How are traditional causes of belief reliable in acquiring knowledge?

[simplegospel1144]

So how can a non-believer ascertain the truth if such claims are inaccessible?

By example, an action must take place that convinces you. Not just words, but an experience for you.

 

[poolerboy0077]

By example, an action must take place that convinces you. Not just words, but an experience for you.

Well obviously one has to be convinced before accepting a proposition but that doesn't really answer my main question in this thread. For instance, how do you know that what you experienced actually tracks reality? One "knows" that a pencil's ends are flapping when holding it from one end and moving it up and down, just by looking at it. Of course we now know this is an optical illusion. We "know" that pink exists because we perceive it. Except now we recognize that it's not part of the color spectrum and therefore not "out there" somewhere but simply our brain creating that inner first-person experience by taking the two outermost colors and fusing them together. We "know" that if we have some ailment and take a remedy that hasn't been rigorously tested by merely touted as effective by word of mouth, it must be the case that our ailment's treatment was caused by it if A came before B. But that's a fallacy of correlation implying causality. And on and on. So my question remains: how do these traditional causes of belief work around our cognitive errors?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Well obviously one has to be convinced before accepting a proposition but that doesn't really answer my main question in this thread. For instance, how do you know that what you experienced actually tracks reality? One "knows" that a pencil's ends are flapping when holding it from one end and moving it up and down, just by looking at it. Of course we now know this is an optical illusion. We "know" that pink exists because we perceive it. Except now we recognize that it's not part of the color spectrum and therefore not "out there" somewhere but simply our brain creating that inner first-person experience by taking the two outermost colors and fusing them together. We "know" that if we have some ailment and take a remedy that hasn't been rigorously tested by merely touted as effective by word of mouth, it must be the case that our ailment's treatment was caused by it if A came before B. But that's a fallacy of correlation implying causality. And on and on. So my question remains: how do these traditional causes of belief work around our cognitive errors?

Oh now you gone and messed up my head! Where does pink really come from???

 

[simplegospel1144]

Well obviously one has to be convinced before accepting a proposition but that doesn't really answer my main question in this thread. For instance, how do you know that what you experienced actually tracks reality? One "knows" that a pencil's ends are flapping when holding it from one end and moving it up and down, just by looking at it. Of course we now know this is an optical illusion. We "know" that pink exists because we perceive it. Except now we recognize that it's not part of the color spectrum and therefore not "out there" somewhere but simply our brain creating that inner first-person experience by taking the two outermost colors and fusing them together. We "know" that if we have some ailment and take a remedy that hasn't been rigorously tested by merely touted as effective by word of mouth, it must be the case that our ailment's treatment was caused by it if A came before B. But that's a fallacy of correlation implying causality. And on and on. So my question remains: how do these traditional causes of belief work around our cognitive errors?

I don't think you will find an answer because it seems nothing is real to you because you constantly question without reason. We probably are not even speaking right now.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I don't think you will find an answer because it seems nothing is real to you because you constantly question without reason. We probably are not even speaking right now.

Nothing is real to me? When did I say that? I think many things are real, in fact.

Of course I question everything. Why shouldn't I given our cognitive errors? Should I just acquiesce to claims just because? How is that questioning "without reason" exactly?

Your response is nothing more than a straw man argument. You are no longer addressing any of my points but simply painting my argument as some ridiculous reduction and attacking that false construction. And here I thought we were heading somewhere.

 

[simplegospel1144]

Nothing is real to me? When did I say that? I think many things are real, in fact.

Of course I question everything. Why shouldn't I given our cognitive errors? Should I just acquiesce to claims just because? How is that questioning "without reason" exactly?

Your response is nothing more than a straw man argument. You are no longer addressing any of my points but simply painting my argument as some ridiculous reduction and attacking that false construction. And here I thought we were heading somewhere.

I didn't mean to offend. Sorry
I guess it would be better for you to say what does convince you that something is real? Otherwise I'm kind of putting my beliefs out as a standard that you may not accept. Let me play on your field.

 

[FireDragon76]

That doesn't answer the question. There are better ways to acquire knowledge than others. Blinding trusting authority is worse than skeptical inquiry and repeated testing, for instance.

Prove it.

At some point, skepticism must by necessity become nihilistic or insane. There are so many properly basic beliefs people take for granted every day.

How do you know the miracle is an actual miracle as opposed to a cheap trick? And how do you know that the miracles of the Bible are true? After all, they are assertions written in a book. The fact that they weren't written down by eyewitnesses is the least of the problems.

According to you, eyewitness testimony is unreliable anyways.

Some people in Jesus day saw his miracles, and yet still did not find saving faith. So seeing a miracle in itself will not lead to the kind of belief that Christians consider important. If a person's heart is hard, they will not find faith in Christ.

 

[bhsmte]

By example, an action must take place that convinces you. Not just words, but an experience for you.

Sure, you have to have the right psyche and or psychological need to have the experience in the first place.

 

[lesliedellow]

The physical sciences rely more upon our senses than religion does, so, if our senses are as unreliable as you say they are, the sciences are in big trouble, aren't they?

 

[workmx]

Are you sure you are using the correct definition of faith?

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.

Sounds like Faith is evidence of God by experience of God and that is why it is a gift from God and not something we generate ourselves.

Once our belief is corroborated by substance and evidence, then it is no longer just what we think to be true. We know it to be true without a shadow of a doubt.

I am using my own defintion of faith.

You may disagree.

I also like Peter Boghossian's definition: faith is pretending to know something that you dont' (because it is unknownable).

 

[bhsmte]

The physical sciences rely more upon our senses than religion does, so, if our senses are as unreliable as you say they are, the sciences are in big trouble, aren't they?

Not really. Science relies on empirical evidence, which many many scientists observe and is external to the senses.

With religious beliefs, there is no such external evidence that can be seen and acknowledged by all.

 

[znr]

Either God doesn't exist or God refuses to be proven by empirical evidence. Is there another option?

Not really. Science relies on empirical evidence, which many many scientists observe and is external to the senses.

With religious beliefs, there is no such external evidence that can be seen and acknowledged by all.

 

[lesliedellow]

Not really. Science relies on empirical evidence, which many many scientists observe and is external to the senses.

How do you propose to divorce empiricism from use of the senses - sight especially?

With religious beliefs, there is no such external evidence that can be seen and acknowledged by all.

Theology, in its methodology, cannot be tripped up by supposed limitations in our sensory apparatus, because it doesn't rely upon them.

 

[bhsmte]

Either God doesn't exist or God refuses to be proven by empirical evidence. Is there another option?

Could very well be true, but that really wasn't what I was addressing to the poster I was responding to.

 

[znr]

You're right. I'm suffering from neck pain and I think my brain is affected, seriously. Sorry.

Could very well be true, but that really wasn't what I was addressing to the poster I was responding to.

 

[bhsmte]

How do you propose to divorce empiricism from use of the senses - sight especially?

When 1,000 scientists get the same results from experiments and observe through visual means the same thing and have empirical evidence to support it, tough to toss that out as not reliable.


Theology, in its methodology, cannot be tripped up by supposed limitations in our sensory apparatus, because it doesn't rely upon them.

What methodology does theology rely on? What is a standard to test the methodology for accuracy?

 

[bhsmte]

You're right. I'm suffering from neck pain and I think my brain is affected, seriously. Sorry.

No problem.

 

[lesliedellow]

When 1,000 scientists get the same results from experiments and observe through visual means the same thing and have empirical evidence to support it, tough to toss that out as not reliable.

That presupposes that our senses have evolved to give us true information about our environment, as opposed to giving us a picture good enough to ensure we survive long enough to reproduce.

What methodology does theology rely on? What is a standard to test the methodology for accuracy?

The Bible is, for Christian theology, the source of raw data, which a theologian then goes to work on. The said theologian is subject to a similar kind of peer review process as a scientist. If his colleagues think that his ideas have veered too far away from what can be justified, he is unlikely to find his paper being published in the Harvard Theological Review.

 

[bhsmte]

That presupposes that our senses have evolved to give us true information about our environment, as opposed to giving us a picture good enough to ensure our survival long enough to reproduce.





The Bible is, for Christian theology, the source of raw data, which a theologian then goes to work on. The said theologian is subject to a similar kind of peer review process as a scientist. If his colleagues think that his ideas have veered too far away from what can be justified, he is unlikely to find his paper being published in the Harvard Theological Review.

And how does a theologian determine whether a position is justifiable or not? What method do they use and how can they verify the method is reliable?

Also, the theologian, is making the giant leap, of assuming the raw data they are working with is reliable.

Lastly, is it your position, that theological claims, can be verified with the same reliability as scientific claims?

 

[workmx]

What methodology does theology rely on? What is a standard to test the methodology for accuracy?

A good question.

I doubt that theology even can meet the basic requirement of repeatability in testing.

Is it salvation by grace? Or by works? Or by redemption? Or by grace and redemption?

Theologists and theists cannot even seem agree to agree on the simplest of their assertions.

No wonder there are some many sects of christianity.