> Knowledge and truth are two very different issues. Indeed we cannot be
> sure that anything is true
Even that statement?
>but we can provide observations and theory to come darn close.
And how exactly can we *know* that we are "darn close" if we
don't/can't know what the truth is? The picture that came to mind when
I read these words was that of driving around aimlessly with no
destination in mind, being asked by my passenger "Where are we going?",
and replying confidently, "I haven't the slightest idea but I know I'm
pretty darn close!"
> But there is no scientific foundation to their [Christians] claim. As such
> their claims remain truely subjective and the truth remains truely rigid.
> It is neither based observation nor theory. It is a belief inspired by
> an acceptance of something that cannot be observed and whose existance is
> accepted beyond any doubt. No observations, no falsification, no theory.
> Nothing but an acceptance of 'truth'.
There are a number of assumptions in this paragraph for which I would
like justification. The first two sentences can be expressed in the
following proposition: "Only those propositions that have a scientific
foundation communicate objective truth." The problem with such an
assertion should be evident; if it is true, then it itself is
subjective. There is no scientific support for it. Rather, it is a
philosophical assertion about the nature and extent of knowledge
(epistemology) which is incapable of being either verified or falsified
by means of empirical investigation. In other words, it is a
suprasensible truth claim of the same order as other metaphysical
assertions.
You also seem to be suggesting that any belief that is not held
tentatively is suspect and cannot qualify as knowledge (or at least
scientific knowledge). We might state that idea in the form of the
following proposition: "Any belief regarded as incapable of being
falsified does not qualify as scientific knowledge but as faith."
Are you certain of this? If so, for the sake of consistency you'd have
to concede that this belief does not qualify as a piece of scientific
knowledge but faith. If not, then you should be willing to reconsider
it.
> Keithp: Once again you suggest that our knowledge is limited to what is
> capable of being observed. Once again I ask you how you know this. Is this a
> scientific conclusion or rather does it fit better in your category of
> "faith"?
>
> It is a scientific conclusion. What cannot observed cannot be proven to
> exist or not exist. It's the simple basics of science. What cannot be
> observed is not knowledge but belief/faith etc.
Huh? It's both a basis AND conclusion of science? Isn't this a little
circular? How is this a conclusion of science? What experimentation has
led to this conclusion? What sensory data verifies it? I asked you how
you know that our knowledge is limited to what we are capable of
observing and you respond, "It is a scientific conclusion." All you've
really done is say, "Well, that's just the way science has defined
knowledge." But of course, anyone can create a system in such a way
that opposing viewpoints are disqualified a priori. Now, you might
charge the Christian with doing exactly the same thing but the major
difference is that the Christian theory of knowledge is not
self-refuting as is yours.
I also noticed that you changed my question slightly. While I asked how
it is that you know that human knowledge is limited to sense experience,
your reply had to do with what can be proven to exist. These are not
identical issues. For the sake of argument, imagine that a person *did*
have knowledge of an unobservable entity or truth. What scientific
experiments could verify or falsify this claim? Of course there are
none. Are we to conclude from this that the subject really doesn't or
better yet, cannot have such knowledge? Only if we begin with the a
priori commitment to empiricism, but that is exactly what we are
debating. The only thing we would really be justified in concluding is
that natural science is limited in what it can investigate.
> I am not denying the christian worldview, I am merely pointing out that
> there is no observable data supporting the existance of a deity. That you
> consider this arbitrary is hardly reason to consider this to be such. I
> can understand that the realization that there is no scientific foundation
> for a deity can be shocking but to wave away arguments as arbitrary and
> absurd merely indicate why religious truth is universal and eternal. Such
> requires a lot of faith, to believe in the truth of something that cannot
> be observed ? But the question still remains, what evidence of a deity
> exists ?
Not denying the Christian worldview? Why, of course you are. The
biblical, Christian worldview includes a theory of knowledge. The
Christian worldview claims that God has created all things, including
man, so as to reveal His presence and character. This being the case,
everything in the natural world, including the laws of nature and
principles of reasoning bear witness to God. This is why the Bible
says:
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their
wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because
God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world
God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men
are without excuse" (Romans 1:18-20).
Furthermore, the Christian worldview also claims that God has revealed
Himself verbally and propositionally in the Scriptures which He
inspired.
Any claim that our knowledge is limited only to those things which we
can observe with our senses IS a denial of the Christian worldview. It
is a rejection of the Bible's claim that there is a universal knowledge
of God mediated through what has been made, including man who is the
image of God. Thus, the empiricism you espouse is just another way of
saying that the Biblical account of a God who makes himself clearly
known in the created order and in Scripture is wrong. Your belief that
knowledge is confined to the temporal world of sense experience, is but
a presupposition in your philosophy of life that reveals your prejudice
against any claims to the existence or knowledge of the supernantural.
To put it terms that you are more familiar with, it is an article in
your statement of faith; an article, by the way, that when held to its
own criterion, crumbles in upon itself.
Keith