Sign in to follow this  
VonNoble

Best label for this assignment

Recommended Posts

On 2/28/2018 at 9:24 AM, VonNoble said:

If you are willing to assist yet again.....

 

These two statements from our text have me flummoxed.  

 

1.  Believing is necessary for knowing something is true.

 

2.  Knowledge presupposes belief.

 

Aren’t these two “givens” sort of at odds ?

:help:

 

i am am going to reserve seats in the front row @ graduation for FORUM members if I opt to go for another degree...:D

von

1. False. Example: faith is belief without facts to back it up. One can believe in something until evidence is provided to debunk it. Thus, knowing isn't really part of the equation until it supports belief if it is true by investigation. Belief can therefore be false without knowing.

2. Belief may be the basis for which knowledge is obtained. Knowledge only comes before belief in the way tools are constructed to test it. Knowledge may be the results or the vehicle of discovery then.

We wouldn't know much of what we do, if it weren't for someone believing it could be tested to find truth.

Just my 2%. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Key said:

Belief can therefore be false without knowing.

You seem to have misunderstood the proposition, because you aren't contradicting it but seem to think you are. Let me know if I got that twisted.

In the Platonic tradition, you can't know something unless it is true, you believe it is true, and you have good reason to believe it is true. Lots of beleifs won't be true, and therefore won't be knowledge. Lots of true beliefs will be held without good reason, and therefore won't be knowledge. According to this understanding, all knowledge is belief, but not all beliefs are knowledge

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, mererdog said:

You seem to have misunderstood the proposition, because you aren't contradicting it but seem to think you are. Let me know if I got that twisted.

In the Platonic tradition, you can't know something unless it is true, you believe it is true, and you have good reason to believe it is true. Lots of beleifs won't be true, and therefore won't be knowledge. Lots of true beliefs will be held without good reason, and therefore won't be knowledge. According to this understanding, all knowledge is belief, but not all beliefs are knowledge

Sorry to confuse you. I was merely fleshing out my thoughts on the statements as they were made.

1. Belief is necessary for knowing something is true.

Knowing is results that have been proven. Because one may have belief without results to prove it, the statement is false.

2. Knowledge presupposes belief.

Depends on which belief. The one that uses proven results to find an end result, or the one that still needs to be tested.

Still confused? Then I'm really not able to articulate any better. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, mererdog said:

What I was trying to do was be specific. Talking about a subset within the set and using language clear enough to make that obvious. Whether that subset is a majority or a minority should be irrelevant. Even if most cops are clean, there is still value in talking about dirty cops, no?

 

 

Your point was not missed.  Possibly every Atheist understands Atheism a little differently.  

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, VonNoble said:

Good suggestion - I made a date with myself to check out those things this weekend.....allow myself to digest whatever I see there ....then look at the tools provided (thanks to all for helping me have some tools) ....and see what seems to fit best. 

 

Since I have never really tried to stick myself with a label (I have actively avoided doing so) .....I am guessing  your reasoning (supported by the comments of others) definitely have me seeing Agnostic in a new light.  Which is a good thing.  Learning is a good thing. 

 

von 

 

 

It won't do you any good for your class.  Still, if you are playing with labels, you might try "Apatheist".  An Apatheist is someone who doesn't care whether or not God exists.

 

There is also "Apathethic  Agnostic".  The motto of the Apathetic Agnostic Church is "We don't know and we don't care."   :D

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

It won't do you any good for your class.  Still, if you are playing with labels, you might try "Apatheist".  An Apatheist is someone who doesn't care whether or not God exists.

 

There is also "Apathethic  Agnostic".  The motto of the Apathetic Agnostic Church is "We don't know and we don't care."   :D   I should add, that the Apathetic Agnostic Church is not an incorporated church.  The church leader thought that  it was more trouble than it was worth.  It goes with being Apathetic.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, VonNoble said:

My genuine thanks to ALL for this assistance. 

It is odd to be looking at spiritual things through the lens of a courtroom-type objective argument. 

 

We are trying to defend-define-present a (widely agreed) unknown.    However, I suspect the lesson is in the process

more than the conclusion (but what do I know.)   

