Knowledge and Faith Can Be the Same Thing

 

F-K VennIt is commonly assumed that an item of knowledge and an article article of faith can never be the same thing. This assumption is mistaken. In this post, I will explain only one point: trust in authority can be a source of knowledge. That’s what faith is: trust. It’s still the first definition of “faith” in the dictionary. Also see the Latin fides and the Greek pistis.

So don’t believe the hype that categorically separates faith from knowledge. This separation ranges from the view William James attributes to a schoolboy (“Faith is when you believe something that you know ain’t true”) to Kant’s more sophisticated idea that “I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith” (in beliefs that might well be true).

We should also reject the hype that says that an argument from authority is necessarily fallacious. The best logic textbook in print will tell you otherwise. It will even tell you that there is such a thing as a valid argument appealing to an infallible authority! (“Valid” is a technical term in logic; be sure to look it up first if you’re inclined to complain that there are no infallible authorities.)

Arguments from authority are good or bad depending on what their content is: and primarily on what sort of knowledge the authority is supposed to have, and whether it is reasonable to suppose that the authority really has it.

So an argument from a reliable authority is a good argument, and an argument from an unreliable or untrustworthy authority is a bad argument.

Electrons

Protons and electrons: an article of faith

We must also dispense with the idea that science is the epistemological opposite of faith: one relying entirely on reason, one not at all. In actuality, religious faith usually relies on reason to varying degrees, up to and including this summary of Christian theology by Thomas Aquinas–quite possibly the most impressive bit of systematic reasoning in human history. And, if Thomas Kuhn is even one-quarter correct, science is not a matter of objective reason alone.

But the bigger point to be made here is that science depends on faith as much as your average religion. That is to say, it depends on trust.

Yes, of course scientific experiments can be replicated. But chances are pretty good that you didn’t replicate them, and that someone else did it for you. And if you yourself did replicate some experiments, did you repeat the replication in order altogether to avoid having to take someone else’s word for it?

To skip over various levels of this exercise, here’s the end-point it leads to, using chemistry as an example. If you want to know something in chemistry without relying on trust, you will have to begin from the very beginning and repeat all of the experiments that led to the current state of chemical knowledge: all of them, multiple times each. You would die of old age before you caught up with the present state of chemical knowledge. And all of your hard work would be useless unless others had the good sense you lacked and were willing to take your word for it at least some of the time when you said that your experiments had turned out the way they had.

Even for scientists, scientific knowledge relies heavily on trust in testimony: the testimony of other scientists. As for the scientific knowledge of those of us who aren’t scientists, we are left where Scott Adams puts us in the Introduction to this book: depending on the word of people (most of whom we’ve never met) who simply tell us how things are.

Augustine (the real Augustine, the Church Father and founder of medieval philosophy) both here (chapter 5) and here (cartoon version here) is even more helpful than Adams. These are the sort of examples he uses:

  • Do you know that Caesar became emperor of Rome about 50 BC? Yes; you know it by faith–by pistis, by fides, by trust–in the testimony of historians.
  • Do you know that Harare, Zimbabwe, exists? Yes. But if you haven’t been there, then you know it by faith–by pistis, by fides, by trust–in the testimony of geographers or of people who have been there.
  • Do you know who your parents are? You know that also by faith–by pistis, by fides, by trust in what they told you.

(On this last point my students instinctively think of DNA tests, at which point I explain to them that they would need not only to perform the test themselves, but to start from the very beginning of genetic science and reinvent it singlehandedly if the goal is to know who their parents are without taking someone’s word for something.)

Resurrection

The Resurrection of the Messiah: an article of faith

No doubt some readers will suspect that I am attacking the legitimacy of science. Not at all. To the contrary, I presume the legitimacy of science.

I am only pointing out that faith, being trust, is something on which science depends; and, since I am in fact assuming that science is a source of knowledge, other beliefs that rely on reliable testimony can also be knowledge.

What you need to get knowledge by trust is a reliable testimony. And we have plenty of reliable testimony: science, history, geography, and (for most of us) our parents. We live our lives by this testimony.

Thus, the crucial question for religious knowledge is this: Do we have any reliable testimony supporting any religious beliefs?

For example:

  • Are there any prophets of Jehovah?
  • Are there any holy books? Any books that are God-breathed and inspired?
  • Is there a real Messiah who can tell us about God and about how we can know God?
  • Are there several predictions about the Messiah made centuries before his birth which all converge on the same person?
  • Are there accounts of the Resurrection of the Messiah coming from eyewitnesses of sound mind?
  • Is there a Roman Catholic Church with infallible authority, or at least a universal church with reliable authority?

Well, yes. We do have some of these things.

And why should you believe me when I say that? That’s a good question. And, more generally, how do you recognize a reliable testimony in religion?

To ask this question at this point is to observe that I have only showed that knowledge and (religious) faith can be the same thing–not that they ever are. It is a possibility, but that doesn’t mean it is a realized possibility.

But that’s enough ground covered for one opening post. Maybe we can talk about whether this possibility is ever realized, and about how we can know whether it is, in comments, or in a new thread.

Note from the author: We did indeed talk about it comments. See comments #s 156-161 for a handy overview of my thoughts on that subject (and an addendum showed up in comments #s 182-183, and another one in comments #s 262-263).

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 278 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    Augustine:

    Mike H:

    Augustine:

    So if the historical testimony for the Resurrection is, say, a bit more reliable than the evidence for the death of Socrates, then we can have knowledge of miracles.

    Whoa, whoa, whoa… am I reading this right? You’re claiming that if there is slightly more evidence that “someone rose from the dead a long time ago” (something that goes against all contemporary understanding) than “someone died a long time ago” (an inevitability), then you have evidence of miracles?

    Yes. Unless I begin by assuming that God does not exist or that the laws of physics are absolute–which is to begin by begging the question–then the responsible thing to do is to presume in favor of testimony. A well-established historical fact is a well-established fact. If a well-established fact conflicts with the laws of physics as we understand them, then either we have not understood them as well as we thought, or (if we have understood them pretty darn well) the laws of physics are not absolute.

    Well, maybe Mike H. is right.  At any rate, the alien abduction objection raised by Majesty in # 57 is a nice one, and it is surely lurking somewhere in the area of Mike H’s remarks.  My reply to that objection is # 115.

    • #121
  2. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    Cato Rand:

    Augustine:

    Cato Rand:

    Augustine:

    Mike H:

    Augustine:

    So if the historical testimony for the Resurrection is, say, a bit more reliable than the evidence for the death of Socrates, then we can have knowledge of miracles.

    Whoa, whoa, whoa… am I reading this right? You’re claiming that if there is slightly more evidence that “someone rose from the dead a long time ago” (something that goes against all contemporary understanding) than “someone died a long time ago” (an inevitability), then you have evidence of miracles?

    Yes. Unless I begin by assuming that God does not exist or that the laws of physics are absolute–which is to begin by begging the question–then the responsible thing to do is to presume in favor of testimony. A well-established historical fact is a well-established fact. If a well-established fact conflicts with the laws of physics as we understand them, then either we have not understood them as well as we thought, or (if we have understood them pretty darn well) the laws of physics are not absolute.

    I think you are the one begging the question here.

    Which question?

    The assumption under question which I am talking about not presuming in order to defend it is the assumption that the laws of physics are absolute.

    Ok, then you were begging a question.

    Which one exactly?

    • #122
  3. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Augustine:

    In # 19 I overview what I take to be the best way of establishing that the Bible is a source of knowledge (whether infallible or merely reliable). (It’s not any way you mention here.)

    No you didn’t.

    Jesus never wrote a single word for any of us to read, so any of his purported sayings are highly questionable, as they were written down 50 years after the events they allegedly describe.  How can this in any way be taken seriously?

    The fact that these utterances were faithfully re-copied many times also tells us nothing about their veracity.

    It’s as Bob W said: you’d expect there to be something novel that nobody but God could have known in there if it were a transmission from him.  There’s nothing but inventive story-telling.

    • #123
  4. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    Majestyk:

    Augustine:

    In # 19 I overview what I take to be the best way of establishing that the Bible is a source of knowledge (whether infallible or merely reliable). (It’s not any way you mention here.)

    No you didn’t.

    That sort of defense of biblical authority would rely on the historical reliability of the gospels, to which you offer some standard objections here.  I think I replied to all of them already, probably on the second page of comments.

    . . . you’d expect there to be something novel that nobody but God could have known in there if it were a transmission from him.

    Why should we expect that?  I think what I would expect God to tell us in His revelation is whatever God saw fit to tell us.

    • #124
  5. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Augustine:

    Cato Rand:

    Augustine:

    Cato Rand:

    Augustine:

    Mike H:

    Whoa, whoa, whoa… am I reading this right? You’re claiming that if there is slightly more evidence that “someone rose from the dead a long time ago” (something that goes against all contemporary understanding) than “someone died a long time ago” (an inevitability), then you have evidence of miracles?

    Yes. Unless I begin by assuming that God does not exist or that the laws of physics are absolute–which is to begin by begging the question–then the responsible thing to do is to presume in favor of testimony. A well-established historical fact is a well-established fact. If a well-established fact conflicts with the laws of physics as we understand them, then either we have not understood them as well as we thought, or (if we have understood them pretty darn well) the laws of physics are not absolute.

    I think you are the one begging the question here.

    Which question?

    The assumption under question which I am talking about not presuming in order to defend it is the assumption that the laws of physics are absolute.

    Ok, then you were begging a question.

    Which one exactly?

    I think I was referring to the claim that the resurrection is a well established historical fact, but I’m not even certain now and don’t want to quibble about it.  I withdraw the statements.

    • #125
  6. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Augustine:

    Well, maybe Mike H. is right. At any rate, the alien abduction objection raised by Majesty in # 57 is a nice one, and it is surely lurking somewhere in the area of Mike H’s remarks. My reply to that objection is # 115.

    The mass Suicide at Masada is psychologically unlikely as well.  However, it did happen, although it was probably more like mass murder/suicide.

    The alien abductees are still out there, begging for you to believe them.  They have nothing to gain but scorn and fervently believe they are prophets.

    They also have just as much evidence in their corner for their miracle as you do.  The agedness of the one legend does not grant it additional credibility.

    • #126
  7. user_82762 Inactive
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    To Augustine and All,

    Just for the fun of it. Here’s a guy that can convince you that the sea really parted, the Israelites really went across, and the sea closed in on the Egyptian Royal Army chasing them.

    RED SEA CROSSING

    And to all a good night.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #127
  8. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    Is archeology considered science? If it is, then many of the predictions and statements in the bible are historically accurate. Seeing as archeologists have been uncovering physical evidence that the bible has spoke of for 100’s of years. That marriage between science and religion is a fact that can be proven.

    But the rest of it is just a coincidental myth. Maybe. Right?

    • #128
  9. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    Majestyk:

    Augustine:

    Well, maybe Mike H. is right. At any rate, the alien abduction objection raised by Majesty in # 57 is a nice one, and it is surely lurking somewhere in the area of Mike H’s remarks. My reply to that objection is # 115.

    The mass Suicide at Masada is psychologically unlikely as well. However, it did happen, although it was probably more like mass murder/suicide.

    The alien abductees are still out there, begging for you to believe them. They have nothing to gain but scorn and fervently believe they are prophets.

    They also have just as much evidence in their corner for their miracle as you do. The agedness of the one legend does not grant it additional credibility.

    I’ll consider a direct objection to # 115.  But this, as far as I can tell, is missing the points raised therein.

    (Does it make a difference that alien abductees are pointing to separate events?  It just might; I might have to think about it.)

