Does Anyone Really Know?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't think it's even improper to not insist ontolgoical truth is a fact. just that it's faith.

instead of 'it's fact' the person says 'it's faith' or even 'no it's faith'. is that so wrong? i dont think either is right or wrong. but the last post is def worth thining aout esp if one takes the 'it's fact' approach.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1293202127' post='2194252']
a conversation worth thinking about
-i elieve XYZ? it's a fact.
-how do you know it? if it's a fact, as facts are usually demonstrateable.... can you demonstrate this?
-i can demonstrate a lot. the rest is based on faith.
-s your belief also faith?
-given the demonstrateable part isn't there as much as it is with other facts, i have to admit it's based significantly on faith. if you were to say it was 'fact, no ifs and or buts' even on the parts of whether demonstrateale...... then it wouldn't really even be faith, it'd be science anyways.


it wouldn't be faith-- it'd be science. a key point to think about too.
[/quote]

You're limiting yourself to a relatively new set of criteria for knowledge (determining fact): that which is demonstrable. I reject that claim. Practical knowledge cannot impose its own criteria on the realm of belief (which is not arbitrary- it is the realm of the non-tangible, the non-visible, and can be established as 'fact').

Also, I reject the claim that requires absolute certainty as a criterion for knowledge. Moral certitude, yes, not not absolute certainty.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1293208986' post='2194260']
i don't think it's even improper to not insist ontolgoical truth is a fact. just that it's faith.

instead of 'it's fact' the person says 'it's faith' or even 'no it's faith'. is that so wrong? i dont think either is right or wrong. but the last post is def worth thining aout esp if one takes the 'it's fact' approach.
[/quote]

On the contrary, it is VERY DANGEROUS to move to the position that we can't know anything outside of practical knowledge. This move began with Vico and was really pushed with Kant.

Not only is it dangerous in the fact that it unfairly limits the potential for human knowledge, it is also dangerous to the proper understanding of faith.

These are VERY essential points to clarify.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1293211191' post='2194262']
On the contrary, it is VERY DANGEROUS to move to the position that we can't know anything outside of practical knowledge. This move began with Vico and was really pushed with Kant.

Not only is it dangerous in the fact that it unfairly limits the potential for human knowledge, it is also dangerous to the proper understanding of faith.

These are VERY essential points to clarify.
[/quote]

I know Kant, but I did not know who Vico was or his influence on Kant. Bravo for the reference.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it isn't surprising to me i get caught up in a 'philsohy of knowldge' debate. i always liked epistomology, even when i didn't know that's what i was studying, and especially when i did.

i could see the 'it's faith' v. 'it's fact' point.
both are very engrained into christian and even catholic consciousness though, it's hard to argue either or.
as to the other stuff though, i'm not sure how else one'd approach it.

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1293210873' post='2194261']
You're limiting yourself to a relatively new set of criteria for knowledge (determining fact): that which is demonstrable. I reject that claim. Practical knowledge cannot impose its own criteria on the realm of belief (which is not arbitrary- it is the realm of the non-tangible, the non-visible, and can be established as 'fact').

Also, I reject the claim that requires absolute certainty as a criterion for knowledge. Moral certitude, yes, not not absolute certainty.
[/quote]

to be sure, i don't think it'd require absolute certainty. i would agree with the moral certainty point. so then...

you tell me then.... how else than i described it could a person distinguish scientific knowledge with faith knowledge? all i did in that mock discussion is point out what is objectively demonstrateable to a scientific certainty and what is not. you'd e taking the position i said earlier, .... namely...

-this is similar to the faith sentiment: 'that the dinosaurs became extinct by a meteor is a fact' 'not only is it a fact,when you question how i got there-- asking if it involves a fundamental judgment call--- *leaps a lot in logic*- it's a fact. /// i believe in Jesus, or the catholic church, or whatever.... not only is it a fact when you question how ii got there and ask if it involves a fundamental judgment call *leaps in logic*... it's a fact.

how else would you fill in the 'leaps in logic' part such that it's not really leaps in logic? if you can't do it demonstratably to objective people sufficient for a scientific certainty, then you have nothing else t say except you use faith where reason ends. even the catholic church talks in high terms of such language, two wings of a dove, as i think PJII said.
if you're misreading me, or i you, we may not really disagree here.

