I’m not sure I follow you. Objectively there is one truth. But if we have 10 different people pronouncing a different version of truth in an area, a few things become apparent on consideration. For one thing, only one at most can have the actual truth. Nine of them at least must be wrong despite their conviction. Also, the possibility that no one actually has the full truth starts to come into view.
how do we know this, you ask? [and you really do ask that … quite a bit; I think that is your theme here and quite a good one even if rhetorical]
I’ll agree with that.
You assume the best blanket answer is by science, but then you stop there.
Here I don’t agree. There are a lot of questions that science is now unable to answer, and may well always be. So in my estimation, it doesn’t have any blanket answer. It does seem to be a good tool and our best tool for gaining knowledge of reality. Maybe this is just semantics on my part.
We theistic believers (many of us here) came with you that far but then did not stop and went on to include relational knowledge, life testimony and witness, tradition and church community – also sources of knowledge outside our individual selves by which we can check to be as sure as we can that we aren’t fooling ourselves. None of that discounts science – it just goes beyond where science has been able to go (or perhaps never will go.)
Understood. I’m not rejecting such sources of information out of hand, but I wonder how you define “knowledge” in this context. You might feel you know something, but will I? Will another person down the street? I believe you once said that science is good at producing facts, in our first conversation here I think. When information is verifiable, a point is approached where rejection of such knowledge is objectively unreasonable. When we’re dealing with personal experiences and the like, with limited potential for verification, we’re not talking about the same kind of information. Again, that doesn’t mean I’m rejecting it out of hand or saying it can’t have any value. But it’s a different ball game, objectively speaking.
I’m delightfully snowed in today, and what’s a guy to do?
It’s about as cold as it usually gets here, about 9 C (I’m a bit rusty on F but the computer says 49) and I have my house robe on–crucial with no central heating here–so I guess I will be here for a while too
Well here’s the thing, and I hope I’ve been clear about my position here as well in my time here–I’m not making any demands. I recognize that people have many reasons for coming to their beliefs, and I don’t possess the kind of information that would enable me to positively rule out many potential facets of reality. However, if it’s suggested that I should believe certain things, or that they are objectively true, or even if we get into a discussion about the value of types or items of evidence, then I may well be inclined to dispute some things.
It does seem to be challenging me, but I’m not sure that my starting point has been accurately characterized.
So while the book is more for believers, you would nonetheless benefit from reading it I think; if you truly want to understand how/why believers think as they do. But even if you don’t [read the book] you’ll probably get exposed to much of it from my posts here before we’re done.
Well, I’ll put it on my list! I’m reading Haidt’s book again now. I think you really should read it; I was just about to suggest it again after reading the “fundamentalist vs. liberal” quote above!