    • #129
  10. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    Calvin Coolidg:Is archeology considered science? . . . . Seeing as archeologists have been uncovering physical evidence that the bible has spoke of for 100′s of years. . . .

    A salient point!

    • #130
  11. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    James Gawron:To Augustine and All,

    Just for the fun of it. Here’s a guy that can convince you that the sea really parted, the Israelites really went across, and the sea closed in on the Egyptian Royal Army chasing them.

    RED SEA CROSSING

    Thanks!  I think I watched a documentary from this guy.  It seemed to me to be immensely convincing evidence.

    If there are rebuttals, I’d be happy to hear them.  (I just hope they don’t take a whole lot of time and effort to look over!)

    • #131
  12. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Calvin Coolidg:Is archeology considered science? If it is, then many of the predictions and statements in the bible are historically accurate. Seeing as archeologists have been uncovering physical evidence that the bible has spoke of for 100′s of years. That marriage between science and religion is a fact that can be proven.

    But the rest of it is just a coincidental myth. Maybe. Right?

    Archeology undoubtedly sheds light on the veracity of some bible events.  There is a whole subdiscipline known as biblical archeology devoted to the endeavor.

    • #132
  13. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Augustine:

    I’ll consider a direct objection to # 115. But this, as far as I can tell, is missing the points raised therein.

    (Does it make a difference that alien abductees are pointing to separate events? It just might; I might have to think about it.)

    My direct objection is this – not only do you not have any direct knowledge of the events which are purported to have happened in the Bible (you have second and third-hand retellings which may or may not be accurate and no independent verification) but you buzz right past the fact that using your criteria, the abductees have a quite strong basis of “knowledge” of the various events which have happened to them.

    You could toss them in with any number of other Keepers Of Obscurantist Knowledge (KOOKs) who have independently produced tales about Bigfoot, various lake monsters, pyramids on the Moon and whatnot… who similarly have nothing to gain but scorn and derision from the broader culture.

    Add to this the fact that any time there is a new religious movement of any stripe, there are typically a cabal of people involved at its heart who are a combination of true believers/con-men, such as the people who surrounded Joseph Smith.

    Seriously: Using your criteria, you should be a Mormon.  The fathers of that religion generally suffered greatly for having brought it forth and it seems obvious to any outsider that whatever their motivations, they were following a crackpot or a grifter.

    • #133
  14. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Calvin Coolidg:Is archeology considered science? If it is, then many of the predictions and statements in the bible are historically accurate. Seeing as archeologists have been uncovering physical evidence that the bible has spoke of for 100′s of years. That marriage between science and religion is a fact that can be proven.

    But the rest of it is just a coincidental myth. Maybe. Right?

    I’m not sure if I would call Archaeology a “science,” as scientific endeavors are in the business of making predictions about the nature of the physical world.

    You may use scientific tools and methodology to perform certain tasks within archaeology, but that in and of itself doesn’t make it a science.

    Paleontology might be considered a science, because it is able to make predictions about where and how certain fossils can be found in the various strata of the Earth.

    • #134
  15. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Majestyk:

    I’m not sure if I would call Archaeology a “science,” as scientific endeavors are in the business of making predictions about the nature of the physical world.

    Science is simply knowledge.  Real knowledge, not superstition.

    Darwin, for instance, never performed any experiments that I’m aware of, he developed his theory of evolution simply from observation.  The same holds true of Einstein and Relativity.  Objective observation is the necessary first step in any scientific endeavor.

    If, according to your definition, neither of those are science, then what is?

    • #135
  16. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Augustine:

    Mike H:

    Augustine:

    So if the historical testimony for the Resurrection is, say, a bit more reliable than the evidence for the death of Socrates, then we can have knowledge of miracles.

    Whoa, whoa, whoa… am I reading this right? You’re claiming that if there is slightly more evidence that “someone rose from the dead a long time ago” (something that goes against all contemporary understanding) than “someone died a long time ago” (an inevitability), then you have evidence of miracles?

    Yes. Unless I begin by assuming that God does not exist or that the laws of physics are absolute–which is to begin by begging the question–then the responsible thing to do is to presume in favor of testimony. A well-established historical fact is a well-established fact. If a well-established fact conflicts with the laws of physics as we understand them, then either we have not understood them as well as we thought, or (if we have understood them pretty darn well) the laws of physics are not absolute.

    If this is begging the question, then we would be forced to be radical skeptics. The laws of physics being absolute is an intuition that is carried until evidence says otherwise.

    Assuming that you were lucky enough to be born into or choose the right set of supernatural beliefs is something entirely different from evidence. There are too many counter examples of people believing any number of things, highly dependant on place of birth, to trust one’s judgement in this area.

    • #136
  17. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    Majestyk:

    My direct objection is this – not only do you not have any direct knowledge of the events which are purported to have happened in the Bible (you have second and third-hand retellings which may or may not be accurate and no independent verification) but you buzz right past the fact that using your criteria, the abductees have a quite strong basis of “knowledge” of the various events which have happened to them.

    Comparable to what’s described in # 115?  That would be news to me.  You’d better let me know what I don’t know about abductees.

    Seriously: Using your criteria, you should be a Mormon. The fathers of that religion generally suffered greatly for having brought it forth and it seems obvious to any outsider that whatever their motivations, they were following a crackpot or a grifter.

    Certainly not.  A bundle of witnesses to the revealing of the golden plates by Moroni, and in all other respects paralleling # 115, including their touching and perhaps (since it’s gold rather than a person) biting the plates–if that were the case, I should be a Mormon.

    • #137
  18. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    Mike H:

    If this is begging the question, then we would be forced to be radical skeptics. The laws of physics being absolute is an intuition that is carried until evidence says otherwise.

    We probably have some fundamental epistemological difference here, but I’m not sure what exactly.  In any case, presuming the laws of physics to be absolute is–by definition–begging the question.  That’s simply a truth of logic.

    Not every question-begging is improper, of course.  (The legitimacy of logic itself is a question I’ll happily–and rationally–beg if ever I meet a man who questions logic.)

    Ok, now you think this is a question that it is rational to beg.  You give two reasons for it, if I understand you rightly.

    1. You say that this question must be begged at the risk of falling into skepticism.

    I simply don’t know why you say that.  (If it matters, I am not a skeptic, and neither are Aquinas or Plantinga or various others.)

    2. You say it’s an intuition.

    I have no objection to knowledge by intuition.  But this isn’t an intuition I have ever had, or indeed quite a few others; if the number of people who believe in miracles is an indicator, most people don’t have that intution.

    Maybe we simply have contrary intuitions, and that’s the fundamental epistemological difference.

    • #138
  19. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Tuck:

    Majestyk:

    I’m not sure if I would call Archaeology a “science,” as scientific endeavors are in the business of making predictions about the nature of the physical world.

    Science is simply knowledge. Real knowledge, not superstition.

    Darwin, for instance, never performed any experiments that I’m aware of, he developed his theory of evolution simply from observation. The same holds true of Einstein and Relativity. Objective observation is the necessary first step in any scientific endeavor.

    If, according to your definition, neither of those are science, then what is?

    I would have said Darwin was a naturalist who developed a hypothesis.  The “science” part was testing his hypothesis.  I believe he may have done some of that himself (didn’t he do a moth experiment?), but the bulk of it has been done by subsequent generations.

    • #139
  20. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    One more remark, and then I may have to get outta here at least till tomorrow morning (in my time zone).

    My one more remark concerns some fine work by archaeologists.  It is this:

    The Ark of the Covenant was found in Tanis, and the Holy Grail was found near Alexandretta.

    So there.

    • #140
  21. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Cato Rand:

    I would have said Darwin was a naturalist who developed a hypothesis. The “science” part was testing his hypothesis. I believe he may have done some of that himself (didn’t he do a moth experiment?), but the bulk of it has been done by subsequent generations.

    Testing is part of science.  It’s not the whole thing.  Not everything requires a lab experiment, and it’s not always possible to perform such an experiment.

    Astronomy is most certainly a science, and astronomical observation has provided key proofs of physical theories like relativity.  But experimentation is impossible.

    Science is knowledge, and the scientific method is simply a process for producing reliable knowledge.  Observation is a crucial part of science, as even an experiment requires objective observation to determine the result!  There are many, many examples of scientists fooling themselves during experiments due to poor observation skills.

    • #141
  22. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Augustine:

    Majestyk:

    My direct objection is this – not only do you not have any direct knowledge of the events which are purported to have happened in the Bible (you have second and third-hand retellings which may or may not be accurate and no independent verification) but you buzz right past the fact that using your criteria, the abductees have a quite strong basis of “knowledge” of the various events which have happened to them.

    Comparable to what’s described in # 115? That would be news to me. You’d better let me know what I don’t know about abductees.

    Seriously: Using your criteria, you should be a Mormon. The fathers of that religion generally suffered greatly for having brought it forth and it seems obvious to any outsider that whatever their motivations, they were following a crackpot or a grifter.

    Certainly not. A bundle of witnesses to the revealing of the golden plates by Moroni, and in all other respects paralleling # 115, including their touching and perhaps (since it’s gold rather than a person) biting the plates–if that were the case, I should be a Mormon.

    I saw the Moroni response coming.  Joseph Smith was quite secretive about circumstances of his revelation if I’m not mistaken.  The same cannot be said for the abductees however.  They are readily available in large numbers to testify.

    • #142
  23. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Augustine:One more remark, and then I may have to get outta here at least till tomorrow morning (in my time zone).

    My one more remark concerns some fine work by archaeologists. It is this:

    The Ark of the Covenant was found in Tanis, and the Holy Grail was found near Alexandretta.

    So there.

    You had me going for a second.

    • #143
  24. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Good news: There were 8 witnesses who say they saw and handled the plates.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses

    Now, I happen to think these men were just fraudulent, but plenty of people take their testimony seriously. They also constitute a group whose testimony is better documented than the apostles’.

    I guess I take for granted that other people have studied this as closely as I have.

    • #144
  25. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Augustine:

    Larry3435:A “reliable authority” in a given field is someone who has either demonstrated the ability to make accurate predictions, or who has demonstrated the ability to recount events that can then be verified from other independent sources.

    Well, that’s a fine definition of reliable authority in certain contexts. But it doesn’t work for my knowledge that my material grandfather was Herbert Daniels. And I’m not sure it works even for history; if Josephus were the only guy talking about the fall of Masada, I think we could still know it to be a historical event.

    You misunderstand my definition.  I’m sure many people have confirmed the identity of your grandfather (of course, there are also birth certificates and such), and your trust in the reliability of those people has been established by their pattern of truthfully recounting other events and facts.  Reliability is not established by the recounting of the event that is potentially disputed.  It is established by accurate recounting of other events that are undisputed.  And as far as Josephus goes, anyone should know that you don’t accept the accounts of ancient historians at face value, without corroboration.  The Iliad is a story, not a historical document.

    • #145
  26. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Augustine:

    Larry3435:

    Augustine:The truth is that agreement, even agreement among intelligent and educated people, has never been a necessary condition for knowledge. (If it were, the first scientists to adopt a new and correct theory couldn’t know it; and no one would know much of anything about economics.)

    No one does know much of anything about economics. At least not macroeconomics. As a matter of observation, it is generally true that if you pay people to do something more people will do it, and if you lower the price of something more people will buy it. Beyond that, economics is like philosophy – it never solves anything and economists never agree on anything.

    So you really think the vast majority of Ricochetti are wholly lacking in knowledge that Friedman is more accurate than Marx?

