge that’s given to you, it necessarily means there’s no question in it. If you question it or call it a mere ‘interpretation’ then it’s no longer absolute knowledge, it’s a possibility like anything else that you’re looking for a way to establish."  I took this to mean that "interpretation" implied uncertainty and I don't know how else I could have taken it.  So I responded that no, interpretation did not necessarily imply uncertainty. 
     Secondly, it referred back to "my point", that is to say, "if the sense data is a form of revelation (as you suggested above), and if interpretations of that sense data can also be revealed, and if revelation confers absolute knowledge (your def'n.), then couldn't you put those two types of absolute knowledge together logically and derive more absolute knowledge from them?"

(5)  I see.  I'm sorry, I somehow failed to read your post correctly.  Ironically, just as you did mine.  The I/O system I spoke of there was one built on revelation and sense data.  I was thinking it could still be empirical because empiricism is about interpretations of sense data, so as long as the revelations produce interpretations that result in a coherent, persistent world -- where's the problem? 

(6)  See (3).

(7)  OH WAIT.  "an answer" /facepalm  Are you saying that you are asserting "revelation confers absolute knowledge" as a POSSIBILITY only?  I don't recall you mentioning this little MASSIVELY IMPORTANT DETAIL before.  Otherwise see (3).  [edit:  You say that revelation is a source of absolute knowledge, but what reason do you have for this claim?  (Hint:  "revelation" is not a valid answer.)  (Or, if you define "revelation" as such, I suppose I should be asking how you know (instead of just believe) that what you are receiving is indeed revelation and not simply a source of absolute belief.)] 

*** If you can't, then it would seem to me that you believe either (a), (b), or ( c ), since what one "knows" only in one's own mind, without proof that can be articulated, is simply a "belief" and not necessarily epistemological knowledge, IMO.  Or, I guess, you take the more direct route and jump to believing that R is AK directly.

P.S.  I apologize for using the word "certainty" irregularly -- sometimes to mean belief (i.e. "you are certain") and sometimes epistemological truth.  Here it means the latter.  I will endeavor to be consistent with it from now on so as to avoid needless confusion.