Agnostic Theism?

Basically, the same thing I was saying. If "knowledge" is "justified true belief", then "belief" alone, isn't "knowledge". Merely believing doesn't imply knowing, as you just stated. So, it isn't necessary to state both that you merely believe and that you don't know.

It is redundant: Exceeding what is natural or necessary; Using more words or images than are necessary or useful


Peace

 

Jatom

An interesting example. However her belief still has to do with her desire however far they stray in her feeling. The desire for knowledge prevails, albeit unconsciously, through all grief and loss.

'Mere' desire? Mere?! Some would say beliefs base is 'fear'! Yes, belief is ultimately inconsequential, but we (abominably amoral atheists) believe in belief...for the sake of all knowledge, however little it may amount to!

 

Occam, few words, yet causing much thinking. I don't know. That is a phrase that I thought I would use less as I got older, yet it is the reverse. I know so little for certain, less and less each day. But, there are reasons for that which I am comfortable with. We all do what we will, and if everyone made kindness their goal, we'd be fine.

It's so much harder when you have to think though, and everyone says you're wrong if you conclude something else. I have always been one to ask why, and question the 'truth', and sure enough, it seems that it rarely is so.

 

You're taking for granted that her ultimate desire, in this case, is to obtain justified true belief. This seems a bit arbitrary, ad hoc, and counter-intuitive. Is it always the case the one's ultimate desire is to obtain justified true belief? If so then it places the claim that "belief is desire'..as is faith" (which is what I was responding to) in a whole new light: "All belief is the product of one trying to obtain justified true belief." That, I think, is an obviously false proposition, though. For example, take irrational and self-deceptive beliefs like when a mother refuses to believe that her son has committed a murder despite all the evidence to the contrary? Would you say that in this case the mother's ultimate desire was to obtain knowledge? If not, how is your explanation above not ad hoc?

Secondly, you missed that I proposed that there are a large number beliefs that one does not voluntary believe. It would seem that there are beliefs that you simply have no choice but to believe. If this is the case, then I would think that desire does not play a role in these beliefs.

Thirdly, desires, I think, are not content-less. They consist in ideas and propositions that one believes about himself. So it would seem pretty difficult to maintain that all beliefs are based in desire, when at least some desires, I would think, are themselves beliefs about one's self.

What I was saying was that all knowledge is a special case of belief, namely belief that is both warrented and true. Now, if all belief is based in desire, then it would seem, at least to me, that trying to form true and justified beliefs would not be our goal. Unless you're prepared to say that our ultimate desire is to obtain justified true beliefs?

 

Jatom:

Counter-intuitive that she should seek the truth of why her son is missing?!

Firstly, using the expression "Justified true belief" for knowledge is superfluous, since knowledge is not a special case of belief as you maintain. Belief, when it does not simply follow knowledge, is a kind of ersatz knowledge, an approximation and want of it. Secondly, the answer to your question is no, it is sometimes the case that we desire to obtain 'more'.

Yes, she desired knowledge. Knowledge that he did not commit murder. This
is blatantly obvious.

Belief we have no choice in is only that which naturally succeeds knowledge.
The same desire that led us to acquire said knowledge created the involuntary belief.

lol It may seem difficult to maintain it, but I don't see how from what you've written! How could desires, and not only belief, not be based in desire itself?

A reply to this from me at this stage is unwarranted.

 

I see the problem then. You're not using "knowledge" as I'm using it. Let's start off with why I say knowledge is a special case of belief. The reason I say this is because one must believe something in order for one to know it. For example, if I do not believe that the earth is the third planet from the Sun, then it would be foolish to say that I know it. Thus all cases of knowledge must be cases of belief. You must believe what you know.

Secondly, if one believes X, and X is not true, than it makes no sense to say that he or she knows X. For example, even if I believe that the Earth is larger then the Sun, it makes no sense to say that I actually know the Earth is larger then the Sun. Likewise, if it is not raining outside, then I cannot know that it is raining outside. Thus all knowledge must be cases of belief that are true.

 

3DJay:

I don't know why you're still confused about the matter of redundancy, but I'll try to clear things up, again.

I add the qualifier "true" and "justified" in front of "belief" because "true, justified, belief" is full analysis of the term "knowledge." I can't say that "knowledge is belief" because knowledge obviously isn't just mere belief, although belief is surely a component of knoweldge. "Belief" does not "imply" a lack of knowledge, because one can believe that p and have knowledge that p so long as that belief is true and justified. Clear?

By the remarks I made above, you should be able to see that belief does not imply a lack of knowledge because one may believe that p and know that p. After all, how can you know something that you don't believe? I do not need to show that "belief [entails] full knowledge," because then "I believe but I don't know" would be logically contradictory. If "belief" means nothing more or less than "knowledge," then "I believe it but I don't know it" would be impossible, but that's obviously not the case. Instead, belief is a necessary but not sufficient (I think that this is what Jatom meant to say but he confused the meaning of his terms) condition for knowledge. So, one can believe something without knowing it. One can believe something and know it. And one cannot know something and not believe it. Clear?