 

I am planning on working on this over the weekend.  Assuming I have a decent first draft by Monday  - I will have a week to tweak it before we go "live" in the classroom.   Much to my surprise it seems LOTS of my classmates are working ahead on this one too. Unlike most assignments - there are more "already on this one now" ...than normal.   Apparently I am not the only one to find the idea of a spiritual belief in a clinical setting to be a bit of a challenge. 

 

von

 

Suppose you do go with "belief in God".  Alright, which God are we speaking of?

 

There is Abrahamic Monotheism.  If you go with this, there is the strict Monotheism of Judaism and Islam, distinct from Trinitarian Christianity.

 

There is Deism, which is the religion of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.

 

There is Pantheism, which is different from both.

 

There is Hinduism/Vedanta, where the many gods are all aspects of the One God.

 

There is Polytheism, which is again, different.

 

It is not enough to present as a believer.  Not when there are so many different varieties of belief.  

 

:mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

It won't do you any good for your class.  Still, if you are playing with labels, you might try "Apatheist".  An Apatheist is someone who doesn't care whether or not God exists.

 

There is also "Apathethic  Agnostic".  The motto of the Apathetic Agnostic Church is "We don't know and we don't care."   :D

 

 

 

 

I actually did look that up... thank you.... it is another “A” option ( outside of class) 

:thumbu:

 

von

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Suppose you do go with "belief in God".  Alright, which God are we speaking of?

 

There is Abrahamic Monotheism.  If you go with this, there is the strict Monotheism of Judaism and Islam, distinct from Trinitarian Christianity.

 

There is Deism, which is the religion of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.

 

There is Pantheism, which is different from both.

 

There is Hinduism/Vedanta, where the many gods are all aspects of the One God.

 

There is Polytheism, which is again, different.

 

It is not enough to present as a believer.  Not when there are so many different varieties of belief.  

 

:mellow:

I have no idea what the prof meant inassigning “belief in God” as an option.   I sort of assumed by the big G ... she was pointing to the Abrahamic Creator God (not too swift for any Wiccans in the room) ( or Hindus) ... or a myriad of others.... so it is likely I am not the only one being forced to just pick a label to get this assignment done.... when we finish this section we are moving to ethics... won’t that be fun:seesaw:

von 

Share this post


Link to post

UPDATE:  

 

Assignment has been revised.    

In my "school" email account I just received the following " ALERT"

 

Your three choices (NOW)  are as follows: 

 

Theist:  holds that there are good reasons for thinking that a supreme being exists

Atheist:  holds that there are good reasons for thinking that no supreme being exists

Agnostic: holds that reason cannot establish whether or not a supreme being exists; thus we cannot know whether or not God exists

 

 

Ya think the prof had a slew of questions on this one or what?  :lol:

von

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

UPDATE:  

 

Assignment has been revised.    

In my "school" email account I just received the following " ALERT"

 

Your three choices (NOW)  are as follows: 

 

Theist:  holds that there are good reasons for thinking that a supreme being exists

Atheist:  holds that there are good reasons for thinking that no supreme being exists

Agnostic: holds that reason cannot establish whether or not a supreme being exists; thus we cannot know whether or not God exists

 

 

Ya think the prof had a slew of questions on this one or what?  :lol:

von

 

"Supreme Being" does take some options off the table.  You still have a choice of two:  Monotheism and Deism.

 

The God of Deism does not answer prayers.  Does not have "revelations".  Does not have "Scripture".  But could exist.

 

:mellow:

Share this post


Link to post

A good reason for thinking that no supreme being exists would be a simple lack of solid evidence.  Of course, it's subjective as to what each individual believes is solid evidence...Dan believes because the bible is solid evidence.  I do not believe because I don't think the bible is solid evidence.  A person shouldn't believe in something by default, so they should seek out evidence.  If there is no evidence for something(as discussed) then they shouldn't believe.

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

"Supreme Being" does take some options off the table.  You still have a choice of two:  Monotheism and Deism.

 

The God of Deism does not answer prayers.  Does not have "revelations".  Does not have "Scripture".  But could exist.

