If a justified true belief is a belief in reality, then a belief in reality must be knowledge.
Therefore, belief must be knowledge.
Why would someone make a specific statement they know is false?
God's Knowledge
- Thread starter Tercon
- Start date
If a justified true belief is a belief in reality, then a belief in reality must be knowledge.
Therefore, belief must be knowledge.
Why would someone make a specific statement they know is false?
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
Did you learn anything from my explanation to Caroljeen? It shows the conversation we could have had if you were making even the slightest effort to be reasonable here.
Here are some definitions of knowledge I found online:
1. Oxford languages: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. Oxford languages: Philosophy- true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion.
3. Meriam Webster: the fact or condition of being aware of something. (2) : the range of one's information or understanding. answered to the best of my knowledge.
4. Cambridge dictionary: understanding of or information about a subject that you get by experience or study, either known by one person or by people generally:
Why did you choose the philosophical definition of knowledge? Doesn't that limit the scope of what knowledge is?
Why can't I know something and not believe it? I know the definition of atheism but I don't believe atheism is true. Does that mean I don't have any knowledge about atheism?
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
It defines propositional knowledge. There are other kinds, such as procedural knowledge (knowing how to swim), and knowledge by acquaintance (knowing your father), but propositional knowledge is usually what we are talking about in the present context.
This would be a case where we can usefully distinguish between the two propositions involved, i.e. you know one thing (that "atheism is defined as not believing in any god") while not believing something else (that "there are no gods"). The first one you know and believe, while the second you neither know nor believe.
Ok, I've been skimming through an article, The Analysis of Knowledge, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Did you know that the theory of Justified True Belief (JTB) is controversial?
The Analysis of Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
plato.stanford.edu
I don't believe that atheism is true. So if I don't believe it then it follows that I can't know it?
How about if I know atheism isn't true. What would that proposition be?
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
Yes, there are complications (Gettier, etc.) but it's not controversial that JTB provides a good starting point for further refinement.
If you don't believe "atheism is true" then you can't know "atheism is true". But you can still know what it means.
This one: "Atheism isn't true".
Knowing what atheism means is not the same as having knowledge of atheism?
Or conversely, a person has studied Christianity but doesn't believe it is true. Let's say he has a couple of degrees in Theology. Let's say his name is Bart Erhman. Would you say that he has knowledge of Christianity even though he doesn't believe it?
Temujin
Well-known member
What is worse, he denounces as an atheist anyone who argues against him, even someone as transparently Christian and honest as @Caroljeen. I thought that outright denial of another's faith was against forum rules. It's certainly grossly impolite.
1.1 The Truth Condition
Most epistemologists have found it overwhelmingly plausible that what is false cannot be known. For example, Hillary Clinton did not win the 2016 US Presidential election. Consequently, nobody knows that Hillary Clinton won the election. One can only know things that are true.The Analysis of Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
*What is false cannot be known. --This sounds false to me! You can know that 1+1= 3 is false.
*Nobody knows that Hillary Clinton won the election. --This sounds like a ridiculous thing to say! It's a true statement but awkwardly worded.
*One can only know things that are true. --How does this help us to know what is false if the only real knowledge is true knowledge.
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
It's fine to call that knowledge of atheism. The point is that if you were to be specific about the proposition this knowledge consists of, it would also be something you do believe (i.e. "I believe that Atheism means X" rather than "I believe X to be true").
Of course, but again being specific about what is known would give a list of propositions of the form "Christianity claims that X", and one can know and believe all of these propositions without at any point believing "X". What is believed is that Christianity asserts so and so, and not necessarily that any of it is true.
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
Another case of needing to distinguish between propositions.
"1+1=3" <- This is false, and therefore cannot be known.
"(1+1=3) is false" <- This is true and definitely can be known.
Agreed. I would say it is awkward because when we say "Nobody knows that X" we are usually claiming that X is true and nobody knows it.
I think the first example above should clear this up.
Actually if justified true beliefs are defined as knowledge and justified true beliefs are beliefs in reality, then justified true beliefs must be knowledge. Therefore, beliefs in reality are knowledge.
It limits knowledge to the knowledge of the truth and reality, because there are other kinds of knowledge like knowledge of fiction.
Because all knowledge of the truth and reality requires a belief in reality.
Again, knowledge of the truth and reality requires belief. But whereas atheism is just a unbelief rather than a belief, then atheism is unknowable in reality. Understand?
If you don't know how and why the truth and reality is known to you, because you disbelieve belief is capable of making the truth and reality known to you, then how are you going to show anyone how and why the truth is known to you?
Illogical nonsense.
If 1+1=2 is knowable in reality, then it is knowing the truth that 1+1=2 that makes "(1+1=3) "false" silly. That's how logical truth works.
Actually it says that in reality; it isn't true and that's why no-one knows it to be true in reality, because falsities are not knowable. See above.
No it didn't, it just showed that you don't know how the logical truth and reality works.
Belief is a 100% personal endeavor that every person must undertake for themselves before the truth and reality can be known to them. You can hear or read what someone is saying, but you can't understand it in reality until you believe it for yourself.
I'm thinking that most of CARM is familiar with the deceptions atheists use to propogate their insidious unbelief (atheism) of God's reality.
Temujin
Well-known member
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the obvious Christian faith of the person you were slandering.
Don't forget fictional knowledge; knowledge of the tooth fairy and like thinking you can disbelieve belief is capable of making the truth known to you and reality been known to you. It's a kind impossible knowledge to be known in reality. or IOW other words a delusion.
But if atheism is unbelief and all knowledge of the truth and reality requires a belief, then how can atheism be any kind of truth or knowledge of reality? It is a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction, as atheism can't be a unbelief and a belief in reality at the same time. And belief and unbelief are mutually exclusive, as you can't be believing and disbelieving of the same thing and at the same time.
The only slander I see here is unbeliever's slander against the truth and reality of God.
And telling the truth about what someone professing to be what they clearly are very confused about isn't slander, rather it is just describing what they are revealing to anyone with any kind of discernment can see for themselves.
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
Get back to me when you're ready to engage honestly. At the moment I'm having a conversation with Caroljeen because she doesn't run away from simple questions.