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

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

I appreciate the response and found it a bit more close-knit and understandable.

Belief
   The statements addressing our struggle to define belief I found confusing and there is still a gray area of what you may be implying sometimes but in my understanding I take it simply as “that which is not knowledge” – call it “opinion” if you will.
    To address any further subliminal concerns in bickering about the word belief: Trying to say in essence that “well doesn’t everyone just have belief - isn’t that all there is in our minds?” would just sound like equivocation. Trying to say in essence “well don’t most people feel certain about what they believe – isn’t that just part of the nature of belief?” is an assumption (I’d say belief but obviously the term has a different particular meaning in the discussion) and not even problematic to what I’m saying unless you have further assumptions of what people are truly certain about.

Justification
   In the cause of clarity, I appreciate the analogous language of justification as “connecting” belief to truth. What I am still needing from you, however, is clarification on how justification goes about doing this, as I am still at a loss for how you get around the “uselessness” of justification as I feel I exposed. I do not understand your claimed example still of it’s occurrence in sense data (and obviously think I already know what you’d have to do to make some sense out of it – start with knowledge at some point which would defeat the notion of justification already, but again, go ahead and clarify for me.)

Certainty and Establishing the “Connection”
   As “connection” is a bit analogous and not so abstract I’d have to play along a bit to conform what I’m saying to it. I am not necessarily accepting this “connection” as a real thing of course in recognizing it is in some way analogous. *Blah blah blah disclaimers*.

   If a “connection” were to be made we would, according to your scheme, have to be aware of it to note “oh belief X has been connected to truth, therefore I know X”. If one was not aware of the connection, apparently he would still be in a state of ‘opinion’.
   Therein lies my point though. Within accepting this scheme, being aware of the connection – would already be what is meant in knowledge. For: Are you certain the connection has been made? How do you really know the connection has been made? Whatever you require as a process or formula for knowledge must already begin with that essential element that I already understand to be the essential element of knowledge – certainty/indubitability. Again, if not, I will ask how you know the connection has been made, or exists, or whatever terminology you wish to use, analogous or abstract. To whatever you assert, if you remain consistent, the question of being certain of what you are positing for the reality of obtaining knowledge will continue forever.
   Apparently it doesn’t occur to you to question the certainty of something you claim you’re “aware of”. That’s what I mean by knowledge. That’s what I mean [EDIT:  in the case of] ‘perceptions’ (as you put it) of sense data.
   If you feel this is twisting the analogous use of “connection” then I’d just go back to the raw question again which is the same issue: How do you justify a belief? (Or rather what does justification do exactly?) (Repeating that it in some way ‘justifies’, ‘establishes’, or ‘connects’ would not be explaining anything more but synonymous terms.)

[EDIT: If 'connection' was suppose to be an explanation of how justification could occur without knowledge already then I would definitely see it as merely renaming justification or putting it into an analogy without addressing the specific problem I've raised for it - or rather, not answering how it accomplishes such 'connection' without knowledge already being present.]

Inapplicable Conception of Justification
Now what does that remind me of…?

Do I detect “sly innocent sarcasm”?

My response is twofold:
(1) In certain cases preexisting knowledge is not required (using the "(aside, obviously, from the truth of what you perceive or opine)" loophole for obtaining truth). 
(2) There is not an alternative method for establishing that a relationship exists between (what I call belief) and the truth [edit:  and what that relationship is], which is a necessary part of knowledge IMO (see "Knowledge").[*]

1. Again, still waiting for clarification on the explanation of that.
2. Within this use of the term “connection”, finding yourself certain that there was such a “connection” would be the alternative “method” *chuckles at how annoying that must sound*. Now,  saying it “needs to be established” may carry the subliminal assumption that there simply must be a method the individual discovers and initiates. But rather, according to revelation (still within this scheme of terms), you may describe the connection as “established for you”.

You also spoke of sense data being (epistemological) knowledge without justification, through lack of doubt.  This is basically a statement of your "indubitable = knowledge" idea, which I did not yet see.  You can see in my response at the time that it was basically, "but that's just belief".  (Well, to be honest, that's pretty much still how I see it.)  My response also stated my idea that in this type of case our belief of our own perception was by itself justification for the truth of our own perception, which is how we can know we percieve what we believe we percieve.  (As in (1) above.) 

   I believe my answer to your response was the ol’ “lol wut”. Whatever you might mean by your response, I still pose that you’re inevitably starting with something – whether you call it awareness of something, recognition, perception, whatever. You’ll be granting knowledge of something somewhere without “justifying” it. Otherwise I’m still betting it’s making unreal distinctions merely by way of words.
   Like here’s a thought: “Believing your perception”? Perception already means it’s in your mind and if not in the state of knowledge than, for your sake I’ll say, of belief – which makes “Believing your perception” meaningless. It’s like saying believing a belief or believing knowledge. It already is a belief or knowledge (granting your disagreement in that distinction of course).
   …Further if a perception… is a perception… than it is what it is. If said perception is in your mind… as only a perception can be… it’s a perception. How does one sensibly set it aside from belief and knowledge… and then say that believing it makes it knowledge. I’m only attempting to show my issue with the words here. Still waiting for some clarification [EDIT: for] a sensible set of statements to appear to me (I promise I don’t mean to sound demeaning in that).

