| Theoretical Philosophy » On certainty » 5/02/2017 2:09 pm |
- nojoum
- Replies: 28
-
Proclus wrote:If those stats are from the philpaper survey, I think it is worth considering that the sample heavily leans toward anglophone contemporary analytic philosophers. (Which is a little bit like polling a bunch of particle physicists about what they believe about heart disease: probably more rational than the population at large, but not that great either.)
Edit: On second thought, I really shouldn't give any ground in the first place to the idea that truth is a popularity contest. My only point earlier was that many students of philosophy, especially at first have a false impression of how much philosophers disagree simply because highlighting disagreements is part of the philosophical method.I did not know that though. Thanks
I can see your point. It is also the experience that I had so far with regard to philosophy. Do you happen to be aware of any fair survey that can provide a overview of dominant views over important philosophical questions?
| Theoretical Philosophy » On certainty » 5/01/2017 4:15 pm |
- nojoum
- Replies: 28
-
Proclus wrote:
Just because you found something subjectively difficult does not actually mean that there was a problem with an argument.
I have seen students of Calculus insist that the whole thing doesn't make any sense and doesn't prove anything just because they found it difficult. One of my own students insisted to me that modus tollens was invalid because it didn't make sense to her.
I think the popular conception of how much consensus there is in science and how little consensus there is in philosophy is deeply misleading. As a matter of fact there are widespread divisions over fundamental questions in science. GUT has been famously elusive. On the other hand, there is a lot more consensus in philosophy than might first appear to be the case simply because philosophy typically proceeds by laying out all the views regardless of the real percentages of people who believe them. For example, I don't know anyone professionally who disagrees with the law of noncontradiction. David Lewis is famous for being one of a vanishingly small percentage of philosophers willing to embrace modal realism. I could go on and on.
If we are going with subjective level of certainty as a kind of confidence level, I am more certain that God exists than that electrons really are the way they are described in my physics textbook.I did not mean that there is something wrong with the argument. Rather that for me to judge fairly, I needed to spend a lot of time which in the end would not be fruitful. So I gave up.
…
On the issue of God it is also worth considering these results:
God: theism or atheism?
Accept or lean toward: atheism 1257 / 1803 (69.7%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 295 / 1803 (16.4%)
Other: 251 / 1803 (13.9%)
The Survey was taken by 3226 respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students.
I just filtered out the response by faculty and/or PhDs. If I am to be honest, I should h
| Theoretical Philosophy » On certainty » 5/01/2017 3:33 pm |
- nojoum
- Replies: 28
-
John West wrote:
It's worth distinguishing purely subjective certainty from formal certainty. Purely subjective certainty is assent that is firm, but shouldn't be, because it doesn't rest on anything objective; formal certainty is firm assent that corresponds to objective reality, and rests on objective grounds. I assume your question is about formal certainty, and shall call the negative answer's thesis—that there can be no formal certainty—universal skepticism.
…
a. Now, either knowledge entails formal certainty, or it doesn't. If it does, then by universal skepticism there can be no formal certainty that universal skepticism is correct, and it's impossible to know that universal skepticism is correct.*
If knowledge doesn't entail formal certainty, then it's possible to know things without being formally certain and it's not as big a deal that it's impossible to be formally certain of anything.
b. Universal skepticism is also less certain than that it's formally certain that I exist, that the apple I had in my hand a second ago is one and the same as the one I took a bite out of just now, that I have a head on my shoulders, and so on; it, however, entails that the latter, more certain truths are false; hence, we can't consistently hold both universal skepticism and those latter truths; hence, we ought to reject universal skepticism.
Hence, we have conclusive reason to reject universal skepticism, and admit that—here comes your answer—there is something we can know with formal certainty.
(Or, if you prefer: universal skepticism conflicts with perfectly evident truths; hence, universal skepticism is absurd; hence, universal skepticism is false. If universal skepticism is false, there is something we can know with formal certainty.
So to answer, there is something we can know with formal certainty.)