 

Hehe, I don't think I'm the one that's confused.

Right. You have to add qualifiers. Without them, "knowledge obviously isn't just mere belief".

You said it yourself, "knowledge obviously isn't just mere belief", yet you're trying to argue that a mere belief statement requires the qualifier of not knowing. It doesn't. Gnostic: I know so. Theist, Atheist: I think (believe) so. Agnostic: I don't know. They are different levels, of knowing. From claiming you know, for sure (Gnostic), to claiming you think you know, but aren't sure (Theist, Atheist), to claiming you don't know, at all (Agnostic). The -ists, don't need to say they don't know, for sure, because if they did know for sure, they'd be gnostics.

I should have used the word "implies", instead of "indicates". To be more clear. "Indicates" can simply mean "suggests". And, yes, you do need to show that merely believing implies knowing, to show that it's necessary to use the qualifier "Agnostic" with the "-ism" (belief). Add to that...the word "Gnostic" refers to those who claim some secret knowledge, of God's existence, totally removing the knowers, from the mere believers, anyway.

There is absolutely, no need to use the word "Agnostic" as a prefix to Theist, or Atheist. It is unecessary. It is redundant.

A. Belief.

B. Justified true belief.

Clear. A is less than B. Is it clear, to you?


Peace

 

Jatom:

No, not in order to know it, but because one knows it.

This does not make knowledge of belief, but the other way around!

Perhaps we should change tack and discuss 'god' seeing as you think it is 'something' but have not yet attempted to say what.
__________________

 

If one believes X precisely because they knows X, then it would seem to follow that in order for this know X one must believe X. What difference are you trying to make here? Elaborate please

I don't know what you mean here. Elaborate please

Seeing as how that wasn't the subject of the thread, I saw no need to. But if you must know, I believe God is the eternal omnipotent triune God revealed in the Bible.

 

Why on earth would any rational human being actually take stock in such a far-fetched belief?

It's the year 2007 for crying out loud and the majority of our backward-ass planet still worships sky daddies.

 

It does not seem so at all. The difference I am pointing out, not trying to make, is that belief is not a prerequisite for knowledge.

Knowledge is in no way a case, special or otherwise 'of' belief, but for it. Remember it is involuntary belief alone (that which proceeds from knowledge) that we may speak of with any certainty.

Thank you.
Do you mind if I enquire after your reasons for believing this?

 

No, you're definitely the one who's confused, unwilling, or incapable of understanding this. Frankly, I'm done trying to explain it to you.

 

LOL. You have shown absolutely no necessity for the qualifier "Agnostic" to be used with the word Theism. If there's no necessity, then it's redundant (exceeding what is necessary or normal: characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more words than necessary). Sorry, you're having trouble with that concept.


Peace

 

So I can know X without believing X? So then logically I can know that 2+2 is 4 eventhough I don't believe it's 4?

So I know X before I believe X. I can know that the answer to 2+2 is 4 before I believe that it is 4?

Sure, via pm

 

Jatom:

Yes, as we are speaking of involuntary belief.

 

We're not speaking of belief at all since you've denied that it has anything to do with knowledge. You're saying that it is possible for one to know X without believing X, so belief is not a necessary condition for knowledge. Thus it is possible that S know that p even when S does not believe that p.

If this is true, it is possible that right now you know that God exist, even though you don't believe that God exist. So how, then, do we determine if you know that God exist or not, since your belief about God has nothing to do with it?

Honesty, I'm not sure why some of you are having such hard a time with this. There is nothing new or controversial about this. This is a commonly held norm in philosophy (and if you know anything about philosophy, then you'll know that something being held "commonly" and without "controversy," is a big deal) One must believe X in order to know X. X must also be true in order for one to know X. See my scenario with the rain and the magic 8-ball a few post back.

 

Don't think he said that. I think he said it's not a prerequisite. e.g. I don't believe 2+2=4 before I learn that 2+2=4. I believe 2+2=4 after I learn that 2+2=4.


Peace

 

I don't know what you mean by "learn" here, but if you mean something like: the process by which ones forms a true belief, or the basis on which one believes a true proposition, then it takes place prior to both knowing and believing, which means it is both unimportant to our discussion, and was never in view. "Learn" probably falls somewhere in the "justified" portion of "justified true belief." Learning that p is neither knowing nor believing that p.

Anyway, either it is possible for one to know X without believing X or it is not. If it is, then it is possible for an atheist to know that God exist eventhough he doesn't believe that God exist. In this case, how do we individuate between those atheists who know that God exist, and those that don't know, since their (lack of) belief plays no role?

 

3DJay understands what I have been trying to show you Jatom. Incidentally, by "learn" he means "come to know"

It is not true that one must believe something in order to know it. One can believe something once one knows it, or beforehand, but in no sense does one have to believe something before knowing it.