Pim:
> Because I do not believe that knowledge includes that which cannot be
> observed.
Gene: You realize that this belief is unsupported by observation. Why do
you believe that knowledge does not include that which cannot be observed?
It is a fairly radical statement and you should certainly have some
powerful reasons for it to believe that it is true.
> Keithp: The denial of fairies, UFO's, and finite Greek deities does not
> result in the philosophical and intellectual dilemmas that we are
> discussing.
>
> It is meant to indicate what I consider knowledge and what I consider
> belief or faith.
You know it is impossible to rule out the existence of UFOs, Greek
deities, and fairies by observation. Negative evidence is not conclusive.
I am of the *opinion* that all of those things don't have any existence
other than in the realm of ideas, but I have no proof that they don't
exist and as such keep my mind open to the possibility of their existence.
> Keith: It is this theory of knowledge that is self-destructive because
> when held to its own standard it fails. The claim that all knowledge is
> derived from sensory experience is not itself known to be true (nor can
> it be) on the basis of observation or by means of science since science can
> neither confirm nor falsify such a universal claim about the limits of
> knowledge.
Pim goes on to say: Nor is the claim that knowledge includes more than
the sensory perception necessarily true either since we cannot observe it
we cannot address such a statement. So if you want to include in knowledge
a faith in the supernatural then science cannot oppose this or support
this. THere is just no evidence to support of falsify this assumption.
Gene:
I have pointed out several examples (such as the perfect circle and some
tenets of geometry) where we have knowledge but where we have no sensory
perception. So I think that your argument is incorrect. I wouldn't mind
you trying to show me otherwise, though.
Pim:
> There is no room for doubt, no room for dissent in faith and
> belief. And certainly no room for proof or disproof.
Gene:
There is room for both. Even elementary theology classes teach that doubt
is an integral part of faith and the theology of the early Christian
church was filled with plenty of dissent over the nature of the person of
Christ. Arianism was, at one time, the predominant idea of the Church
before Augustine convinced people *by rational arguments* that Arianism
was not a sufficient basis for the salvation mediated by Jesus Christ.
For these reasons, I think that this argument is bogus.
Pim, I am distressed by a seeming willingness on your part to attribute
the worst possible motives to some of your opponents or to think they find
credible arguments that a child could see through. Christian philosophy
has a rich and vibrant intellectual tradition of 2000 years and
some of the best minds on the planet have contributed to it. I have only
scratched the surface of some of the arguments of some of the people in 10
years of intermittent study. There is amazing depth there and yet
clarity. You might find some of the answers to the questions you seem to
be seeking by confronting some of it in book form. I can assure you that
many of the things we have been discussing have been addressed. Even if
you don't agree you will learn things that will make your mind sharper.
(Not that it is dull presently. :-)
Peace,
Gene
-- ____________________________________________________________Gene D. Godbold, Ph.D. Lab: 804 924-5167Research Associate Desk: 804 243-2764Div. Infectious Disease/Dept. Medicine Home: 804 973-6913and Dept. Microbiology Fax: 804 924-7500MR4 Bldg, Room 2115 email: anselm@virginia.edu300 Park Place Charlottesville, VA 22908 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""