The problem of justified true belief

Diserner

Well-known member
"evidence"—"reason"—"proof"—"logic"—"demonstrate"—"show me"—"rationality"

I think the way all these words are often used presumes an unjustifiable path to ultimate certainty in knowledge using circular argumentation. Many atheists say they don't believe because they need confirmable, evidential reasons. The whole idea of evidential reasons presupposes a path to verifiable justification of belief. The whole idea of "confirmable" assumes an unproven method of confirmation. When it comes to logical validations the only rational conclusion is hardcore skepticism, the belief that nothing can be known. I'm not sure what an ultimate justificatory path to absolute assurance about the fundamental nature of reality could ever be. I would make the claim that nothing is falsifiable. There is no path to certainty in knowledge because of four main reasons.

1. The senses could mislead.

If I saw a miracle or heard a voice, if I was lifted up flying through the sky and every bird started flying around me like a Disney princess, it would be startling and maybe prove to me something exists beyond what I had previously experienced. but without absolute knowledge of every thing that could possibly exist I'm still not sure how I could know the real source of the experience.

2. Any logic might be faulty.


How do you know your mind works perfectly in all regards to understanding logic and nowhere makes any mistake? You say, well I can prove my reasoning is sound by double checking it against logical rules. But every crazy person thinks they are following the rules and understand the rules perfectly. You say, well I can double check by asking other people if they agree—but this assumes you even understand what the other person is saying instead of making it already agree. Also, how do you know that other minds even exist when you can't subjectively experience them, and why do you suppose that subjective experience is absolute truth when anything can be an illusion?

3. Unknown might contradict known.

How do you know that out of all of the vast majority of things you don't know, somewhere in that set of unknowns are truths that radically alter the things you already believe? What percentage of all knowledge that possibly exists in the entire universe can one assume one has? Certainly not 100%, and with some epistemic humility, not even 10%—and out of all the unknown things there always exists the possibility that something that one thinks one knows would be drastically altered or changed. If one simply argues a utilitarian or practical view of knowledge (I don't have to be "certain" to know), one is engaging in a big guessing game where the basis of ultimate probabilities are unknown, and any belief is as valid as another.

4. Undetectable things could exist

This is similar to 3, but again produces epistemic humility. There is absolutely no valid logical reason to suppose that one can detect all the things that exist, leaving limitless possibilities out there. And again, if you cop out of the idea of certainty (which logically begs the question of actual knowledge instead of just a guessing game), and go for a utilitarian "whatever works for me" view of knowledge, there is no justification to say one view is better than another if the knowledge is claimed to somehow "help" the person knowing. For example, if I claim to "know" my friends want to be with me because they think I'm cool and not because I'm rich, and that "helps" me get along with them and feel better about myself, I don't need "certainty" to "know" they really like me. I hope you can begin to even realize what ad hoc absurdity that kind of view looks like from someone outside the belief.

All meaning and words require metaphysical referents and concepts, and there is no path to external justified knowledge under logic alone. The word "evidence" as used is charged with presuppositions of a logical path to justified belief, of which there are none. There is no evidence like that—and with the logic of hard skepticism being unimpeachable, nothing can be truly known through sensory means. It's a logical fallacy that science can somehow be separated from all philosophical ideas. Sensory perception is not a path to ultimate justified true belief, under science or philosophy. So logical arguments and even miracles don't really prove anything.

There are some things you cannot prove to others, indeed there is no real path to ultimate justified knowledge anyway. "Rational" beliefs so-called, are only beliefs which seem to accomplish things in the physical perceptual world, which can never be ultimately verified. Often these type of beliefs don't work in the domain of relationships and personalities, which function more with emotional IQ. Many beliefs can be justified that cannot be proven, like believing that one experiences self-awareness, which cannot be demonstrated to anyone, yet is one of the most fundamental things that could possibly be known (an AI could mimic all signs of self-awareness). Experience is really the only justification to believe anything, and even then, logically it can’t be guaranteed. One is logically justified in believing an experience that cannot be logically shared, like self-awareness.

"I have experience, that’s not a belief, that’s just a descriptive fact of a thing that exists."
— TJump

Does this mean the only way to know God is to directly experience him rather than be argued into a belief? I would say a definitive yes.

"I often get asked, what would change your mind? I don’t know. I don’t have to know. If there is a God, that God should know exactly what would change my mind and should be capable of doing it, and the fact that this hasn’t happened means that either that God doesn’t exist or doesn’t want me to know he exists… yet. Not my problem.
— Matt Dillahunty

Strangely enough as a convinced theist I have to partially agree with Matt here in that the means and method of persuasion and belief are unknown to us, to anything less than the Divine, and I don't think either side of this debate should feel arguments are enough to persuade. Strangely enough, though, Matt doesn't seem to abide by what he says here, and runs one of many similar Atheist shows that seem to just be a couple of skeptics sitting there, hands folded, waiting for a caller to "demonstrate" God to them, when Matt already said he doesn't even know what he's looking for. Since the only thing Matt is really looking for is completely undefined by him, I assume the show is just for entertainment.

I use to hear more often "just show me a miracle, that's all I ask," and an atheist Youtuber PineCreek is famously known for asking Christians to pray for matches to combust on stream, while another atheist has asked Christian debaters to boldly drink antifreeze on stage. But even if a miracle occurred the only thing it would really prove is that a current understanding of naturalism is insufficient to explain reality, it really doesn't do more than that. It could be aliens, it could be the matrix, it could all be a dream, it could be advanced scientific techniques, it could be unknown physical laws, it could be some deceiving supernatural entity, it could be anything. And even Christians should agree miracles are insufficient in and of themselves alone, because Scripture warns us of Satan deceiving in the end times through some kind of miracles, and that Pharaoh's magicians were able to do magic as well as Moses.

So then, are we at an impasse where believers/non-believers are across each other in an impossible divide that can never be crossed by any known method, and all debate about it is just a pointless exercise in futility that often just ends in bad feelings? I think my answer is... partly. I think there is something believers can do besides arguing or calling down fire from heaven, and that is to continue to pray for and show the love of God to those they think don't "see the light" and encourage anyone who feels some desire for something more in their life or some kind of dissatisfaction, by exhorting them that it could very well be God doing something in their motivations.

But as for the demeanor of many Christians arguing with skeptics, I am heartbroken by the uncaring attitude I often see interacting with skeptics. We are supposed to be the salt and light and turning the other cheek, blessing when we are cursed, but I know I've failed that standard many times too. People who don't believe in Christ are not the ones we should be expecting a standard from, and sometimes they are more polite than Christians. So I apologize on behalf of people that stand for Christ. I hope we can all seek to be more understanding and charitable in our quest for ultimate knowledge. And I hope some of these thoughts have seemed interesting.

Peace
 
Back
Top Bottom