As I have said, I'm really to the point where I'd really like to spend most of my time on this blog reflecting on nature and this beautiful creation - human and otherwise - and living simply and lovingly within it. But I am still fascinated with rational problem solving and considering reasonable questions about apparently hard to settle issues. So, in that spirit, not in the sense of wanting to disagree with anyone and certainly not argue with anyone, but just to consider some reasonable questions...
In a recent conversation with Bubba, he was speaking of the ability to know some things perfectly and he was offering his idea of what he thought my position was. Specifically, we're speaking of ideas of morality and scriptural interpretations that we can't prove demonstrably and objectively.
Bubba and I were having this conversation about the idea of having what I termed "partially perfect knowledge." Bubba preferred calling it Absolute Confidence, Limited Scope, which he defined as follows...
- Absolute Confidence, Comprehensive Scope (ACCS). "A person can be absolutely confident about ALL proposition."
- Absolute Confidence, Limited Scope (ACLS). "A person can be absolutely confident about SOME propositions."
I reject the first but affirm the second. It seems you reject both -- and it seems you're ABSOLUTELY confident that ACLS is false, and **THAT** is what is incoherent, that a person can be absolutely confident that absolute confidence is impossible for ALL propositions.
I am fine with Bubba's definition and framing, with the reminder that we're speaking about unprovable ideas, morals, theologies... and specifically about biblical interpretations.
And Bubba is correct that I reject both theories. The thing is, I reject both for the same set of reasons, which can be explained by considering the following questions:
ACCS
1. On what bases would we presume we have ACCS? We don't, it's a rather delusional suggestion, we probably all agree.
2. Has God told us this? No. God simply hasn't.
3. Has the Bible told us this? No, it hasn't... and even if it did literally say that, on what basis would someone who is not a biblical literalist take the claim from the Bible at a literal face value?
4. Do some people INTERPRET the Bible in such a way that they, personally, are convinced that this is what God wants us to think? Perhaps, but so what? On what bases would we listen to these people?
I can think of no reason, presumably, Bubba would agree.
5. Does reason insist upon it? No, clearly it doesn't. Reason would say that if it can't be objectively and demonstrably proven as a fact, then we can't have complete confidence in all given propositions.
I believe Bubba would recognize this when we expand it out to ALL propositions, but how are the answers different for having complete confidence in SOME propositions?
ACLS
Okay, so let's just look at ACLS and the rational problems we have, considering some more questions that the view begs.
5. IF there are SOME ideas, morals and theologies that we can be known with perfect or absolute confidence, which ones are they?
6. That is, can we know with complete confidence that slavery, rape, forced marriages, polygamy, drunk driving, deliberately killing children in wartime, smoking pot, buying baseball cards... are always wrong in all circumstances? And which items are and are not on this List of Perfectly Knowable Ideas?
[NOTE: I would suggest that for those of us who say that, at the least, Harm to Innocents is a fairly perfect, if not totally perfect, guideline for those who accept that measure... Saying it is always wrong to cause harm to innocents because it is a denying of basic human rights would preclude at least most of these actions... For the biblical literalist, it seems to me that there is at least the caveat that these actions are not always wrong, because God might command you to do them sometimes (since God literally did in the Bible at times, if you're taking it as literal history), and God wouldn't command you to do something that is inherently wrong... That's how it seems to me, feel free to correct me, anyone. But that is sort of an aside.]
7. The reason why the notion of knowing The List of Perfectly Knowable Ideas is important, because, if you don't have an authoritative list and Joe believes IDEA 1 is one of these things, on what bases do we conclude that Joe's IDEA 1 is an entirely reliable belief? Says who? On what authority? How does Joe know that the idea that he's got an opinion on is one of the ideas that we can know perfectly? Because he knows it perfectly? Says who? It's circular reasoning, is it not?
Or, if Joe thinks IDEA 1 is on The List, but Janet is sure that it's not, but IDEA 2 IS on the list, who decides? Where is the authority to make that decision?
8. If there is no List, then on what bases can we individually make the call on IDEA 1, 2, 3... 120,245? Is it every person for themselves? How is that authoritative and reliable?