NOTE:  I recognize that this may be a bit muddled, but I'm posting anyway as I'm leaving for work.  I will check back to revise later.
UPDATE:  Instead of revising the above, I simply added the above example and explanation:
Let's recall an earlier part of the thread, where you talked about the problem with using our perceptions to make judgments about reality.  The problem is simply that our perceptions don't give 100% accurate reflections of reality (the piano illusion and so on).

   Removing potential ambiguity: Our perceptions, if meaning sense data like I was talking about, are fine – they are what they are (what I designate as knowledge but not trying to mix up any separate issues if you see it that way). [EDIT: But] it’s our interpretation about what they represent that would make them potentially an inaccurate reflection of reality (rather, call them a belief if an inaccurate reflection, not interpretation for clarity sake here, *sigh* - that poor term belief).

 But our perceptions are 100% accurate reflections of our perceptions (although "reflections" might not be the word anymore), right? 

   If meaning a perception is… gee, a perception like I’m putting forth in mock response (for lack of a less abrasive sounding word) to this “perception of a perception” thing, exactly. That’s what I mean by sense data as knowledge – the perceptions are indubitable. They come without our true initiation of them, without a process of deciphering doubt and possibility, they “jump” into our mind and there’s nothing one can do about it (save the mind focusing entirely on something else it’s aware of [EDIT: and so not being aware of the former] - if one were to miss the point).

To everything else in this section: I’m just tired of writing at the moment. I’m responding to what I see as relevant anyway. Although I’m giving in to reiteration this time because I’m also tired of reorganizing. This is all repeating the same issue it seems. I would hope you’ll address them accordingly.

Knowledge
   Sure I agree. When belief (that which is not knowledge) happens to mimic (coincide with, if you care) truth, it’s still not knowledge. Fairly definitive.
   They have to be “connected”, sure, and to me that means more clearly that the belief would become knowledge – it would gain the essential element I call indubitibility. That’s just what knowledge means to me.
   If it be important to point out and not seemingly random: A process of getting to knowledge, if there be, should not be confused with the meaning of knowledge.

Certainty
While I'm at it, I should take a moment to check on something.  I've come to have doubt that I really got what you meant.  I now have two possibilities in my mind: 
(1) One is unable to concieve of a world wherein the certainty is not true.  (Implies (2), obviously.)
(2) One is unable to honestly entertain the possibility of the certainty not being true. 
Please let me know which is the best descriptor of what you mean, or (sigh) if neither are close, then please try to spell it out (again?). 

I’m not sure I understand exactly what you mean in these or what the question is exactly. Maybe I’m just caught up on “certainty” being within what I think might be a question about my definition of certainty. I don’t know. Sorry.

Either way, IMO, certainty does nothing but specify how strong the (thing I call belief) is, so unless (for some reason) we are/can be certain of a (belief) ONLY IF it is true, then no (belief)-to-truth connection has been established.  (In that case, certainty would still accomplish nothing in and of itself (IMO), but its sheer existence would imply that the (belief) is true.)

   Yes, I say we can only be indubitable over knowledge since I find it the essential characteristic in the meaning of knowledge. That’s the reason.
   Again I assert, the only way to “move” opinion (or connect it) to knowledge will require that certainty somewhere – something you will just have to say you’re aware of – something that can’t be doubted.

Sophistry
   Maybe I dislike open attacks (or insults, since that’s what the accusation was over I thought). I feel the “sly innocent sarcasm” is part of my arguing language (like literally a form of communication) along with many people I read and discuss with. Again I’m not really saying them for the purpose of being insulting, while the effect of portraying a position negatively is there. I’m sorry if you find it entirely aggravating. Not sure if I can root that entirely out of my communication at this point.
   I feel it would be unreserved or juvenile of me to express my feelings [EDIT: if I wanted to merely express them] about your reasoning or position in open abrasive remarks. I don’t know that I’ll resort to that. (Perhaps that was sarcastic again.)

Gibberish
   When I said “I did” that was a “no that’s not too much to ask”. I read them again. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t think I could “take a guess” and be serious about it since I read it as something rather confused. It doesn’t make sense to me and if you’re using the words the way I understand them and explained them, it can’t make sense.
   Please clarify. (Although this request is now being repeated above I believe). (Getting lost now)

Where we are:
That was all very repetitious of the same points. Hopefully you can pick them out and respond accordingly. I believe it’s really still where I thought we were at last time.

Belief
Opinion, sure—but doesn’t that sidestep the main dispute between us? [edit: And I would say "not by itself knowledge".  Just to make absolutely sure that we're not implying exclusivity here.]

