Faith vs blind faith

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It appears to me that Hillside is doing a Sam Harris by suggesting that non violent religious believers just provide cover for militant extremists or even the ground from which extremism sprouts.
Hillside might be more moderate than Harris who has proposed a preemptive nuclear strike against a religious community. Under Hillsides own logic that makes Hillsidism the respectable face of Harrisism.

I put certain persons apparent support for Hillside down to uncritical cheerleadership.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I have read subsequent posts, but I'll just mention that, in order to be quite clear, it was your evasion to which I referred!

I know. I just didn't want to pass up the opportunity to highlight your bias in ignoring BHS' evasion of my points while hypocritically asking me why I was ignoring his.

I am still waiting for BHS to produce some entrapment case law to justify his assertions on the Searching for God thread. He claimed he had a work project that would keep him busy and would get back to me after that and then then never got back to me despite reminders. Which makes his posts to Vlad a tad hypocritical.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Vlad,

I “helps” me only inasmuch as I’m trying to get Gabriella to focus on the basic question rather than endlessly disappear down rabbit holes of irrelevance (an early support act for the Hexagons of Lightning by the way). It’s a basic Gish Gallop in other words – she posts great sprawling texts (one of which introduced science by the way) that dance around the issue but never actually address it, then accuses me of evasion if I don’t track down every one (even though these diversions are themselves just evasion of the basic questions being asked). 

No – reason is sufficient for the job. Has anyone even suggested such a thing though?

BHS

You were the one endlessly disappearing down rabbit holes of irrelevance that you reminded me to respond to, such as endlessly asking me why religious scripture on moral issues is open to interpretation despite you being unable to show how morality could not be open to interpretation; or talking about Muslim enforcers; or bringing up rocking back and forth and reciting the Quran being a sign of being controlled (utterly ridiculous assertion);

I have engaged with your argument, that faith or belief in religious or non-religious certainties is not a guarantor of truth. I agreed many times that a "true for me" is no guarantee that it is "true for you". I also agreed that just because a belief works for me, that is also not a guarantor that it is true.

You keep asserting that feeling certain that God exists based on faith is intellectual cover for acts of religious extremism, but have not been able to demonstrate that any principle exists that links certainty in personal faith or 'true for me' beliefs about existence to certainty in belief that committing a criminal act that affects other people is a moral act. You simply asserting that such a principle or link exists and that the difference caused by the different outcomes does not break the link is fine - you can believe that if you want but it does not make it true.

You asserting that the religious belief in something's existence is intellectual cover for those who believe they must commit criminal acts on other people to please their god fails to distinguish firstly, between the huge gap between existence and actions, and secondly between criminal theists and law-abiding theists who quite clearly are capable of following the law and ignoring their personal beliefs. Similarly you have criminal atheists with moral beliefs who are unable to ignore their certainty about their moral beliefs in order to obey the law. And you also have law-abiding atheists with moral beliefs i.e those who don't put their moral beliefs above the law.

I addressed your argument about privileging faith by saying it is the same as privileging certain morals beliefs in law - it's a matter of public taste. The privilege does not indicate that the faith or moral belief is objectively true.

And my point about science was that holding a belief that the end justifies the means in advancing science was an example of non-religious dogmatic thought. Simple enough to understand even for you I would have thought, but you seem to have some kind of Pavlovian reaction as soon as the word "science" is mentioned and start some well-rehearsed but irrelevant answer that does not address the point made. 

If you don't wish to engage with the points I have actually made and just want to endlessly make irrelevant responses to my posts against arguments I have not made, that's up to you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You are still trolling I see. It's bad to feed your trolling but if you need to see my responses, go back over the posts I listed for Owlswing…

Trying to get you finally to engage with an idea rather than with just where it happens to lead to for you personally isn’t trolling. If you don’t want to do that though, then just say so.

…where I agreed that certainty was not good for religious or non-religious beliefs about what the morally right thing to do is…

Perhaps you should take that up with Vlad then?

…and then explained why holding a belief in God is not covering for extremist belief, as the outcome is what matters.

No, you haven’t “explained” that at all. “I don’t agree” isn’t an explanation, it’s just an opinion. What you have done though is to avoid an explanation.

See if you can work out for yourself where you have been going wrong.

I haven’t and the reference to going wrong after I carefully explained (again) the difference between a process (certainty + faith) and outcomes, only for you to tell me that your outcomes are fine so there’s nothing to defend.

Can you see it now?