    Friedman and Hayek were correct about the effectiveness of markets as opposed to central planning, but I’m not sure that is really a principle of economics.  It is more a question of policy and history.  If it is economics, then I don’t mind adding that to the very short list of principles that economics can state with confidence.

    Marx was wrong about everything, but he was more of a sociologist than an economist.  He made lots of predictions about the future, every one of which was not only wrong but catastrophically wrong.  So doing better than Marx is a pretty low bar.

    • #146
  27. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    I don’t know if anyone has made this point yet (I haven’t read all the comments), but as I understand Christian theology, God wants us to accept him on the basis of faith rather than knowledge.  If God wanted to remove all doubt from our minds, he could certainly do so.  The difference between faith and knowledge is manifest in God’s plan.  Asserting that there is no difference between them is bordering on heresy.  If you believe that kind of thing.

    • #147
  28. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Augustine:

    2. You say it’s an intuition.

    I have no objection to knowledge by intuition. But this isn’t an intuition I have ever had, or indeed quite a few others; if the number of people who believe in miracles is an indicator, most people don’t have that intution.

    Maybe we simply have contrary intuitions, and that’s the fundamental epistemological difference.

    OK. If I were smarter I would feel more confident in my ability to explain this in a way that would be understood correctly, but I’ll try my best.

    1.) We agree that intuition is real information about real things. We probably also agree intuitions are observations similar to external observations.

    2.) All observations are faulty. That is, observations are imperfect representations that hold different amounts of truth and are prone to all type of error.

    3.) Interpretations of all observations are prima facie knowledge. That is, it is correct to believe what our observations tell us (including our intuitions) until we receive further information in the form of corroborating or contradictory evidence.

    4.) Some of our common intuitions are faulty. That is, we may have evolved certain intuitions that are incorrect but were good for survival at one time. Even common incorrect intuitions (which I will call biases) can be discovered and corrected with other types of information. This means our intuitions are not always a source of truth. A good example that we’ll probably agree on is the widely held bias that it is generally government’s job to protect people from themselves. Studying things like economics shows that our common intuitions about this are completely wrong.

    5.) Some intuitions are widely disparate. That is, in some cases most people have completely different intuitions about a subject. A good example of this is probably abortion.

    6.) When judging whether or not an intuition is faulty, we rely on common sense. Much of what I said in 1.) – 3.) I would put under the category of common sense.

    7.) When it comes to truth, and two dispassionate truth seekers like ourselves, there’s no such things as agreeing to disagree. At least one of us is wrong.

    8.) So when you say we have contrary intuitions, it is our job to find whose intuition is wrong using evidence, logic, and common sense. One of us (or both of us) have incorrect intuitions, and (in this case) there should be enough information for us to figure this out.

    • #148
  29. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Augustine:

    Calvin Coolidg:Is archeology considered science? . . . . Seeing as archeologists have been uncovering physical evidence that the bible has spoke of for 100′s of years. . . .

    A salient point!

    It would be more salient if CC could name a single example.  But he can’t.  Sure, there is evidence of, oh say, a flood somewhere in the middle east at some time in the past.  But that is true in every part of the world because floods happen.  Is there archaeological evidence that the entire human race (except one family) was wiped out and all animals alive today descend from the same bonding pair about 4,000 years ago?  Oh, puh-leeze.

    • #149
  30. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Larry3435:

    Augustine:

    Calvin Coolidg:Is archeology considered science? . . . . Seeing as archeologists have been uncovering physical evidence that the bible has spoke of for 100′s of years. . . .

    A salient point!

    It would be more salient if CC could name a single example. But he can’t. Sure, there is evidence of, oh say, a flood somewhere in the middle east at some time in the past. But that is true in every part of the world because floods happen. Is there archaeological evidence that the entire human race (except one family) was wiped out and all animals alive today descend from the same bonding pair about 4,000 years ago? Oh, puh-leeze.

    This book does a good job of unpacking the flood myths and how we got to the point where we are today regarding religious fundamentalism.

    • #150
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.