The God Delusion

[BWToth 0]

Im not saying that absolute truths cant exist, just that we cant know them. In order to know a truth absolutely, absolute truth must not only exist, but you must also have an absolutely reliable way to find it. Since we dont have an absolute way to decide truth and never will then we are forced to accept that we cannot know absolute truths. I suppose it is a slight mistatement to say that absolute truths dont exist, but practically I think the two statements* amount to the same thing.*we cannot know absolute truths, absolute truths dont exist.

But as you or someone else stated earlier, even in science theories and laws are just ideas that have been tested many many times but we will never know with certainty whether they are true. We will never KNOW with certainty whether anything is true. Is that reason enough not to pursue things? or look for answers?

[crowTrobot 2]

But as you or someone else stated earlier, even in science theories and laws are just ideas that have been tested many many times but we will never know with certainty whether they are true. We will never KNOW with certainty whether anything is true. Is that reason enough not to pursue things? or look for answers?

who said it wasn't?

[SilentSnow 1]

But as you or someone else stated earlier, even in science theories and laws are just ideas that have been tested many many times but we will never know with certainty whether they are true. We will never KNOW with certainty whether anything is true. Is that reason enough not to pursue things? or look for answers?

Um, no. Otherwise all of our actions would be entirely instinctive or random. In a world this complicated I dont think we have any choice but to rigorously pursue truth. Obviously very probable truths are much more useful than randomness, even if we cant ever achieve absolute certainty. But even that is understating things. If we systematically impose the scientific method, ie impose the best logical and observational filters we can find, then we can come up with some extremely stable and useful truths. If the lack of TRUTH bothers you, since "absolute truth" applies so seldomly to this world, then you can essentially dismiss it as a philosophical oddity. Truth can be redefined as an idea that meets every relevant logical and empirical test of it. By this standard it is once again true that the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning. Of course, under this standard it is possible for two opposing ideas to be "true" since our empirical tests are often limited. However, I think that if we became truly systematic about things the amount of important conflicting truths would be fairly small.

[BWToth 0]

Um, no. Otherwise all of our actions would be entirely instinctive or random. In a world this complicated I dont think we have any choice but to rigorously pursue truth. Obviously very probable truths are much more useful than randomness, even if we cant ever achieve absolute certainty. But even that is understating things. If we systematically impose the scientific method, ie impose the best logical and observational filters we can find, then we can come up with some extremely stable and useful truths. If the lack of TRUTH bothers you, since "absolute truth" applies so seldomly to this world, then you can essentially dismiss it as a philosophical oddity. Truth can be redefined as an idea that meets every relevant logical and empirical test of it. By this standard it is once again true that the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning. Of course, under this standard it is possible for two opposing ideas to be "true" since our empirical tests are often limited. However, I think that if we became truly systematic about things the amount of important conflicting truths would be fairly small.

If every thing we think is likely to be true can be as equally discredited using something like the 'computer simulation' idea then you can't say that some things can be accepted as truths MORE than other based soley on what we KNOW or can OBSERVE.If we don't know if what we know or observe is correct, then how can we use that to back up any theory. We don't know what it is we don't know, and if what we don't know proves any given theory wrong then we can't be more sure of anything we think we know more/better than any other thing we think we know.If we are going to admit that we can't KNOW anything then we can't KNOW if we are any CLOSER to KNOWING one thing over another based on anything we 'know'.you know?

[crowTrobot 2]

If we are going to admit that we can't KNOW anything then we can't KNOW if we are any CLOSER to KNOWING one thing over another based on anything we 'know'.

we know what leads to useful progress and what doesn't. the scientific method of discovering apparent truth through repeatable tests leads to useful progress. philosophically whacking off about the uknowablility of absolute truth like you're doing does not.

[BWToth 0]

we know what leads to useful progress and what doesn't. the scientific method of discovering apparent truth through repeatable tests leads to useful progress. philosophically whacking off about the uknowablility of absolute truth like you're doing does not.

Define 'useful'.

[crowTrobot 2]

Define 'useful'.

reduced physical suffering, prolonged human lifespan, and (potentially) increased chances for long-term survival as a species.how is using philosophy to circular-reason yourself into a dead end useful?