Anything?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It appears to me that Hillside is doing a Sam Harris by suggesting that non violent religious believers just provide cover for militant extremists or even the ground from which extremism sprouts.

Intellectual cover, yes. Actually it’s societies in general that in the public square privilege religious faith over just guessing rather then individuals specifically, but you’ve got the drift. 

Hillside might be more moderate than Harris who has proposed a preemptive nuclear strike against a religious community. Under Hillsides own logic that makes Hillsidism the respectable face of Harrisism.

I’ll leave you to your private grief here.

I put certain persons apparent support for Hillside down to uncritical cheerleadership.

Isn’t the “uncritical” one here you though? Do you have any arguments against the thesis, or do you think “doing a Sam Harris“ constitutes an argument? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I know. I just didn't want to pass up the opportunity to highlight your bias in ignoring BHS' evasion of my points while hypocritically asking me why I was ignoring his.

There’s neither bias nor ignoring. I offered to address three of your favourites however irrelevant they may have been, and I tried yet again to drag you back to making an argument to support you opinion of, “I don’t agree” only for you to ignore the issue. 

I am still waiting for BHS to produce some entrapment case law to justify his assertions on the Searching for God thread. He claimed he had a work project that would keep him busy and would get back to me after that and then then never got back to me despite reminders. Which makes his posts to Vlad a tad hypocritical.

No it doesn’t. Vlad has been asked a thousand questions and never answered one; my numbers are pretty much the other way around.

I actually couldn’t find the entrapment post by the way. Now you’ve remind me of the thread it was on, I’ll have another look. As you have form when asked for the time to tell me how a watch works instead, you’ll forgive me I hope if I answer only the bit that have any relevance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Intellectual cover, yes. Actually it’s societies in general that in the public square privilege religious faith over just guessing rather then individuals specifically, but you’ve got the drift. 

I’ll leave you to your private grief here.

Isn’t the “uncritical” one here you though? Do you have any arguments against the thesis, or do you think “doing a Sam Harris“ constitutes an argument?

You seem to be blowing your own special pleading about moderation being a cover and humbug about moderates apart here Hillside.
Hillsidism is cover for Harrisism.

[Owlswing]

BlueHillSide - Gabriella

Are you two married?

I only ask 'cos your exchanges on this thread make it seem more than highly likely that you are!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You were the one endlessly disappearing down rabbit holes of irrelevance that you reminded me to respond to, such as endlessly asking me why religious scripture on moral issues is open to interpretation despite you being unable to show how morality could not be open to interpretation; or talking about Muslim enforcers; or bringing up rocking back and forth and reciting the Quran being a sign of being controlled (utterly ridiculous assertion);

Why are you doing this to yourself? The whole discussion re interpretation only came about because you introduced it, even though it had nothing to do with the actual issue on the table. My mistake was in following you down your rabbit holes rather than with pointing out their irrelevance.

I have engaged with your argument, that faith or belief in religious or non-religious certainties is not a guarantor of truth. I agreed many times that a "true for me" is no guarantee that it is "true for you". I also agreed that just because a belief works for me, that is also not a guarantor that it is true.

Indeed, but what I was asking you to address was the issue on the table – ie, the privileging of faith over guessing as a generalised phenomenon.   

You keep asserting that feeling certain that God exists based on faith is intellectual cover for acts of religious extremism, but have not been able to demonstrate that any principle exists that links certainty in personal faith or 'true for me' beliefs about existence to certainty in belief that committing a criminal act that affects other people is a moral act. You simply asserting that such a principle or link exists and that the difference caused by the different outcomes does not break the link is fine - you can believe that if you want but it does not make it true.

Think about it. You think that some things are true because that’s your faith. Lots of other people think that lots of other things are true because that’s their faith. This thinking becomes baked in in legal, educational, constitutional, moral philosophy etc discourses (which is why in our country alone churches get tax breaks and exemptions from equality laws, we have faith schools, the Queen is head of state and church, clerics are consulted on major moral issues etc).

And while you personally may not think your truths to be certain (except perhaps the “truth” god) and nor your faith to be a sure fire way to identify those truths, lots of other people using exactly the same method do think that. And when enough of those people have enough influence in given societies, reason- and evidence-based thinking is replaced by dogma.

And as Christopher Hitchens paraphrased Camus’ La Peste:

"The plague is over, the rats have died or disappeared. The city of Iran has returned to health; the Mediterranean is shimmering again, the white buildings have been cleaned, the people are back on the streets.

And yet, the rats were only down in the sewers, and waiting for the day when they could once again set themselves up to die on the streets of a free city."

Not for one moment do I suggest that you personally would use your faith one day to blow up a bus. I do though suggest that enough people thinking as you do provides the cover and, eventually, the infrastructure for those who would.

You asserting that the religious belief in something's existence is intellectual cover for those who believe they must commit criminal acts on other people to please their god fails to distinguish firstly, between the huge gap between existence and actions, and secondly between criminal theists and law-abiding theists who quite clearly are capable of following the law and ignoring their personal beliefs. Similarly you have criminal atheists with moral beliefs who are unable to ignore their certainty about their moral beliefs in order to obey the law. And you also have law-abiding atheists with moral beliefs i.e those who don't put their moral beliefs above the law.

That’s missing the point entirely – see above.

I addressed your argument about privileging faith by saying it is the same as privileging certain morals beliefs in law - it's a matter of public taste. The privilege does not indicate that the faith or moral belief is objectively true.

No you didn’t. To address it you’d have to explain why you think that faith beliefs that by definition are not amenable to reason are equivalent to beliefs that are.       

And my point about science was that holding a belief that the end justifies the means in advancing science was an example of non-religious dogmatic thought. Simple enough to understand even for you I would have thought, but you seem to have some kind of Pavlovian reaction as soon as the word "science" is mentioned and start some well-rehearsed but irrelevant answer that does not address the point made.

Because it’s a crap point. Who in science says, “the end justifies the means” exactly? 

If you don't wish to engage with the points I have actually made and just want to endlessly make irrelevant responses to my posts against arguments I have not made, that's up to you.

Perhaps if you looked in the mirror?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You seem to be blowing your own special pleading about moderation being a cover and humbug about moderates apart here Hillside.
Hillsidism is cover for Harrisism.

The random word generator is purring nicely today. Did you have a point to make though?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The random word generator is purring nicely today. Did you have a point to make though?

Only an intelligent designer of a universe who is not part of that universe is the same as an intelligent designer of a universe who is not part of that universe. Ha Ha Ha.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Owls,

BlueHillSide - Gabriella

Are you two married?

I only ask 'cos your exchanges on this thread make it seem more than highly likely that you are!

Can you imagine it?

Me: What can I cook you for dinner tonight my love?

G: Just because some people eat in the evenings that doesn’t mean that I’ll want to does it? Lots of cultures have their main meals in the middle of the day. Have you though of that? Well have you?

Me: Er, I was just wondering whether I could…

G: And another thing, I have other needs too. Why are you focusing on hunger when being warm or watching telly might be just as important?

Me: Look, I was just wondering if I could cook you a nice steak with a gratin dauphinoise and some green beans or something.

G: Oh, and would that be a medium rare steak or something else? And that gratin dauphinoise, are you just assuming I’d want it with gruyere rather than with parmesan then? Big mistake there my friend, even for you.

Me: OK, I’m going out…     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Only an intelligent designer of a universe who is not part of that universe is the same as an intelligent designer of a universe who is not part of that universe. Ha Ha Ha.

So that's a "no" then.

[wigginhall]

Well, Vlad seems to have converted Christianity into an engineering project.   I wonder if this will catch on.   A bit like worshiping Brunel.   O mighty Isambard Kingdom, thine is the kingdom indeed, and we gather today to worship at your project, only, do you think you could alter the machine code a bit, so the whisky bottle doesn't empty as quickly? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Well, Vlad seems to have converted Christianity into an engineering project.   I wonder if this will catch on.   A bit like worshiping Brunel.   O mighty Isambard Kingdom, thine is the kingdom indeed, and we gather today to worship at your project, only, do you think you could alter the machine code a bit, so the whisky bottle doesn't empty as quickly?

It's very strange. He seems to think that a conjecture that would require no more than smart aliens working on a localised basis is somehow "identical" to theism that asserts as true a divine creator of everything possible who's still around and who chips in from time-to-time when the fancy takes. Weird theology indeed.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Why are you doing this to yourself? The whole discussion re interpretation only came about because you introduced it, even though it had nothing to do with the actual issue on the table. My mistake was in following you down your rabbit holes rather than with pointing out their irrelevance.

Indeed, but what I was asking you to address was the issue on the table – ie, the privileging of faith over guessing as a generalised phenomenon.   

Think about it. You think that some things are true because that’s your faith. Lots of other people think that lots of other things are true because that’s their faith. This thinking becomes baked in in legal, educational, constitutional, moral philosophy etc discourses (which is why in our country alone churches get tax breaks and exemptions from equality laws, we have faith schools, the Queen is head of state and church, clerics are consulted on major moral issues etc).

