Strong-Agnosticism's Epistemology

[kerrin]

How does your theory of knowledge differ from the typical definition of knowledge as a justified true belief? Does it?

If you can describe a soul in metaphysical terms without contradicting logic don’t you then have some good reasons for your belief (i.e. it is epistemically justified)?

[John Scott]

All discussion of knowledge must be in the first person. Whenever people say "we know..." it makes me uneasy.

So, I know something because I observe it to be true. The thing about knowing is, you can only know something but can never know whether what you know is actual knowledge.

For example, I know that my fingers are touching the keyboard. So this truth exists. But then, my fingers may not be touching the keyboard. I could be hallucinating. I could have died 20 years ago and maybe my corpse is dreaming all this.

The chances are, we know a lot of truth, but can never be sure that it is truth.

If you can describe a soul in metaphysical terms without contradicting logic

If matter is defined as "that which exists physically", and the immaterial defined as "that which does not exist physically", and we have no proof of the non-physical existing (physically), then it is difficult to speak of the soul in logical terms. In other words, we define reality in physical terms, and defined souls and the material out of existence.

I do believe in the soul, but can only speak of it in the first person.

[kerrin]

...Whenever people say "we know..." it makes me uneasy.
Generally, I think I agree, but if we agree to the same methodology in pursuit of personal knowledge can we not say, "we know____"? Similar to the idea of a collective group of individualist acting together.

The chances are, we know a lot of truth... Hey now! You're making me uneasy with that statement's use of "we". ;)

...but can never be sure that it is truth.
This would also mean we I cannot know if something is absolutely false, right?

The chances are, we know a lot of truth, but can never be sure that it is truth.
If we agree that certain truth cannot be achieved, and our aim is truth, then is there any point in trying to make our knowledge more certain, more probable, more reliable? Should our methodology in pursuit of knowledge not instead be concerned with truth value?

[Brieme]

2 Tim 2:1 "...be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus."

What does this mean to you?


Z.

[Tom Palven]

That doesn't mean anything to me, however, Christ's Golden Rule, the ethics of reciprocity make a lot of sense.

[kerrin]

2 Tim 2:1 "...be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus."

What does this mean to you?


Z.
Depends on what Paul means by "grace" here. Two-thousand years later and there are a plethora of opinions as to what he means by "grace." The "Golden Rule" is one worth assenting to.

Anyway, how does this relate to a theory of knowledge?

[John A Roark]

'Grace' as defined by Christianity, refers to the covering provided by God that is unearned by mortal man, existing only through His immeasurable love.

Take it for what it's worth.

Yeshua bar Yosef did not originate the Golden Rule, it having been around in various forms for thousands of years by the time he started causing trouble.

"The chances are, we know a lot of truth, but can never be sure that it is truth." Speak for yourself, bubba. Like Dr. Johnson kicking the rock, 'I refute it thus.' My standard response to anyone who questions these things is a punch in the nose; thankfully, many years in the ring has saved me from getting my clock completely cleaned. "But you can't really be sure I punched you in the nose, so what's all the fuss?"

A thought is not matter, either, yet it affirmatively exists. So a soul can exist, and the only variation is how you choose to define a soul.

[Tom Palven]

The Golden Rule goes back at least as far as the time of Confucius. He was allegedly asked by a student if he could define ethics in word one, and answered "Shu", meaning reciprocity, which is the essence of the Golden Rule.

Hillel's version was supposedly "Do not unto others that which is hateful to you. This is the whole of the law, the rest is commentary." Now, the IRS code alone runs into thousands of pages. That's a lot of commentary, indeed.

[John A Roark]

I once saw a demonstration in which a gentleman placed all the volumes of the IRS code on a table in one stack.
The table wobbled, then cracked, then shattered--and it was a well-made oak table with steel reinforcement.
Abolish the IRS.

Jesus no doubt revamped 'an eye for an eye' found in the Torah along more compassionate lines. Reciprocity is justice.