Do you see the problem I'm having? I don't see how you can appeal to any given unprovable idea as "THIS is ACLS! THIS we can know with perfect assurance, 100%! with our partially perfect knowledge!"...unless you have an authoritative Source that can tell us definitively, Yes, it's on the List, or Yes, that opinion/interpretation/idea can't possibly be wrong. It is as a fact.
Is "Genesis is written more figuratively..." one of the ideas?
Is "Genesis is written as literal history one..." one of the ideas?
Says who? On whose/what authority can we say objectively and with Absolute Confidence one idea or the other or neither is absolutely right?
I mean, I think that there is observable data and science that insists that Genesis, at the least, can't be taken as totally literal history, that the earth was not created in six days, 6,000 years ago, that the world didn't flood, that language diversification didn't happen on one day... that based on evidence, we can discount that... but I think Bubba might disagree with even what seems like to be incontrovertible data... so Bubba would/might say that this is NOT one of the issues that is ACLS... or that it IS one and Bubba's opinion on it is the conclusion we can know with absolute confidence.
On what bases? Says who? What are you appealing to as an authority?
That (perhaps as you know) is the on-going problem I'm having with what Bubba is suggesting... I just don't see how it can be explained and defended objectively.
Unfortunately, I don't feel I'm covering this as comprehensively as I'd like, but I'll leave that there for now and see if anyone would like to offer their respectful opinions.
Thank you so much.
217 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 217 of 217Dan, I do *NOT* concede that the question is generally reasonable, because the details matter too much.
On the one hand there is the credibility and/or authority of the person making the claim, and on the other hand there is the prior knowledge and the motive of the person questioning the claim.
"Did God really say that?" Sometimes that's from a sincere individual who is raising a reasonable question, sometimes it's just a snake who is trying to deceive others.
"What is truth?" Sometimes that's an interesting and entirely valid philosophical question from a person seeking the truth, sometimes it's just an evasion from a bureaucrat who's been pressured to do the wrong thing -- or from an individual who doesn't want to respond to Christ's word.
Sometimes an otherwise smart question is asked by someone who's playing dumb.
--
Indeed these are two separate questions:
B-1. Can one have absolute confidence about an author's intended meaning for a particular text?
B-2. Can one have sufficient confidence to justify disparaging remarks about others?
To clarify a few things:
- I *AM* distinguishing between absolute confidence and sufficient confidence, because I raised the question of whether "at least" the latter is possible.
- By a text's meaning, I *DO* mean what the author intended and not just what some random passer-by might infer. I'm treating the text as a medium of communication from an author to an audience and not just the equivalent of scattered chicken bones or an egret's scratchings on the sand.
- And, about those disparaging remarks, I see no significant difference in disparaging a text's author and another reader -- "You're a fool for THINKING that" and "You're a fool for thinking HE SAID that" both depend on the clarity of the text's meaning.
I'm interested in the second question, and you say you're not, but that question DOES address the context in which this entire discussion arose, namely, your objection to others' impugning your character because your position deviates from the clear teachings of Jesus in particular and the Bible in general.
--
You raise two separate questions.
D-1. Can one have absolute confidence about an author's intended meaning for a particular text?
D-2. Does the text's meaning correspond to reality?
On the second question, you ask, "does the author believing that God exists mean that God exists in the real world? I'm okay with both questions but I'm primarily interested in the latter."
(Presumably you don't mean that the author's belief results in God's existence, only that it corresponds to God's prior existence.)
I'm not interested in this question, at least not in the context of this discussion.
You claim both to love the Bible and to follow Jesus and His Way/teachings, but He claimed to be God, and His first and greatest commandment is to love God whole-heartedly -- and He affirmed the lasting authority of Scripture to the smallest penstroke, and He cited Moses, David, and Isaiah when they claimed to be speaking for God.
The correspondence of Scripture to reality isn't really an open question for anyone who follows Jesus' explicit teachings and implicit example in affirming the text's lasting authority and divine authorship.
The truthfulness of the Bible in general and the existence of God specifically: these might be fruitful topics of discussion with an intellectually honest non-believer, but I don't see the value in discussing these topics with at any great length.