And while you personally may not think your truths to be certain (except perhaps the “truth” god) and nor your faith to be a sure fire way to identify those truths, lots of other people using exactly the same method do think that. And when enough of those people have enough influence in given societies, reason- and evidence-based thinking is replaced by dogma.

And as Christopher Hitchens paraphrased Camus’ La Peste:

"The plague is over, the rats have died or disappeared. The city of Iran has returned to health; the Mediterranean is shimmering again, the white buildings have been cleaned, the people are back on the streets.

And yet, the rats were only down in the sewers, and waiting for the day when they could once again set themselves up to die on the streets of a free city."

Not for one moment do I suggest that you personally would use your faith one day to blow up a bus. I do though suggest that enough people thinking as you do provides the cover and, eventually, the infrastructure for those who would.

That’s missing the point entirely – see above.

No you didn’t. To address it you’d have to explain why you think that faith beliefs that by definition are not amenable to reason are equivalent to beliefs that are.       

Because it’s a crap point. Who in science says, “the end justifies the means” exactly? 

Perhaps if you looked in the mirror?

BHS

I'd ask you the same thing - why are you doing this to yourself? Ippy introduced the idea of interpretation when he said I could make his post mean anything I want by taking his post out of context. Outrider and I had a discussion about interpretation and you jumped in.

You then insisted on going into an in depth discussion about interpretation and how pointless God and the Quran was if theists had to interpret scripture - see  your response #610 in response to me stating "You'll have to ask the theists who think they are certain about what any supposed God's words mean. As I said before all the theists I know state they are expressing an opinion, and Allah knows best."

My response in #638 was "It works for various Muslims, even if it doesn't work for you. Much like interpreting law there is a base text and the words are interpreted.....The Quran is much less specific or detailed than statutes and like anything made up of sentences in verse for, it requires interpretation . The Quran might not work for you as a source of inspiration and guidance - fair enough."

You then kept on asking me what the point of scripture was if it had to be interpreted and why a god would not write it unambiguously - see #721, #724 and brought up the negative effects of someone having certainty in their interpretation of moral ideas.

I replied in #754 "Regardless of whether they recognise it or not, they have just interpreted and yes certainty is a problem with human beings, religious or otherwise. See above for examples of non-religious interpretations that lead to lots of dead people, far more than the 3000 odd in 9/11."

Have you finally got the point that I don't think faith is a guarantee of truth?

Which brings me to your comment "Not for one moment do I suggest that you personally would use your faith one day to blow up a bus. I do though suggest that enough people thinking as you do provides the cover and, eventually, the infrastructure for those who would. "

The underlined bit  - can you specify what it is you believe that I think - in order to justify your suggestion that what I think provides cover to extremists? 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Owls,

Can you imagine it?

Me: What can I cook you for dinner tonight my love?

G: Just because some people eat in the evenings that doesn’t mean that I’ll want to does it? Lots of cultures have their main meals in the middle of the day. Have you though of that? Well have you?

Me: Er, I was just wondering whether I could…

G: And another thing, I have other needs too. Why are you focusing on hunger when being warm or watching telly might be just as important?

Me: Look, I was just wondering if I could cook you a nice steak with a gratin dauphinoise and some green beans or something.

G: Oh, and would that be a medium rare steak or something else? And that gratin dauphinoise, are you just assuming I’d want it with gruyere rather than with parmesan then? Big mistake there my friend, even for you.

Me: OK, I’m going out…     

Actually it would be more like:

BHS: I am cooking pasta for you for dinner tonight my love

Me: I can see why that would work for you but no thanks - I am skipping dinner and I don't want to eat carbs for dinner anyway because I am trying to reduce my percentage of body fat

BHS: But you have to eat otherwise your thinking is providing intellectual cover for anorexics and bulimics. I am not suggesting that you personally are an anorexic but allowing you to exert self-control to skip a meal privileges your right to skip meals in the public arena. You clearly are certain that not eating carbs after 7pm will reduce your body fat percentage and your certainty means that other people will think it ok to be certain they can eat nothing ever again and not die. Enough people thinking as you do provides cover for all the anorexics.

Me: When did I say I was certain that this was the way to reduce my body fat percentage - I'm trying this out to see if it works for me.

BHS: Just because something works for you it doesn't mean it's true.

Me: I'm going out for a run - enjoy your pasta. 

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_muwtTQjMg

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I'd ask you the same thing - why are you doing this to yourself? Ippy introduced the idea of interpretation when he said I could make his post mean anything I want by taking his post out of context. Outrider and I had a discussion about interpretation and you jumped in.

You then insisted on going into an in depth discussion about interpretation and how pointless God and the Quran was if theists had to interpret scripture - see  your response #610 in response to me stating "You'll have to ask the theists who think they are certain about what any supposed God's words mean. As I said before all the theists I know state they are expressing an opinion, and Allah knows best."

My response in #638 was "It works for various Muslims, even if it doesn't work for you. Much like interpreting law there is a base text and the words are interpreted.....The Quran is much less specific or detailed than statutes and like anything made up of sentences in verse for, it requires interpretation . The Quran might not work for you as a source of inspiration and guidance - fair enough."

You then kept on asking me what the point of scripture was if it had to be interpreted and why a god would not write it unambiguously - see #721, #724 and brought up the negative effects of someone having certainty in their interpretation of moral ideas.

I replied in #754 "Regardless of whether they recognise it or not, they have just interpreted and yes certainty is a problem with human beings, religious or otherwise. See above for examples of non-religious interpretations that lead to lots of dead people, far more than the 3000 odd in 9/11."

We can talk again about this if you like but the basic issue I was getting to was, if you think that faith is a reliable guide to inerrant truths, how would you square that with everything requiring interpretation which would necessarily limit any truth value to your ability to do the interpreting? See below though. 

Have you finally got the point that I don't think faith is a guarantee of truth?

Any truth, or just some truths?

Which brings me to your comment "Not for one moment do I suggest that you personally would use your faith one day to blow up a bus. I do though suggest that enough people thinking as you do provides the cover and, eventually, the infrastructure for those who would. "

The underlined bit  - can you specify what it is you believe that I think - in order to justify your suggestion that what I think provides cover to extremists?

So far as I can tell you think some things to be certainly true (eg, "God") and you think that because you also think that "faith" is a reliable way to identify those truths. Now I might be wrong about that of course - you might for example think "God" to be no more than a speculation that you find to be functionally useful as, say, a child finds belief in the Tooth Fairy to be functionally useful but that's not the impression I get.

Either way though, it'll be a simple matter for you to clear up.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_muwtTQjMg

So droll. When I clicked on the link for once LOL actually meant LOL.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Actually it would be more like:

BHS: I am cooking pasta for you for dinner tonight my love

Me: I can see why that would work for you but no thanks - I am skipping dinner and I don't want to eat carbs for dinner anyway because I am trying to reduce my percentage of body fat

BHS: But you have to eat otherwise your thinking is providing intellectual cover for anorexics and bulimics. I am not suggesting that you personally are an anorexic but allowing you to exert self-control to skip a meal privileges your right to skip meals in the public arena. You clearly are certain that not eating carbs after 7pm will reduce your body fat percentage and your certainty means that other people will think it ok to be certain they can eat nothing ever again and not die. Enough people thinking as you do provides cover for all the anorexics.

Me: When did I say I was certain that this was the way to reduce my body fat percentage - I'm trying this out to see if it works for me.

BHS: Just because something works for you it doesn't mean it's true.

Me: I'm going out for a run - enjoy your pasta.

Either way, at least I offered to cook you dinner...

[Sebastian Toe]

NS,

So droll. When I clicked on the link for once LOL actually meant LOL.

This one maybe?
https://youtu.be/v6iD0VyhcNY

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

We can talk again about this if you like but the basic issue I was getting to was, if you think that faith is a reliable guide to inerrant truths, how would you square that with everything requiring interpretation which would necessarily limit any truth value to your ability to do the interpreting? See below though.

Any truth, or just some truths?

For what feels like the 100th time I don't think faith/certainty/belief is a reliable guide to inerrant truths - regardless of whether those 'truths' are religious or non-religious.

And if you want to continue discussing interpretation, you seem to be claiming that it is possible to write moral statements about fighting in wars that are not open to interpretation. If you are claiming that it's for you to justify that claim by providing an example. I, on the other hand, don't think it's possible. So while it may be possible to judge after the act the rights and wrongs of a situation I don't think it is possible to prevent someone from carrying out the act or trying to justify their act by interpreting some rules written in a book.

So far as I can tell you think some things to be certainly true (eg, "God") and you think that because you also think that "faith" is a reliable way to identify those truths. Now I might be wrong about that of course - you might for example think "God" to be no more than a speculation that you find to be functionally useful as, say, a child finds belief in the Tooth Fairy to be functionally useful but that's not the impression I get.