 

:mellow:

Is her selection of supreme being a generality .... is that why no caps?

 

Has she changed this to challenge us defend an unknown &/ or defend having belief beyond reason and senses..... since we NOW have a changed perimeter.... is this even about the beliefs or rather about stating arguments and constructs? Best guess? 

von

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

A good reason for thinking that no supreme being exists would be a simple lack of solid evidence.  Of course, it's subjective as to what each individual believes is solid evidence...Dan believes because the bible is solid evidence.  I do not believe because I don't think the bible is solid evidence.  A person shouldn't believe in something by default, so they should seek out evidence.  If there is no evidence for something(as discussed) then they shouldn't believe.

Okay.... I can follow all of that....

 

If no evidence ....than which thing occurs..... no evidence equals no PROOF.... so no supreme being = atheist

 

OR...no proof.... can’t know = agnostic

 

Which strikes you as more correct?  Of a better position to be in on “cross examination?” 

 

...and thanks

 

von

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

A good reason for thinking that no supreme being exists would be a simple lack of solid evidence.  Of course, it's subjective as to what each individual believes is solid evidence...Dan believes because the bible is solid evidence.  I do not believe because I don't think the bible is solid evidence.  A person shouldn't believe in something by default, so they should seek out evidence.  If there is no evidence for something(as discussed) then they shouldn't believe.

 

In my opinion, what people "believe" is as much Sociology as Theology.  Society in general; parents beliefs, friends, teachers, etc.  People like to go with the flow.  More so, when non-believers are looked upon as lacking morals or ethics.  

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

Is her selection of supreme being a generality .... is that why no caps?

 

Has she changed this to challenge us defend an unknown &/ or defend having belief beyond reason and senses..... since we NOW have a changed perimeter.... is this even about the beliefs or rather about stating arguments and constructs? Best guess? 

von

 

My best guess is that your teacher got careless with her grammar or mad a typo.     :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

Okay.... I can follow all of that....

 

If no evidence ....than which thing occurs..... no evidence equals no PROOF.... so no supreme being = atheist

 

OR...no proof.... can’t know = agnostic

 

Which strikes you as more correct?  Of a better position to be in on “cross examination?” 

 

...and thanks

 

von

 

 

It's nuance.  Not all that different.

 

Atheist:  I have no reason to believe that God exists -- so I don't believe.

 

Agnostic:  I have no facts about God -- so I don't know.

 

Agnostic Atheist:  I don't know and I don't believe.  (The teacher gave you three choices.  Did she say that you couldn't combine them?)

 

Agnostic Theist:  I don't know, but I choose to believe.

 

:mellow:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

1 hour ago, VonNoble said:

.... is this even about the beliefs or rather about stating arguments and constructs?

Philosophy is never really about the beliefs. Its about the whys and hows behind the beliefs. Note that the given defining qualities revolve around reasons to believe, rather than what is believed. It isnt about proving the beliefs are true, just about showing that the beliefs are justified. It goes back to the Plato thing, right? Before you can claim knowledge, you have to show your belief is justified. Befire you can do that, you have to figure out what it means for a belief to be justified. What proof standards are reasonable? Which are too strict and which are too lax? The only way to get there is to look closely at a lot of srandards to figure out which ones are effective.

 

Pay attention to the fact that the given agnostic position is not defined with "I don't know" but with "Nobody can know." That is important. It probably requires the most complicated defense.

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

In my opinion, what people "believe" is as much Sociology as Theology.  Society in general; parents beliefs, friends, teachers, etc.  People like to go with the flow.  More so, when non-believers are looked upon as lacking morals or ethics.  

Testimony is evidence. When you are told a thing is true by people you trust, you will believe it unless some other factor stops you from doing so. The more people tell you the thing is true, and the more you trust those people, the harder it is for.any other factor to stop you from believing them. I see it as a survival trait that allows us to avoid dangers we learn about from others, but one that backfires easily and frequently.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

My best guess is that your teacher got careless with her grammar or mad a typo.     :mellow:

I am  not sure about that - but it is obvious our first round instructions were wanting a bit....

the definitions did mix things up in a new light.....

:blink:

 

von

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this