As for the rest, it didn’t seem to me to be on point.

Justification
So you feel pain.  How do you know you feel pain?  Because you feel pain.  It’s tautological if I’m remembering the term correctly.
You see (what appears to you to be) a piano.  How do you know you see it?  Because you see it.

But is it REALLY a piano?  That’s a question that cannot be answered absolutely by your sense data if it is not infallible.  All you know is what you see, not whether what you see is an accurate reflection of ‘reality’ (the truth).  (Similarly for “But is it really X that’s hurting you?”  The knife feels sharp, but whether it is sharp (or a knife) is another story.)

The perceptions themselves are proof of what you perceive, because your perceptions are ipso facto what you perceive.  But your perceptions may not be ‘true’.

If that doesn’t help you understand, then, considering the amount of times I’ve tried in the past, I have to ask if you honestly think any further attempts by me could realistically be expected to succeed.  (Regardless of whose fault it is.)

Certainty vs. Connection
Well, if you want to play the game of “well maybe that proof you just did was some sort of hallucination and you actually haven’t proved jack” then obviously you can’t prove anything, and thus can’t know anything.  But keep in mind that whether you actually did the proof is not relevant as long as you are aware of the proof—if (unbeknownst to you) you were created five seconds ago complete with false memories of learning the Pythagorean Theorem, it’s still true and you still know it.

How do you justify a belief? (Or rather what does justification do exactly?) (Repeating that it in some way ‘justifies’, ‘establishes’, or ‘connects’ would not be explaining anything more but synonymous terms.

Sorry, but I see this as similar to if I were to say, “How are you certain of something, exactly?  ([edit:  Saying that something indubitable] ‘cannot be doubted’ is not explaining anything but simply restating it.)”  I admit “establish” and “justify” were being used fairly interchangeably at one point but when I said “makes a connection between the belief and the truth” I think that’s a pretty basic definition of the function I’m trying to describe.  I’m not sure how it would be broken down further.

Inapplicable Conception of Justification
Oh, please.  It was a JOKE with no deeper meaning, and clearly not serious or any conceivable jab at any of your arguments.  Are you really going to claim that your remarks were of a similar nature?

1.  I believe this was answered above—or at least the latest of MANY attempts was made.
2.  I believe your counterargument (first sentence of your response) hinges on the issue discussed in “Certainty”.

Knowledge
Likewise, your claim that indubitability is in fact incompatible with the possibility of mistakenness lies at the key of our disagreement here, and discussion of this rightly belongs in “Certainty”.

Certainty
Yes, I say we can only be indubitable over knowledge since I find it the essential characteristic in the meaning of knowledge. That’s the reason.

But that isn’t a reason at all!  That’s just your position, which you haven’t explained the basis for.  Why is it impossible for someone to have an indubitable opinion that is mistaken?

(“It just is!” is not acceptable, unless, I suppose, you’re going to argue that that is an indubitable opinion you hold and therefore cannot be mistaken, and if you feel like begging the question.  “It is because that’s how I’m defining indubitability!” would (if you go this route, and I’m not saying you have or will) seem to me to leave itself open to potential contradiction with reality, absent … er, justification.)

Gibberish
When I said “I did” that was a “no that’s not too much to ask”. I read them again. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t think I could “take a guess” and be serious about it since I read it as something rather confused. It doesn’t make sense to me and if you’re using the words the way I understand them and explained them, it can’t make sense.
   Please clarify. (Although this request is now being repeated above I believe). (Getting lost now)

Here is my original request:  Would it be too much to ask you to take a look at my previous posts (relevant to that point) and take a stab at what you think I did mean (or might have meant)?

Now, it seems to me that BY YOUR OWN TESTIMONY you have fulfilled the first part of that request (rereading stuff), but failed to fulfill the second part (“taking a stab [AKA guess] at what you think I did mean”), and in fact do not feel able to do it at all.  So it perplexes me that you deny that “it was too much to ask”, since you yourself appear to have said that it was indeed too much to ask.  You did notice the “AND”, right?  (The reasonableness of the request is not a factor in this equation.  That is why I said “If so, fine”:  because it might have been too much to ask.)   

Where we are
It is my hope that the entire debate has boiled down to one key issue (“Certainty”), and one side issue (“Gibberish”) which can hopefully be quickly resolved.  As for the key issue, it may well be unresolvable if it comes down to unreconcilable opinions, but at least we’ve identified (hopefully correctly) what has truly been at the heart of this epic debate, having penetrated (or perhaps strip-mined) so many layers of disagreement and misunderstanding.

If so, I’m glad, even if after all this time we simply throw up our hands and walk away.  I can’t say it’s been an unalloyed pleasure—at times I felt queasy whenever I saw this thread had a new post—but though I can regret the torturous route we’ve taken, I don’t regret having the debate in the first place.