And my reason goes back to the question I answered at the top of this comment, the fact that people can invoke smart questions in order to play dumb.
Just a quick question. Where you say...
"Did God really say that?" Sometimes that's from a sincere individual who is raising a reasonable question, sometimes it's just a snake who is trying to deceive others.
Do you suspect that MOST of the time, people asking such a question do so sincerely, without mean motives? Or do you suspect that most of the time, it's more likely to be with bad motivations/out of evil intent?
For my part, by and large when people ask questions, I assume they genuinely want to know the answer. Now, it might be the case that they want to hear the others' answer because they think it points to a hole in their argument, but that isn't a "snake" with evil intent, it still remains a sincere question with good intent.
And, since I am operating under the assumption that people are generally asking with good intent, not as a "snake," that helps explain why I think it is a reasonable question.
And, regardless of intent, if people are saying, "I 'know' this unprovable Thing with 'absolute authority...'" I still would contend that it's a reasonable question to ask because, why wouldn't it be a reasonable question? If they have a reasonable answer (I saw it happen but can't prove that I saw it...), there is no harm done and it was a reasonable question. On the other hand, if they can't answer it, well, it's pointing to a hole in their reasoning and that's helpful, too, because it's getting to the Truth of things and that's good for everyone involved.
I just can't see in what sense it's not a reasonable question - regardless of your suspicions about the motives of people asking "on what basis..." - because, where's the harm?
~Dan
Bubba...
I'm not interested in this question, at least not in the context of this discussion.
As to the point of THIS post, I'll remind you of its premise. I said...
In a recent conversation with Bubba, he was speaking of
the ability to know some things perfectly
and he was offering his idea of what he thought my position was. Specifically, we're speaking of ideas of morality and scriptural interpretations that we can't prove demonstrably and objectively.
Bubba and I were having this conversation about the idea of having what I termed
"partially perfect knowledge."
Bubba preferred calling it Absolute Confidence, Limited Scope,
I point that out because it sounds like you're not really interested in speaking to the topic of this post or answering the question I have asked. It sounds like you're wanting to talk about having SUFFICIENT (not perfect or absolute) reason to criticize another and to suspect that they're not being genuine. This is perhaps an interesting question to consider but it's not the point of this post.
Do you understand that? Is it the case that you thought that was the point of this post and you've been commenting under the assumption that I was speaking about having "sufficient reason" to criticize and dismiss? Or is it the case that you have sort of slowly come to the realization that you're wanting to speak to this other topic, moreso than the notion of having perfect knowledge in limited circumstances? If so, are you prepared to concede that you can't claim to have perfect knowledge or absolute confidence in your personal opinion on these questions that you can't prove, nor where you have "seen" (as in the eyewitness)?
~Dan
To this point...
You claim both to love the Bible and to follow Jesus and His Way/teachings, but He claimed to be God, and His first and greatest commandment is to love God whole-heartedly -- and He affirmed the lasting authority of Scripture to the smallest penstroke, and He cited Moses, David, and Isaiah when they claimed to be speaking for God.
The correspondence of Scripture to reality isn't really an open question for anyone who follows Jesus' explicit teachings and implicit example in affirming the text's lasting authority and divine authorship.
Well, of course we can. People who love Jesus and seek God's Ways have always tried to sort through "is THIS text speaking of literal reality or in some more figurative sense...?" I'm sure you'll allow that there are many Christians who disagree with a literal interpretation of Genesis, not taking it as a literal history at least in some regards, right? You yourself don't take Jesus' command to sell your goods, give them to the poor and follow Jesus or to not store up treasure on earth or, perhaps, the "blessed are you who are poor..." as corresponding to literal reality, but that it's best more figuratively understood, right?
Christians have always disagreed on interpreting this passage or that more or less literally. That doesn't mean they're not Christians or not sincere. It's just a disagreement on interpretations. I'm not sure of your point here. In seeking God, EVERY HUMAN INTERPRETATION of the Bible is open to interpretation, that is my point and I have to believe you could agree, right?
~Dan
Since you say it matters what the topic is as to whether or not it's a reasonable question then how about providing some more specifics? You and I agree the authors who speak of God in the Bible seem to be speaking of God as if God exists and of Jesus as if he rose from the dead. We agree.
But what other topics can be "known" with "absolute confidence..."?
Do you have absolute confidence in your opinion on what God thinks about gay folk getting married? If so, and given that you can't prove it, on what basis would you claim to have absolute confidence? How about your opinion on Christians and war? On God sometimes being okay with slavery?
What are some other specifics where you have perfect knowledge?
Does my position:
I'm less interested in the authors' opinions and primarily am interested in God's position...
...strike you as reasonable?
I'm just not sure what you gain by attempting to claim to have absolute confidence in your opinion of the authors' intent. Even if you are that confident in what the author intended, other people of good will may honestly not be so convinced and thus reasonably ask you the "on what basis..." question and there we sit.
If you can't/won't answer that question, why would anyone accept your unsupported claim?
Dan,
As if I needed reminding, you remind me that the original post's topic was on "the ability to know some things perfectly," and you write, "it sounds like you're not really interested in speaking to the topic of this post or answering the question I have asked."
You do this because I had written, "I'm not interested in this question, at least not in the context of this discussion."
But the question to which I was referring IS NOT the question of "perfect knowledge" or what I would call absolute confidence, and the context of my quote makes that clear.
[QUOTE, NEW EMPHASIS]
You raise two separate questions.
D-1. Can one have absolute confidence about an author's intended meaning for a particular text?
D-2. Does the text's meaning correspond to reality?
On the second question, you ask, "does the author believing that God exists mean that God exists in the real world? I'm okay with both questions but I'm primarily interested in the latter."
(Presumably you don't mean that the author's belief results in God's existence, only that it corresponds to God's prior existence.)
I'm not interested in this question, at least not in the context of this discussion.
[END QUOTE]
You seem less interested in being careful to read what I write so as to understand me, than you are in spinning what I write so as to lead to your next set of hectoring questions:
"Do you understand that? Is it the case that you thought that was the point of this post and you've been commenting under the assumption that I was speaking about having 'sufficient reason' to criticize and dismiss? Or is it the case that you have sort of slowly come to the realization that you're wanting to speak to this other topic, moreso than the notion of having perfect knowledge in limited circumstances? If so, are you prepared to concede that you can't claim to have perfect knowledge or absolute confidence in your personal opinion on these questions that you can't prove, nor where you have 'seen' (as in the eyewitness)?"
To answer that last question, I concede nothing of the sort, and I'll note that you've never tried to prove that absolute confidence is impossible, in a manner that measures up to the standards you seek to impose on others. I'll ALSO note that you have weakened your position in reaction to my arguments.
Originally, your position was that you cannot know anything with perfect confidence unless you could prove it, but now you allow for instances "where you have 'seen' [it] (as in the eyewintess)."
How do you know that's the only exception? How do you know that absolute confidence is so tightly limited, unless you can prove it? I'm betting those are questions you won't soon get around to.
[continued]
[continued]
You now write, "In seeking God, EVERY HUMAN INTERPRETATION of the Bible is open to interpretation, that is my point and I have to believe you could agree, right?"
Why you would "have to" believe this eludes me, since your position would then be that we MUST agree with you that we need not agree on ANY of the Bible's teachings.
I don't agree, but more than that, I don't see how to reconcile this with what you write IMMEDIATELY afterwards...
"You and I agree the authors who speak of God in the Bible seem to be speaking of God as if God exists and of Jesus as if he rose from the dead. We agree."
...or what you wrote just this morning, writing, "to use your example, when the author speaks of God as a reality did the author intend that? We both agree that it appears quite clearly to be the case."
If it's "quite clearly" the case that the Bible's authors taught that God exists, then how can it be that ALL of the Bible's teachings are open to interpretation?
You seem to be saying two different things.
--
The lack of care in reading what others write and **ESPECIALLY** the lack of clarity about what you believe are reasons why I don't think you're especially honest, Dan, and I've drawn this conclusion after literally years of discussions with you.
(The Bible teaches that God exists -- or, to be pedantic, its authors teach through the Bible that God exists: I don't know exactly why you can't say such a clear and simple thing and must resort to weasel words about how the authors "speak of" God "as a reality" or "as if God exists," but I can't think of a reason that's a credit to you.)
I do think intellectual honesty requires a real effort when the rewards for dishonesty or the cost of honesty is high, and I recognize that even fairly young children have seemingly selective hearing when it comes to things they don't want to hear, but one doesn't have to be especially suspicious, pessimistic, or cynical about humanity in general to conclude that you're frequently dishonest.
You say...
"originally your position was that you cannot know anything with perfect confidence unless it can be proven..."
You are mistaken. My question has been all along, "if you can't prove it, then on what basis would you assist you have perfect knowledge?" it is a reasonable question. Now there may be answers that would say "oh okay, that is a reasonable belief to hold even though you can't prove it..." But the question is extremely valid and important. whether you think it is or not it is. Just reasonably speaking.
My point is that it is a question I'm asking, not a belief I'm asserting. And I still - in reading and rereading all your words - do not see an answer to that question, other than in the instance of a specific situation like an eye witness who can prove what he's seen. But that is fundamentally different than an opinion about God but you cannot prove. I've been quite clear all along my questions are specifically about people who would claim to no with certainty God's opinion.
Do you think you'll be answering THAT question? I'm more than glad for you to answer in the context of some specific hunches about what God thinks, but please choose something more than just "God exists according to the author..."
I'm speaking specifically about opinions about what God thinks, not just literally what a text says.
Thank you.
[continued]
3. On the specific subject at-hand. You now write, "I've been quite clear all along my questions are specifically about people who would claim to no with certainty God's opinion."
No, you haven't, Dan.
Let's go back to that first paragraph I quoted, from your initial post.
"I am fine with Bubba's definition and framing, with the reminder that we're speaking about unprovable ideas, morals, theologies... and specifically about biblical interpretations." [emphasis mine]
Near the beginning of the post, you had written, "Specifically, we're speaking of ideas of morality and scriptural interpretations that we can't prove demonstrably and objectively."
You raised evidently rhetorical questions -- you invited readers to consider those questions to understand why you explicitly reject my position, questions you frequently answered for us -- and they included questions that touch on God's will...
"Has God told us this?"
"Do some people INTERPRET the Bible in such a way that they, personally, are convinced that this is what God wants us to think?"
...but those were framed in a discussion that YOU explicitly centered on the interpretation of the Biblical text.
If you're changing or "clarifying" the subject, fine, but don't pretend you've been "quite clear all along" on this.
--
We've now reached a point I have frequently reached in discussions with you, where diminishing returns dwindle to almost nothing, where I'm wasting my time simply reminding you of what's already been said.
In one paragraph, you make three claims that are absurd on their face, and I spent a multi-part comment reminding you of WHAT YOU WROTE IN YOUR INITIAL POST and WHAT I WROTE JUST YESTERDAY.
You should not wonder why anyone doubts your sincere desire to argue honestly and in good faith.
Busy week... I'll respond soon.
Blogger junked the first half of an obvious two-part comment, I'd appreciate your reposting it -- and your reading the two parts in their intended order. If you can't, let me know, and I'll try to repost both parts.
[continued]
3. On the specific subject at-hand. You now write, "I've been quite clear all along my questions are specifically about people who would claim to no [sic] with certainty God's opinion."
No, you haven't, Dan.
Let's go back to that first paragraph I quoted, from your initial post.
"I am fine with Bubba's definition and framing, with the reminder that we're speaking about unprovable ideas, morals, theologies... and specifically about biblical intepretations." [emphasis mine]
Near the beginning of the post, you had written, "Specifically, we're speaking of ideas of morality and scriptural interpretations that we can't prove demonstrably and objectively."
You raised evidently rhetorical questions -- you invited readers to consider those questions to understand why you explicitly reject my position, questions you frequently answered for us -- and they included questions that touch on God's will...
"Has God told us this?"
"Do some people INTERPRET the Bible in such a way that they, personally, are convinced that this is what God wants us to think?"
