How do we know?

This is a topic which grew out of a question put to me by Hangdaw13 So what does it mean to know? Is there any way of being absoultely certain? I do not think so.The nature of our investigation of the world through science is that we cannot be certain as that would require unattainable perfect knowledge.Science tells us what we can say about the universe and does not deal with certainty but rather it embraces doubt.So I would answer to Hangdawg that I do not know for certain but I strongly suspect that his existence {if it is indeed there} will reveal itself to me on this computer forum at a later time.{Prophecy anyone?}If I get such a response then I would have evidence of his existence that I could further study and try other experiments to lend credence to my suspicions.
If,in responding to me,I do not have to change my assertion that he does exist because no new evidence is presenting itself then I can maintain my level of confidence until some other means of evidence presents itself to contradict such.Does anyone have some other way to look at this that we can examine?

---

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hangdawg has his own proposal up on what looks like this topic though he goes into it at greater length. I wondering if two topics will split up the debate/discussion and make it more difficult to develope?lfen

Hi sidelined, I didn't know you already got a topic going on this. You beat me to it. I will copy and paste my intended OP into a reply to your OP here.

This was my proposed OP:Time and time again, both Christians and non have stated that they KNOW this or that (usually Christians), and then an atheist argues that you cannot KNOW this or that. This is all fine. But then the atheist goes on to make other statements as if he/she KNOWS them to be true.Somehow the words "know" and "believe" have acquired two different meanings. We say we "know" something if we are dead sure it is true. We say we "believe" something if it is IMPOSSIBLE to be dead sure it is true, but generally think it is true.But I have sort of come to the same conclusion as Descartes that I can be 100% sure of nothing. If I am going to accept anything as true besides the fact that I exist, I must BELIEVE something. I must believe what I am seeing is real. I must believe that my logic is not faulty. I must believe that the scientists who do studies are not figments of my imagination and that the evidence they obtain is real and that their logic and reason is as good as mine.Once I have laid my foundation of beliefs, can I then say, "I know" whenever science produces a fact or theory? Are any of us justified in saying we KNOW anything? Like all the rest of you, I choose to do so.Since ALL knowledge is based on certain presuppostions, to know anything one must believe in SOMETHING.The ultimate skeptic believes nothing to be real. The atheist believes ONLY the world that a statistically significant number of people can see is real. The theist believes the world he sees is real and that there is another world that is real too and that this other world intersects our own. There exists no means to weigh between these beliefs and determine which is TRUE, because any attempt to do so will be based on a belief in certain presuppositions.Can any atheist please tell me how he KNOWS that the BELIEFS upon which his scientific worldview is based are more likely to be true than the BELIEFS upon which a theist's worldview is based? I'm not talking about the facts that science has found vs the facts that personal revelation has found. I'm asking for any atheist to tell me how he KNOWS that ALL reality in existence should be available for our 5 senses to discover through science. He cannot. He BELIEVES this.Though the atheist has decided that he KNOWS only what is scientifically verifiable, this does not mean aspects of reality that are not scientifically verifiable do not exist. I know everyone here is aware that the inability to prove the positive does not prove the negative and that the burden of proof lies on the side of the party claiming the positive.Nevertheless many have come very close if not outright stated that the truths believed in by theists are false because they cannot be proven via methods atheists believe to be the ONLY way to KNOW anything.And many who are wise enough to be reluctant to make the bold statement that theistic beliefs are absolutely false say they are "unlikely" or "implausible" or "improbable" as if probability had anything to do with it.They allow for the POSSIBILITY that we could discover evidence of a god in the future, but since we haven't yet this means it is unlikely we ever will and therefore unlikely that God exists. However, this has nothing to do with the likelihood of God existing, and there is a philosophical paradox that if God could be scientificly proven He would cease to be God.It is no more rational and productive to speak in terms of the probability of God existing than the probability of the universe exploding from nothing.Atheists BELIEVE ALL reality can be discovered through science alone.
Theists BELIEVE there is more to reality than what science alone can discover and that personal revelation from the rest of reality can and does happen. Since everything we KNOW is based on certain presuppositions we BELIEVE to be true, can't we stop with the meaningless arguments and just get along???What do ya'll think?

There is in fact an asymmetry here. Theists accept the same methods of knowing as atheists do, but add in other "ways" which they claim to be adequate and in some cases even superior to the methods that are generally accepted.So it is up to theists to show that their supposed means of knowing are in fact as good as they claim. However religion has failed badly in the understanding of the natural universe. Even in the area of morality - where science does not tread and many hold to be the proper domain of religion - the exclusively religious commandments show no consistency or real agreement. If the methods of theism are that unreliable then the theist cannot claim that they produce knowledge.Atheists in general do not claim that science can discover everything.
What they do reject is claims of personal revelation. But theists are quite happy to reject claims of personal revelation that do not fit into their religion. Even here the theist can offer no objectively justifiable standard.This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-21-2004 05:16 AM

HiWhat do you mean by religious commandments? How is this assertion backed up?Morality? Are you saying atheists agree with one another? What is your basis for your morals? Are they the same basis as the current law? Or are they agreed upon by you and other atheists?

quote:

---

Or are they agreed upon by you and other atheists?

---

Atheists don't form an organization - I have no idea what the morals of other atheists are. I'm sure like the rest of us they can lobby to have laws changed to suit their own codes.

What I mean is purely religious moral standards. The First Commandment is a good one since every non-Abrahamic religion unquestionably violates it and sees nothing wrong in doing so.As for you other questions they are irrelevant. Why would disagreements between atheists indicate that religious assertions on moral matters were reliably true ?

And our proof must be shown scientifically in order for you to accept it. And this is not possible. Well, Christian theists believe that there is a spiritual war going on so naturally there would be a lot of unreliable information floating around out there. But they do believe science is the only means of gaining knowledge. This is fine for argument's sake as long as they admit that they can't KNOW they are correct in rejecting it.

quote:

---

But they do believe science is the only means of gaining knowledge.

---

em.. no.. unless you have never read a book or listen to music or driven a car.

Hi Anne,Welcome to EVCforum. I see you've already discovered how to format your messages and everything.Happy Posting!P.S. Hey guys, lets not debate moral codes here. We're debating knowing vs believing.

You mis-understand.If atheist have no basis of morals on which they agree upon, then what basis do they share? How are they better than theists like you make them out to be?You mention the commandments. Some atheists might follow them, some might not. Some atheists would consider one thing immoral - another might not.But with religions, a set of people agree upon a moral basis which doesn't change. In this regard, they are firm morally. For example - Jews would agree to follow the commandments - and those commandments do not change.This message has been edited by anne, 11-21-2004 01:30 PM

I didn't say anything about science. It is just that if you want to claim knowledge then you have to show that your justification for belief is good enough. If it isn't - and I submit that the disagreement between religions without any means of resoving those disagreements is prima facie evidence that it is not - then I don't see that you have any grounds to claim that you have genuine knowledge. YOur beleif in a "spiritual war" doesn't change that - because even if that could be shown true (and it falls in the same category as the rest) there is no way that you can show that your beliefs are not disinformation generated by your supposed " spritual war"I haven't even claimed that science is the only means of gaining knowledge. It is, however, the most reliable means of gaining knowledge about our physical universe. And it has a proven track record.And are you prepared to admit that "personal revelations" that contradict your religious beliefs mght be valid ?

I understand perfectly that what you are saying is not related to the topic of this thread.I also note that your argument is essentially for the Straussian view that religion is valuable as a means of social control regardless of whether it is true or not.