Either way though, it'll be a simple matter for you to clear up.   

As I explained earlier thinking God is true for me is a statement of personal resolve - I don't even claim to "know" God is true for me, let alone for you, as my definition of "know" is to establish it objectively.

The only other possible meaning of "know" is that it is a statement of belief or a leap of faith to believe without having the evidence to turn that belief into an objective fact e.g. I know I love him/her. If it's not an objective fact I can't expect anyone else to adopt it as true. They might however adopt the belief for other reasons.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

For what feels like the 100th time I don't think faith/certainty/belief is a reliable guide to inerrant truths - regardless of whether those 'truths' are religious or non-religious.

Okaaaay…

And if you want to continue discussing interpretation, you seem to be claiming that it is possible to write moral statements about fighting in wars that are not open to interpretation.

That’s another of your straw men. I’ve suggested no such thing. What I have suggested though is that it’s quite possible to write statements in ways that are less ambiguous than others. I mentioned a while back to Vlad medical ethicists for example (albeit that the point fell on deaf ears). What they do is to write guidance, codes of conduct etc with as much clarity as possible so that they have practical usefulness in hospitals and the like.

That’s not to say that they cover all eventualities, which is why new situations often have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, but it is to say that they didn’t instead think, “let’s do this in some vague versifying”. You keep coming back to a binary notion of “needing interpretation vs pellucid” when in fact there’s a whole spectrum of clarity in between.

That’s why your references to the UN and the like fail. Yes of course there’s inevitably the risk of ambiguity in their resolutions, as there is in any other attempt to codify behaviours (the Geneva Convention being another example) but at least there’s enough certainty to be functionally useful. Now compare that with “holy” texts that by comparison are essentially palimpsests – you can overwrite them again and again as interpretations change.         

If you are claiming that it's for you to justify that claim by providing an example. I, on the other hand, don't think it's possible. So while it may be possible to judge after the act the rights and wrongs of a situation I don't think it is possible to prevent someone from carrying out the act or trying to justify their act by interpreting some rules written in a book.

I’m not – see above.

As I explained earlier thinking God is true for me is a statement of personal resolve - I don't even claim to "know" God is true for me, let alone for you, as my definition of "know" is to establish it objectively.

I’m still sensing that you think that “God” has a different status to “guess”, and that would make you an unusual theist I think but again OK. I don’t know about Muslim practices, but on the rare occasions I’ve attended Christian ones I’ve always been struck by the way they’re peppered with “sures” and “certains”.

The only other possible meaning of "know" is that it is a statement of belief or a leap of faith to believe without having the evidence to turn that belief into an objective fact e.g. I know I love him/her. If it's not an objective fact I can't expect anyone else to adopt it as true. They might however adopt the belief for other reasons.

Nope. Again this fell on def ears when I explained Epistemology 101 to Vlad a while back but think of “truth” as an onion. At the centre is absolute truth. Now I’ve no idea whether there is such a thing, and nor how we’d even know we’d found it even if we did but conceptually at least let’s accept it.

On the next layer out there are objective truths. These concerns facts – the speed of light in a vacuum for example – that we accept as true on the basis of reason, evidence, intersubjective experience and the like. Note that there’s no way to bridge the gap to the centre of the onion, but these methods provide provisional, functionally useful truths and so we proceed on that basis. 

Then on the outside layer are guesses: leprechauns, gods, unicorns and any other faith beliefs. These things are speculations of varying degrees of coherence, and sometimes enough evidence emerges for them to transition to the middle layer.

The question then concerns first whether there’s any method for faith alone to bridge the gap from outside layer to middle layer (there isn’t), and second what in practice happens when people people think nonetheless that their faith does nonetheless do that.

Whether you personally are one of those people is a secondary mater.

[Owlswing]

Owls,

Can you imagine it?

Me: What can I cook you for dinner tonight my love?

G: Just because some people eat in the evenings that doesn’t mean that I’ll want to does it? Lots of cultures have their main meals in the middle of the day. Have you though of that? Well have you?

Me: Er, I was just wondering whether I could…

G: And another thing, I have other needs too. Why are you focusing on hunger when being warm or watching telly might be just as important?

Me: Look, I was just wondering if I could cook you a nice steak with a gratin dauphinoise and some green beans or something.

G: Oh, and would that be a medium rare steak or something else? And that gratin dauphinoise, are you just assuming I’d want it with gruyere rather than with parmesan then? Big mistake there my friend, even for you.

Me: OK, I’m going out…     

ROFLMAO! - Big time!