...but those were framed in a discussion that YOU explicitly centered on the interpretation of the Biblical text.
If you're changing or "clarifying" the subject, fine, but don't pretend you've been "quite clear all along" on this.
--
We've now reached a point I have frequently reached in discussions with you, where diminishing returns dwindle to almost nothing, where I'm wasting my time simply reminding you of what's already been said.
In one paragraph, you make three claims that are absurd on their face, and I spent a multi-part comment reminding you of WHAT YOU WROTE IN YOUR INITIAL POST and WHAT I WROTE JUST YESTERDAY.
You should not wonder why anyone doubts your sincere desire to argue honestly and in good faith.
Dan, I've posted the same first part of a two-part comment at least three times now, each time with a different bracketed intro, and each time Blogger has vanished the comment.
Even using copy-paste, I hate having to repeat myself this much, and that's true whether I'm trying to overcome Blogger's technical issues or I'm correcting the record on comments that remain a visible part of this very conversation.
To reiterate: In your original post, you didn't just raise questions, you explicitly rejected my position, and you didn't focus on "God's opinion," you focused on the interpretation of the biblical text. And in my comment from 8/4, I very emphatically answered your question -- in bold and in all-caps -- explaining that the reason for perfect confidence in a proposition depends on the its contents, and giving, not one, but two specific examples of an answer that MUST be broad because the question is so general.
I shouldn't have to point all this out, just as I shouldn't have to try to repost a comment, and both these annoyances darken the already dismal prospect of a lengthy discussion with you on the subject of the clarity of revelation.
"I've been quite clear all along [no, you haven't -B] my questions are specifically about people who would claim to no [sic] with certainty God's opinion."
Of all people, we who claim faith in Christ are the most equipped to know God's word, and therefore we are in the worst position to claim that we cannot have complete confidence about literally *anything* that God has revealed -- and we dishonor God when we claim to do so. We dishonor his work in creation *and* revelation when we pretend that they're inadequate, either because He mumbles or because we're too deaf to hear clearly -- and, in any case, our pretense dishonors His command to be honest, especially when it's clear that, when it suits us, we act as if verbal communication really is sometimes clear beyond dispute.
Christians affirm that, beyond calling prophets, God sent His Son: the Word became flesh, and Jesus Christ Himself personally claimed to be the great I Am.
We affirm that Jesus Christ is more than a mere teacher or prophet -- He is God Incarnate -- but He *IS* a teacher, the greatest teacher, when even a merely adequate teacher can communicates ideas clearly enough that ambiguity isn't always an issue.
We affirm that, at a minimum, the New Testament is a reasonably accurate record of His teachings and the teachings of those He taught and commissioned to teach in His name.
And anyone who affirms all this could not plausibly balk at the idea that one can be confident about what God has revealed.
Terribly busy. Not sure what blogger has and has not posted of Bubba's. I'm attempting to paste in any that might have not successfully posted...
Bubba's comment:
Dan, last night I wrote a post that I intended to wrap things up, but evidently I didn't post it. If I did and Blogger ate [it], no problem: it's obviously not my last comment, and I can recapitulate anything that still needs to be said.
In one paragraph, you cover three things that deserve a response:
"My point is that it is a question I'm asking, not a belief I'm asserting. And I still - in reading and rereading all your words - do not see an answer to that question, other than in the instance of a specific situation like an eye witness who can prove what he's seen. But that is fundamentally different than an opinion about God but you cannot prove. I've been quite clear all along my questions are specifically about people who would claim to no with certainty God's opinion."
--
1. On your asserting beliefs. Initially, you *WERE* doing more than just raising questions, you were indeed asserting a belief in your original post, even if (perhaps as a result of this conversation) you no longer do so.
You quoted my definitions of two terms regarding absolute confidence -- one for an unlimited scope, one for a limited scope -- and you then wrote the following.
"I am fine with Bubba's definition and framing, with the reminder that we're speaking about unprovable ideas, morals, theologies... and specifically about biblical interpretations.
"And Bubba is correct that I reject both theories. The thing is, I reject both for the same set of reasons, which can be explained by considering the following questions..." [emphasis mine]
(I'll come back to that first paragraph in a moment.)
You most certainly were staking out a position rather than merely raising questions. You even wrote that you raised those questions in order to explain the position you were staking out, namely a denial of my belief that a person can be absolutely confident about some propositions, specifically (as you say) about "unprovable" propositions.
You're no longer doing so, fine -- more than fine, it suggests that my position is at least convincing enough to prompt you to move from opposition to agnosticism -- but don't pretend that you've only been raising questions all along.
--
2. On answering your question. You write, "My question has been all along, 'if you can't prove it, then on what basis would you assist [sic] you have perfect knowledge?'"
You then write that you "do not see an answer to that question, other than in the instance of a specific situation like an eye witness who can prove what he's seen."
Whether you see it or not, I've provided an answer, and I made it very clear, in bold and all-caps, yesterday morning -- 8/4, 5:52 am. About the reason to believe a proposition, I wrote:
"THAT REASON VARIES DEPENDING ON THE ACTUAL CLAIM AT-HAND. Even restricting the subject to claims that cannot proven, your question is EXTREMELY general, and so it can only be answered very generally."
I cannot provide a more specific answer to so general a question, but I **DID** provide an answer along with, not one, but two examples.
- One example, you notice but mangle: it's not that eyewitness "can prove what he's seen," but that he KNOWS what he sees, even when he cannot prove it.
- The other example is one's ability to know he thinks, which he CAN know with complete confidence just from his subjective experience of the act of thinking.
I have repeatedly listed these side-by-side, one being subjective and internal, the other being objective and external.
[continued]
From Bubba
I think that's the only one missing, as I am looking back. Let me know if you think there are others missing.
My response, with the time I have:
I am asking a reasonable question(s)...
ON what basis do you think that you have partially perfect knowledge?
ON what basis do you think you can "know" with "absolute confidence" some of the things you claim to know?
You state that you reject the premise because it depends on what point one is making to "know" with "absolute confidence..." Fair enough, I say. Then on the issues that you and I disagree upon, on what basis would you claim to "know" with "absolute confidence" that your opinion can't be mistaken?
It's a reasonable question that I do not believe has been answered.
And, I would repeat, IF one can not prove that their position is definitively, authoritatively correct and factual, then on what basis should I accept their opinion, when I think it is clearly mistaken (although I can't prove my position, either... the difference being that I don't insist that I can't be mistaken)?
Reasonable and unanswered questions.
~Dan
Dan,
I appreciate your reposting that comment, but I do wish you had addressed its contents.
I HAVE answered your questions, repeatedly.
"ON what basis do you think you can 'know' with 'absolute confidence' some of the things you claim to know?"
Once again, it depends: the reason for perfect confidence in a proposition depends on the its contents. You're asking a VERY general question which requires a VERY general answer. If you want a specific answer, focus on a specific claim, or if you want to remain fixated on this general question, take a course in epistemology.
"And, I would repeat, IF one can not prove that their position is definitively, authoritatively correct and factual, then on what basis should I accept their opinion, when I think it is clearly mistaken (although I can't prove my position, either... the difference being that I don't insist that I can't be mistaken)?"
Once again, in my very first set of comments, I explained what I believe should result when people disagree. People have the freedom to "compare notes," the responsibility to accept where the arguments lead, and the freedom to be intellectually dishonest if they so choose.
And what happens when, for instance, a professing Christian doubts the sincerity of your profession of faith and expresses that doubt? YOU DEAL WITH IT, both of you do -- he accepts the fact that you cannot be compelled to agree with his assessment, and you accept the fact that he cannot be compelled to change his mind.
(In both of these answers, I am copying and pasting what I've previously written.)
About your not insisting that you can't be mistaken, well: you evidently refuse to accept that I have answered your questions simply because I haven't given YOUR answers, and you apparently believe, quite inconsistently, that you cannot be mistaken that perfect confidence is impossible.
You're all for agreeing to disagree, so long as everyone FIRST accepts your epistemological premises. On those premises, you will broach no disagreement.
Post a Comment