*You can play down the importance of knowing that universal skepticism is correct, but then in the same way
| Religion » Relationship with God » 5/01/2017 2:55 pm |
- nojoum
- Replies: 30
-
Jason wrote:
First of all, please do not worry about your tone and offending me, these are great questions. Secondly, I would like to say that I have great respect for some of the Sufi saints such as Rumi whose quotations I love. Having said that however, I cannot say why Shams did what he did since I am not familiar with him or his writings (I could speculate but that would be just that).
I think it would be interesting for you to know that it is Shams who ignited that unquenchable fire of love in Rumi. At the time of their meeting, Rumi was around 40 years and a ordinary religious teacher. Who can know how Rumi's life would have played out had he not met Shams?
Jason wrote:In terms of Christ however, first of all if you read the passage where he talks to the rich man he is referring him to give all his riches to the poor and then follow him. The point here is not to gain a disciple or even benefit the poor but to highlight to the rich man how much attachment he had in his heart for his riches. These attachments then take center stage in our heart, where God should be. God is more concerned with who you are in the deepest part of your heart than any good you can do or perform. But who can then know Him without any attachments in their hearts? Interestingly, Jesus says here that what is impossible for man is possible for God, which leads us to the fact that we can only be redeemed through God Himself rather than ANYTHING we could do (even giving up all our riches), which is what Christ accomplished on the cross.
…
I think you are missing the fact that God is not only Loving but also Merciful, a Great Judge and the Most Holy and the only one worthy of worship. That means we need to be holy to even be in His presence and only way to do that is through Christ (please do not see this as an attempt to undermine other religions etc, that is NOT my intention). Even if you love
| Religion » Relationship with God » 4/30/2017 5:57 am |
- nojoum
- Replies: 30
-
Back to the discussion on the personal level, I would like to thank Jason for his perfect response which is right on the spot.
Jason wrote:Add that with the greatest commandment that Jesus himself specified, I think you can see the picture. Interestingly Jesus did not reduce the commandment to a single command but to two commands because the natural outworking of one command leads to another. Love your God with all your heart, mind and soul results in loving your neighbour as yourself.
From what I have heard on Christianity a major focus is on having love for another. As Jesus also mentions, these two laws are the sum of all law and prophets. Now again I have seen something very similar thing in studying the life of a person from Islamic world (Shams Tabrizi, A Sufi which I deeply admire and praise). In his life he puts great emphasize for Loving one another. He even says that to worship God is let go of all the self (Giving up all you have, even your life). He also makes the same objections that Jesus had for Pharisees, for the religious teachers and judges of his time. As with first Commandment of Jesus with respect to God, there is also one strange point regarding this man. He rarely accepts pupils and the strange part is the test that people should pass in order to become his pupil. The test is you must be willing to give up everything that you have. So for example, he would ask rich people to give up entirely their wealth. There was one rich person who actually gave up all he had and Shams in return gave all his wealth back to him and accepted him as his pupil. Now that is where my wonder and bafflement lies. What is there to teach the man who is willing to give his life? Did Shams want to teach him about God? What is so great about God that he made such tests for his pupils?* Or what Is it that Christ is asking? How can you love God? Is it not so that the only po
…
| Religion » Relationship with God » 4/30/2017 5:18 am |
- nojoum
- Replies: 30
-
I think before going further with the discussion I need to clarify one point. My questions are asked on two levels; one that is a personal question and one that is on a global scale for the entire humanity. In answering I will try to clearly separate these two parts.
Alexander wrote:Well, sure. But a Christian doesn't need to claim that they can prove that God exists or that Christianity is true. The notion that the way to a relationship with God is one of purely philosophical arguments is, from a Christian perspective, simply false, and on the flip side a rational conviction of the fact "God exists" or "Christian teaching is true" does not necessarily lead to the kind of relationship God wants. (See the letter of James, for example).
On the personal level, I think I don’t need exact justification for God’s existence or the truthiness of Christian teaching because It is so complex and difficult. I also agree with you that pursuing philosophical arguments might cause hindrance in knowing God on a personal level.
