> Knowledge and truth are two very different issues. Indeed we cannot be
> sure that anything is true
Keithp: Even that statement?
Even your question.
>but we can provide observations and theory to come darn close.
Keithp: And how exactly can we *know* that we are "darn close" if we
don't/can't know what the truth is?
Science is based on observation. If we can describe the observations and
have a theory which encompasses the observations then we are as close to
the 'truth'
as we can be at that time. New observations of course can shatter the
'truth'.
Keithp: The picture that came to mind when I read these words was that of
driving around aimlessly with no destination in mind, being asked by my
passenger "Where are we going?", and replying confidently, "I haven't the
slightest idea but I know I'm pretty darn close!"
Strange things do happen.
> But there is no scientific foundation to their [Christians] claim. As
such
> their claims remain truely subjective and the truth remains truely rigid.
> It is neither based observation nor theory. It is a belief inspired by
> an acceptance of something that cannot be observed and whose existance is
> accepted beyond any doubt. No observations, no falsification, no theory.
> Nothing but an acceptance of 'truth'.
Keithp: There are a number of assumptions in this paragraph for which I
would
like justification. The first two sentences can be expressed in the
following proposition: "Only those propositions that have a scientific
foundation communicate objective truth." The problem with such an
assertion should be evident; if it is true, then it itself is
subjective. There is no scientific support for it. Rather, it is a
philosophical assertion about the nature and extent of knowledge
(epistemology) which is incapable of being either verified or falsified
by means of empirical investigation. In other words, it is a
suprasensible truth claim of the same order as other metaphysical
assertions.
You are turning around my statement. I stated that there is no scientific
claim
to their claims and their claims remain subjective and truth remains rigid.
Perhaps dealing with what I say rather than shaping it into a strawman
would be more effective a form of communication ?
Keithp: You also seem to be suggesting that any belief that is not held
tentatively is suspect and cannot qualify as knowledge (or at least
scientific knowledge). We might state that idea in the form of the
following proposition: "Any belief regarded as incapable of being
falsified does not qualify as scientific knowledge but as faith."
Are you certain of this? If so, for the sake of consistency you'd have
to concede that this belief does not qualify as a piece of scientific
knowledge but faith. If not, then you should be willing to reconsider
it.
I already stated that any belief which is incapable of being falsified
does not qualify as scientific knowledge since science requires that theory
can be falsified. It's the definition of scientific knowledge.
Why do you want me to reconsider this consistent viewpoint ? Are you
suggesting that science is redefined ?
> Keithp: Once again you suggest that our knowledge is limited to what is
> capable of being observed. Once again I ask you how you know this. Is
this a
> scientific conclusion or rather does it fit better in your category of
> "faith"?
>
> It is a scientific conclusion. What cannot observed cannot be proven to
> exist or not exist. It's the simple basics of science. What cannot be
> observed is not knowledge but belief/faith etc.
Keithp: Huh? It's both a basis AND conclusion of science? Isn't this a
little
circular? How is this a conclusion of science? What experimentation has
led to this conclusion?
Since there is no observational evidence there is no scientific way to
prove or disprove the existance of such. The absence of suitable
experiments for instance
already lead to exclusion of science in this area.
Keithp: What sensory data verifies it? I asked you how you know that our
knowledge is limited to what we are capable of observing and you respond,
"It is a scientific conclusion." All you've really done is say, "Well,
that's just the way science has defined knowledge." But of course, anyone
can create a system in such a way that opposing viewpoints are
disqualified a priori. Now, you might charge the Christian with doing
exactly the same thing but the major
difference is that the Christian theory of knowledge is not self-refuting
as is yours.
So your definition of knowledge includes what cannot be observed ? That is
quite interesting after all it has no supporting evidence, no experimental
evidence, no hypothesis or theory. It's a statement of 'fact' without the
fact. It is a truth which has to be accepted by faith. Your assertion that
my definition of knowledge is self refuting remains to be supported. At
least we agree that the Christian 'theory' (which fails the standard
definition of theory btw) can not be self-refuting since one can always
claim not to know the deity's full will or ideas. Such a 'cop out' is
exactly why there is little knowledge in faith if it is not observable and
highly subjective.
Keithp: I also noticed that you changed my question slightly. While I
asked how
it is that you know that human knowledge is limited to sense experience,
your reply had to do with what can be proven to exist. These are not
identical issues. For the sake of argument, imagine that a person *did*
have knowledge of an unobservable entity or truth. What scientific
experiments could verify or falsify this claim?
You are already assuming that there is knowledge of an unobservable entity
or truth but all we have is a subjective assertion of such an existance.
How did the person obtain this knowledge for instance ? If it cannot be
observed noscientific experiments could be used to verify or falsify this
claim. Yet is it 'knowledge' ? I would disagree with that interpretation.
But perhaps we disagree what encompasses knowledge.
Keithp: Of course there are none. Are we to conclude from this that the
subject really doesn't or better yet, cannot have such knowledge? Only if
we begin with
We conclude that we cannot make a statement supporting or falsifying this
'knowledge'.
Keithp: the a priori commitment to empiricism, but that is exactly what we
are
debating. The only thing we would really be justified in concluding is
that natural science is limited in what it can investigate.
We agree on that. However invocation of the unobservable does not lead to
increased knowledge or understanding nor a subjective form of 'truth'.
After all
anyone can make claims. In the Netherlands there was this woman who stated
that she could see and converse with elves. Nobody else could see them but
they revealed themselves to her and talked to her. Knowledge ?
> I am not denying the christian worldview, I am merely pointing out that
> there is no observable data supporting the existance of a deity. That you
> consider this arbitrary is hardly reason to consider this to be such. I
> can understand that the realization that there is no scientific
foundation
> for a deity can be shocking but to wave away arguments as arbitrary and
> absurd merely indicate why religious truth is universal and eternal. Such
> requires a lot of faith, to believe in the truth of something that cannot
> be observed ? But the question still remains, what evidence of a deity
> exists ?
Keithp: Not denying the Christian worldview? Why, of course you are. The
biblical, Christian worldview includes a theory of knowledge.
No it includes an acceptance of faith. No theory. And no I am not denying
the Christian worldview.
Keithp: The Christian worldview claims that God has created all things,
including man, so as to reveal His presence and character. This being
the case, everything in the natural world, including the laws of nature and
principles of reasoning bear witness to God. This is why the Bible
says:
To use the bible to support the existance of a deity is rather circular.
The Christian worldview is based on an acceptance of faith.
Keithp: Furthermore, the Christian worldview also claims that God has
revealed
Himself verbally and propositionally in the Scriptures which He
inspired.
Nicely circular. But there is no evidence only faith to support this.
Keithp: Any claim that our knowledge is limited only to those things which
we
can observe with our senses IS a denial of the Christian worldview.
Or a denial of your interpretation of the Christian worldview ? Perhaps
the
word knowledge has a more expansive meaning to you to include that which
has been accepted on faith only ? No observation, no theory, no
falsifiability ?
But if it is not based on this how can you claim it to be knowledge ?
Keithp: It is a rejection of the Bible's claim that there is a universal
knowledge of God mediated through what has been made, including man who is
the
image of God.
Knowledge ? I disagree again. There is a universal faith in God perhaps.
And even that is based on a faith acceptance of the bible as the word of
God.
Keithp: Thus, the empiricism you espouse is just another way of saying
that the Biblical account of a God who makes himself clearly known in the
created order and in Scripture is wrong.
What I am saying is that there is no such thing as 'clearly known' since
it is far from clear and all faith. I am not claiming that the biblical
account is wrong or right, since there is no evidence which can support or
disprove the biblical account of a God.
Keithp: Your belief that knowledge is confined to the temporal world of
sense experience, is but a presupposition in your philosophy of life that
reveals your prejudice against any claims to the existence or knowledge of
the supernantural.
To put it terms that you are more familiar with, it is an article in
your statement of faith; an article, by the way, that when held to its
own criterion, crumbles in upon itself.
How can it crumble in upon itself when you have failed to show that there
is a supernatural world outside our observable world ? Your acceptance of
faith leads you to claim that there is now knowledge of the object of
faith. A mere personal acceptance of an unobservable item does not make it
knowledge though.
There is no prejudice against the existance or 'knowledge' of the
supernatural, it cannot be shown to exist or disproven to exist. I am
claiming that this makes the supernatural not our knowledge but our faith.
And as such it cannot crumble upon itself since there is no objective
standard to faith. So if my statement had an article of faith in it, how
could it crumble in upon itself ? Are you saying that the lack of your
faith in something affects my faith ?
incorrect extrapolation that a statement that we cannot observe, prove or
disprove the unobservable and that therefor such is not a claim of
knowledge but of faith reduces the value of your faith ? How can that be
though since the subject of your faith cannot be proven or disproven to
exist ?
Perhaps faith is a strange thing, people can gain or lose faith in
something without any further proof or disproof of the existance of the
subject of their faith. Faith is not build on an objective foundation or
theory but on the subjective foundation of acceptance of that what we
cannot observe.