Edited December 24, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, as i think is a major distinguishing point, clarifying my position. i wouldn't argue that one's faith or belief should be proportional to the evidence. faith begins where reason ends, but that doesn't mean we aren't telling people the plain truth in how we get there, or how it is that we believe.
if someone were to say faith is proprotion to the evidence, i wouldn't even venture that they have faith. there's nothing special about that.
with that sasid... if one were to act as if their faith is to a scientific certainty demonstratable, i'd say they don't have faith, either. not only that, they're deluding themselves, avoiding reality, truth.... at least of a scientific nature, and givne they are missing tht distinguishment, of an ontological nature.
-to be more precise, it seems the folks are equivocating scientifically certainty demonstratable, with ontolgoically demonstratable. if you do not make this distinguishment, you're doing yourself or at least the initial poster a disservice, avoiding reality, what this all means in a bigger picture, more objectively. you're not doinng that qualifying that i had talked aout when asserting 'it's a fact'.

====

also to come to the deate with points about moral certainty and all the points made, shows qualification for 'it's a fact'... making my point. given i perceived that the poster wanted such qualifiers, i dont think my position was wrong. i do acknowledge as i later said, that the poster may have wanted something like 'it's a fact', to see that certitude.
i doubt the poster knew the depths of his question, so at least our extended discussion gave him probably more than he bargained for but pretty much what should have transpired.

Edited December 24, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

epistomology usually devolves, or evolves perhaps, to distinguishements between a priori and and a posteriori knowledge.
and that usually involves questioning whether it's 'per se a priorit' or not.... that's a term i developed. and how that relates to inductive v. deductive reasonsing. often times people act as if they disagree but do not too.
i'm not sure yet at this point of discussion where the debate is headed.

Edited December 24, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology#Ontological_and_epistemological_certainty

[dairygirl4u2c]

some philosophers have the audacity to assert that we have a priori knowledge of Jesus andor God. we just know, nothing more needs said about how. no experience needs established for it to be so. and that that should be the same as epistomological nowledge? or even a healthy ontlogicl knowledge that i waas talking aout that keeps it all explained and established? no way. those guys are crazy.

[Mr.Cat]

Being heavily influenced by philosophical skepticism, I doubt it. But then again, I have often been wrong before.

I suspect one of the problems in these discussions is lack of adequate vocabulary and definitions, that really encapsulate meaning. For example, when I think of knowledge I think of empirical knowledge, which seems to exist. But would I claim that there is empirical knowledge of faith, no. Though the complexity of the matter is, what one means by all these terms. Some of these terms are very old, since the Church has been with us for thousands of years, the reason we should look to the Church to represent and interpret herself the deposit of faith.

Regretfully, I suspect in these sorts of discussions people confuse certainty with conviction. In Catholicism faith is a free supernatural gift from God, anything else is merely another human religion being built brick by brick or thought by thought. While faith can be manifested in the hands or mind, it is chiefly of the heart, and it for most smaller than a mustard seed. What is important in Catholicism isn't necessarily the greatness of one's conviction to faith, but rather the flowers and fruits proper to it.

I imagine some people see doubt and faith or skepticism and religion as polar opposites, which in my observation tends to be when psychological splitting begins... even more dangerously when the seeds of fanaticism and fundamentalism are able to germinate. Am I certain of Catholicism, only that which is sufficient for faith, which seems to be the wonderful parable of the mustard seed. It need not be large, only sufficient, which turns out to be rather small indeed.

But do I know, I doubt it. But then again, I have often been wrong before.

[dairygirl4u2c]

that post was well done mr cat
it's clear that you are very insightful on these things, and the way people think
merry christmas

[dairygirl4u2c]

often the debate not only develops to a priori, deductive etc discussions. the whole solution involved is often mixed with the solutions of clarifying the terms involved precisely. that's why modern and systematic philsophy often breaks these and related terms down-- that's where the debate is first and formost, clarifying. and then people can talk about the actual substantive points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1293056604' post='2194010']
There is no error in my logic. Pelagianism (I can go to heaven by being a good person, or because I did more good things than bad) was condemned was condemned by the Church. The only way to the Father is through the Son. You can have high moral and ethical caliber and still go to hell if you reject Christ. The invincible ignorance clause in the catechism is all too often blown out of context by heterodox theologians. For instance not all atheists are of the PZ Myers or Dawkins stripe. Many of them are exceptionally moral people, some even at the front lines of crusading against the abortion holocaust.
[/quote]

But that wasn't the point. What Catholics are doomed and what non Catholics have the possibility of salvation is God's call and him alone. The Church has the authority to teach what is right and what is wrong, but also the human conscience will do that, so the Churches position is one of guidance. I agree that rejection of Christ leaves one in a very shaky position. Without Christ we are easy prey for satan and will most probably descend into evil ways, but even then Gods Will can be taking place to achieve his purpose and the eventual acceptance of him. Some people can be in a state of denial, rejecting him in their mind while knowing in their soul that it is true. It is only a matter of time before that barrier is broken.
[quote]Cornelius in Acts 10 did [b]not have faith in Christ but he already had graces at work within him to shape who he was and make a seedbed for that faith[/b] which Peter brought to him. [/quote]
My original complaint was that the statement 'there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church' is misleading until one understands it. One has the possibility of having Christ and therefore being a member of the 'body of Christ', which is the universal catholic church, without knowing it and having been misguided into another religion or still in a state of unknowing. In other words Jesus resides in your soul, and you can have him in your mind by your emulation of him without knowing his true name or knowledge of his historical mission 2000 years ago. By my second previous quote, I think this is what the Church is saying. It's not over until you are in a state of rejection of Christ at death. (the unforgivable sin) And by rejection I mean one has descended into a state of selfishness rejecting those things that Christ stands for.

[LadyOfSorrows]

Luke 23:34

We are very blessed to have the fulness of truth in the Catholic Church, but I know for a fact that there are some in other religions who reject Christ because they don't understand or haven't been taught properly who He is. It's unfair to make such strong assumptions about those belonging to other religions, for many are loving God in the [i]only way they know how[/i]! I'm a convert, so I can enter into that perspective. When I was a young girl and practiced Judaism, and had absolutely no clue as to who Jesus was (except through a movie), I was praying and worshipping God in the way I had been taught, and did it with deep sincerity. No one would expect me to embrace the fullness of truth because I [i]did not know it.[/i] Yet, God was still very close to me, and guided my heart--even then! I'm sure many of us have read the "Surprise in Heaven," poem. If not...

I dreamt death came the other night
And Heaven's gate swung wide.
An angel with a halo bright
Ushered me inside.

And there! To my astonishment
Stood folks I'd judged and labeled
As "quite unfit", "of little worth",
And "spiritually disabled". Indignant words rose to my lips
But never were set free,
For every face showed stunned surprise --
Not one expected me!

Edited December 27, 2010 by LadyOfSorrows

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='LadyOfSorrows' timestamp='1293418416' post='2194560']
No one would expect me to embrace the fullness of truth because I [i]did not know it.[/i] Yet, God was still very close to me, and guided my heart--even then!
[/quote]

God had a plan for you even before he created you. It was his call that you answered and you did it because in your soul you had always known him, you just had to realise it in your mind.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1293245270' post='2194317']
But would I claim that there is empirical knowledge of faith, no.
[/quote]

A philosopher said "I think, therefore I am!" This is the one and only thing that we can be 100% sure of, that our minds must exist or we would not be writing things on PM. Everything else relies on some empirical evidence. There is much empirical evidence for our faith beginning with the fact that there are millions who believe what we believe. In fact most humans have some sort of religious belief, the evidence of numbers! Scientists try to concoct some theory on how the human brain 'invents' religion yet they can't even cure depression, so how would they know? It would require a greater leap of faith for me to believe them and believe that creation came about as a 'symphony of natural selection' than it would to believe in a creator. I have several other empirical evidences for my faith, but of course I cannot prove them conclusively in the way that I can prove that my mind exists.