However, on the global scale, it is extremely difficult to convert everyone to Christianity or any other religion for that matter. Also, as you have noted, not everyone who identifies himself as a Christian is a true Christian. So, let us consider another scenario, in which leaders of every major religion, put the emphasize on the Love commandment and value the goodness of a person based on how much Love he/she has for others. Moreover, they also put much less emphasize on specific teachings of religion in regard of the conception of God and the relationship with him. Furthermore, assume (just for the sake of argument) that, as a result of this we have a world where we have less conflicts and people are more loving. Does the improvement in human relationships justify abandoning God? If not why?
Now you might want to say, it is impossible with God’s grace for people to Love one another perfectly.Alexander wrote:Not "to love" - to love [i
…
| Theoretical Philosophy » On certainty » 4/29/2017 9:45 am |
- nojoum
- Replies: 28
-
DanielCC wrote:nojoum wrote:
If not, then what is the point of doing philosophy? To me, it seems a big failure for philosophy not being able to give answers with full assurance.
In that sense I doubt any discipline can ' give answers with full assurance' - simple arithmetic but that would be all. Likewise the conclusion you propose, that it represents a failure of philosophy, would not be reachable in any way which would satisfy those standards.
The aim of other disciplines such as applied physics, applied chemistry, chemical engineering, bio engineering, (basically applied sciences as a whole) is controlling and predicting the natural world. It is also obvious these disciplines are successful at their endeavors.
However, the point of philosophy is to have knowledge of the world. It is also reasonable to assume that knowledge should come with certainty. Therefore, we can say since philosophy has not produced certainty, it has failed in reaching its goal.
| Religion » Relationship with God » 4/29/2017 8:20 am |
- nojoum
- Replies: 30
-
Alexander wrote:
Secondly (and more succinctly) Christians don't limit themselves to wanting "the world to be much better"; they want all people to eternally share in the perfect life of the Holy Trinity, fulfilled in heaven but begun in the world by the grace that brings faith, hope and love. Our hope is a little more cosmic than mere humanitarianism.
Can you describe more what that perfect life means and entails? What are higher gifts and goals for human beings other than self-sacrifice and Love? What else can be added to us human beings?
| Religion » Relationship with God » 4/29/2017 8:04 am |
- nojoum
- Replies: 30
-
Thank you for your comprehensive response.
…
I have two points to make.
The first point is that it is impossible for anyone to claim with 100% assurance not only God exists but also that Christianity is true. This is why I assumed maybe it is not a bad compromise that at least people follow the commandment of Love. Because we are able to teach them in this regard without going through the whole impossible cycle of proving God and proving Christianity for that matter.
The second point is that, I am aware of Christian's view on the nature of men and the fact they need the grace of God to do be able to Love. That is also similar to Islam's view but on different grounds*. However, the problem is take a Christian nation, United states for example. They don't seem to be any better just because they are Christian. Or That I have not seen a single miracle happening, someone getting healed, or miraculously changing on the inside, something that you can only attribute to God. Again the same things are in Islam but I have never observed such things. So what am I to make of such observations? Let's say that I need some evidence to prove that it is exactly the case that you are mentioning; That God's intervention is required for a person to be changed and show cases when it happened. However, if we cannot show this, the compromise that I suggested do not have these issues and also people do not need to be worried about the afterlife. Because if I have understood you correctly, "non-believers are not automatically disqualified from salvation".**
*Even within Islam there are people who have sacrificied their lives for the sake of justice. What higher sacrifice can people make? How can you explain their action? They surely did not believe in the role of christ as christians do; They just believed him as a prophet of God who was not cruicified but rather was saved by God from crucification and ascended to heaven.
**"it doesn't matter at all whether or not someone acknowledges G
| Theoretical Philosophy » On certainty » 4/29/2017 4:12 am |
- nojoum
- Replies: 28
-
CharlieBlack wrote:
What does certainty mean?
Beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt.