Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
You are literally here doing exactly what I just accused you of, conflating the definition/conceptual analysis of "truth" with a substantive theory of what justifies us in believing that something is or is not true.
No I'm not. I haven't even defined truth or what a rigorous system for determining it would look like.
Quote:
My definition of truth doesn't imply anything about the standards of evidence for accepting a theory as true. It is consistent with many different standards of evidence, including intuitionism, faith, or evidential. I reject faith as a justification for believing p is true, but that is due to my substantive epistemic commitments, not my concept of truth.
What are your commitments, what is your definition of truth, and what is your methodology for determining it?
Quote:
I am more skeptical of the epistemic value of our intuitions taken in isolation.
I'm skeptical of truth claims period. In fact I lean more towards
any truth claims based on some systemic approach as being illustrative of human hubris more than anything else.
Quote:
This is mostly due to the advances of modern science, mathematics, and logic, which demonstrated that our folk theories of these subjects, including ideas that used to be described as transcendent truths, were actually either false or optional.
A dubious judgement, and totally dependent upon ones subjective values.
Quote:
I also reject epistemic foundationalism, so I don't think beliefs are justified by self-evident axioms, but rather as part of an entire model of the world.
Beliefs are never justified by axioms, but they are always grounded by them.
Quote:
I'm an example. Well named is another. I'd guess most of the atheists on this forum would admit the possibility of truths unknowable by science.
For arguments sake perhaps. Not really though. I know this because of the consistent demand for evidence based on an imposed evidentiary standard. Neeel in this thread alone is a primary example.
Quote:
Science is a tool for investigating the natural world, but nowhere in its assumptions is it implied that it will end up with the final answers or be able to answer all questions.
Lol most every scientist (and especially the famous ideological ones) worth his salt would disagree with this. Most people, including most scientists, believe it is the only way to end up with any answers whatever.
The main one is that the Christian God is benevolent, or at least benevolent to all.
Quote:
Then be a good Christian and explain it to me instead of condescending because of your greater knowledge.
I wasn't condescending in any way. What do you want to know about Christian theology?
Quote:
No I'm not. Go visit a UU or Quaker church, or many mainline Protestant churches, and you'll find a lot of more or less explicit atheists and agnostics that enjoy being part of a church community and so are willing to identify as a Christian, or at least attend church and just sort of ignore the god stuff.
You're overstating the case here. It is certainly not common for convinced atheists to regularly attend church.
Quote:
You tend to think of atheists as all spending their day posting memes on Reddit inbetween reading Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. In fact, the New Atheists were only one faction of many among atheists, distinctive primarily because of their stridently anti-religious and anti-theistic views rather than their atheism.
That's what most of them are. In fact it's highly rare that I've ever shared discourse with an atheist who has thought his position through with honesty. You and well-named are the only two I've ever met on this forum that may have.
Last edited by Do0rDoNot; 10-20-2018 at 02:08 AM.
