How does your theory of knowledge differ from the typical definition of knowledge as a justified true belief? And how would you apply the typical definition to the metaphysical? If you can describe a soul in metaphysical terms without contradicting logic don’t you then have some good reasons for your belief (i.e. it is epistemically justified)?

Metaphysical objects can be described logically, but it’s just a theoretical exercise. Belief in the metaphysical is not illogical in and of itself; if you attempt to move that belief to the category of “know” and label it “truth”, you’ll have problems, IMO.

So I can believe that I have a soul. I can describe that soul in metaphysical terms without contradicting logic. But if I say I know that I have a soul, I’ll run into problems with the definition of “know”, and if I say that the truth is that I have a soul, again I’d expect to run into problems, unless I adhere to a wholly subjectivist definition of truth (e.g., “what I believe to be the truth is then the truth”).

Can you logical describe a metaphysical thing, object, or being and call it a logical belief? Or would the whole thing just be called a belief not a logical belief?

If this is possible can you use a premise that is also a belief in your logical description?

These are probably silly musings I just thought I’d ask.

The conclusions would be: Therefore “I don’t believe in a particular cause” is a belief.

Indeed. Agnosticism is not lack of belief; it is a proposition in itself.

Agnosticism is not denying causality; it simply denies our knowledge of it.

Indeed, there either is a god or isn’t. But we do not know, or at least I don’t, whether god or gods exist.

What I am getting at is causality. Logically I agree that we can’t know with certainty anything about the metaphysical so then anything we accept about the metaphysical is a belief.

It seems one must reject causality, which is logical hard to do, or believe that there is a particular cause (whatever they want to believe that cause is).

here is my logic:

X = a cause
P1: There is X
P2: We can’t prove or verify X
P3: Anything that can not be proven or verified is a belief
C: Therefore X is a belief.

If someone excepts causality but says: “I don’t believe in a particular cause”.

The conclusions would be: Therefore “I don’t believe in a particular cause” is a belief. The person who would say they “don’t believe” is usually a person who claims to not have beliefs, but rely on Logic and Science where things can be verified not believed.

Am I wrong? Can you help me see where I am wrong? Am I misunderstanding causality?

Thanks.

Thanks for those suggestions. I like how the NOMA and strong-agnostic logic then frames all discussions of the supernatural in terms of belief. But how would you challenge someone who says “I choose not to believe”?

To me the chose to “not believe” seems illogical and is actually choosing to believe there is no chose. Therefore contradicting itself.

Is this conclusion true?: Anytime we choose not to believe something there is a logical, emotional, or scientific reason to not believe it. We are then believing that the logical, emotional, or scientific reason is true and the thing we were presented with is not true.

Thanks for your help.

First how is brainwashing by the government wrong, but okay if parents do it?

Cute attempt to frame an argument, but it fails on the accepted definition of brainwashing. (See the OED.)

But wait he isn’t asking for the government to brainwash, he is simply saying that parents shouldn’t have the right to do it.

Correct, he asks for sharing of religion with one’s own children to be criminalized.

It is sort of like how abolition violates property rights. Well yes it does involve the government depriving people of rights; however what is being taken is given to other people.

Namely, to Dawkins. And the analogy is a bit stretched, eh?

In my country the government frowns upon cults aka aggressive new religions. It is legal for people to deprogram former cultists because they are regarded a such a threat. I’m surprised you hold contrary views- didn’t you have fanatics gas the subways in Japan?

Japanese, ever the practical and common sense people, rightly hold terrorist acts to be illegal, whether they are done for religious reasons or not. They wouldn’t think of telling people what they can and cannot believe. It’s considered extremely rude.

Once again intolerance isn’t the main threat. I for one am very intolerant of certain things. I am not a threat though; even if everyone thought like me there wouldn’t be killing; ridicule yes, but slaughter no.

Then you are tolerant. Intolerance, in political context, is being intolerant of an attribute to the point that you do not tolerate it. When you ridicule something, you are in fact tolerating it. When you attempt to make laws to criminalize it, that is intolerant. When you blow people up, that also is intolerant.

For example I think hardline agnostics are idiots. Will I kill them? No, I simply mock them mercilessly. The problem is when people’s beliefs lead inexorably to violence. That is what I am intolerant of. That, stupidity and hypocricy.

A friendly word of advice to assist you in your mocking. When you call somebody an “idiot”, it is often seen as intellectual poverty. The reason is, if you had logical argument, you would no doubt use it, insofar as logic is a thousand times more powerful than name calling. So, in your mocking, always open with solid reasoning, citation of facts, and do indisputable logic. It will get you a lot further than mere mocking.

I keep on getting this “doesn’t your logic require” (putting people in padded rooms, controling diets). It is a common misconception caused by not looking at the big picture. Trying to achieve that goal of padded cells will result in violence and make the world less safe. So I would do it if it work. Well if it worked we wouldn’t have the inherent revulsion to it, because you see there are reasons behind emotions and instincts (not always correct, but definately useful).

First you would need to establish what right you have to put others in padded cells. Or make them eat healthy foods. Or do anything that your subjective morality tells you is “right”.

Also, Stephen Jay Gould. He was an evolutionary biologist, and in his book “Rocks of Ages” he put forth a theory called “NOMA” (Non-Overlapping Magisteria).

The NOMA logic goes thus:

P1. The God Hypothesis is a Supernatural Hypothesis.
P2. Science deals exclusively with nature and the physical realm.
C. Therefore science cannot determine the existence of god or gods.

Dawkins attempts to get around this logic by assuming that non-physical gods must have exerted an influence on the physical realm, and that effects of that should be subject to physical examination. In typical Dawkins fashion, he assumes a point not granted.

Wow, you say allot of silly things.

Speaking of silly things to say:

First how is brainwashing by the government wrong, but okay if parents do it?

Who was talking about brainwashing?

Sounds like more straw man silly talk from an intolerant atheist.

In my country the government frowns upon cults aka aggressive new religions. It is legal for people to deprogram former cultists because they are regarded a such a threat. I’m surprised you hold contrary views- didn’t you have fanatics gas the subways in Japan?

In the first paragraph of your last comment you equate a parent sharing/teaching their child religion(s) with slavery, cults and terrorism. I might take you seriously if your arguments were based in some rational form.

Keep up the silly talk. It makes me laugh.