This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

How can anyone go through life not being agnostic?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. How can anyone go through life not being agnostic?

User Info: kozlo100

kozlo100
4 months ago#31
DenimDaddy posted...
That doesn't mean I'd be warranted in thinking I was being visited by the ghost of John Lennon if those two conditions weren't true.


It depends on what you mean by warranted. It's certainly not true, but a thing being true is not really necessary for one being warranted to believe it.

Also, what I said was that the someone from your example was someone that you thought was more knowledgeable. They may or may not have been, but the part that was important to changing your mind is that you thought they were.

That's what's different between your situation and James Randi and the audiences of faith healers. Those audiences don't think he is more knowledgeable than they are about the situation at hand, so his voice doesn't carry as much weight for them.
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.

User Info: DenimDaddy

DenimDaddy
4 months ago#32
kozlo100 posted...
That's what's different between your situation and James Randi and the audiences of faith healers. Those audiences don't think he is more knowledgeable than they are about the situation at hand, so his voice doesn't carry as much weight for them.


The whole point of determining if beliefs are warranted or justified relies on a normative understanding of intellectual responsibility. There's lots of different theories of what makes belief justified, but they all are aimed toward finding objective truth. Following a methodology that consistently leads to the same wrong belief over and over again is intellectual irresponsibility. One cannot have a justified belief in a con artist after he's been exposed.

User Info: kozlo100

kozlo100
4 months ago#33
DenimDaddy posted...
One cannot have a justified belief in a con artist after he's been exposed.


So if I tell you that James Randi and whoever told you your sleep paralysis wasn't ghosts were con-artists, would you change your beliefs? I've exposed them, so you should discount them, yes?

Or does exposing them take more than some random person's say-so? Does it take an explanation and an interpretation of a body of evidence that's consistent and compatible with what your own experiences tell you?
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#34
(message deleted)

User Info: DenimDaddy

DenimDaddy
4 months ago#35
kozlo100 posted...
DenimDaddy posted...
One cannot have a justified belief in a con artist after he's been exposed.


So if I tell you that James Randi and whoever told you your sleep paralysis wasn't ghosts were con-artists, would you change your beliefs? I've exposed them, so you should discount them, yes?


is James Randi actually a fraud in this scenario? You can't expose somebody as a fraud if they're not.

User Info: kozlo100

kozlo100
4 months ago#36
DenimDaddy posted...
You can't expose somebody as a fraud if they're not.


Sure you can. People do it all the time. A huge chunk of politics is exposing people as frauds regardless of whether or not they actually are. Conversely, an attempt to expose someone as a fraud can be unconvincing even if that person actually is a fraud.

You seem to be driving at the notion that folks are only justified in believing things that are objectively correct. I'm saying that what folks are justified in believing and what is objectively correct are two unconnected questions. After all, most of the time, it's not practically possible to know what's objectively correct.
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.

User Info: DenimDaddy

DenimDaddy
4 months ago#37
kozlo100 posted...
A huge chunk of politics is exposing people as frauds regardless of whether or not they actually are.


a huge chunk of politics is attempting to do that. To expose something means to make it visible. If there is no *thing* then there is nothing that can be exposed. Propositional calculus

You seem to be driving at the notion that folks are only justified in believing things that are objectively correct.


Not necessarily. But the point of justification is that justification leads to objectively correct beliefs. A bad methodology that leads to objectively wrong conclusions cannot justify a belief. A good methodology that's leads to objectively true outcomes 99 percent of the time is a justifiable methodology, even if its not infallible.

User Info: kozlo100

kozlo100
4 months ago#38
DenimDaddy posted...
To expose something means to make it visible.


You're again conflating objective reality with justification. Millions of people see Trump for the good and righteous man that he is. Millions more see him for the corrupt villain that he is.

It's very easy to see things that aren't true, and just as easy to make those things visible to other people, or in other words, to expose them.

Not necessarily. But the point of justification is that justification leads to objectively correct beliefs.


I disagree. I think justification is a descriptor. It doesn't have a point nor does it attempt to lead anywhere, it's just a word that describes a facet of a belief.
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.

User Info: DenimDaddy

DenimDaddy
4 months ago#39
kozlo100 posted...
Millions of people see Trump for the good and righteous man that he is. Millions more see him for the corrupt villain that he is.


Both sides think that they do.

Not necessarily. But the point of justification is that justification leads to objectively correct beliefs.


I disagree. I think justification is a descriptor. It doesn't have a point nor does it attempt to lead anywhere, it's just a word that describes a facet of a belief.


If it doesn't have a point, what does it describe exactly?

User Info: kozlo100

kozlo100
4 months ago#40
DenimDaddy posted...
Both sides think that they do.


Yes, that's rather the point. Well, most of the point anyway. The rest of it is that they both think that they do for very much the same reasons. The only thing you seem to be using to differentiate them is that you think one is wrong and the other is right.

If it doesn't have a point, what does it describe exactly?


Like I said, it describes a facet of that belief. It's similar to saying a car is red. Being red doesn't have a point, it's just part of what the car is.
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. How can anyone go through life not being agnostic?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived