Bas C. van Fraassen - Theological Epistemology: How Can We Know God? (Part 1)
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 09. 2024
- Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/2UufzC7
Can we know God? If so, how? We can we believe in God. But is such belief justified? How to apply the principles of epistemology to knowledge of God and belief in God? What would make belief in God justified true belief?
Watch more interviews with Bas C. van Fraassen: bit.ly/2NVKiEW
Watch more interviews on theological epistemology: bit.ly/2NVGMue
I think it is a very good question... what would convince a person that God exists? Especially if you are sceptical of experiences as evidence. I like Prof. Van Fraassen’s answer, that arguments and theology (and maybe experiences too) can only point towards a ‘greater ultimate reality’, (aka God) which being transcendent and ineffable, must necessarily rely on faith. Evidence, arguments and experiences may point the way, but it takes a ‘leap of faith’ to extrapolate from these to eg. a transcendent purpose to our existence. I think it also requires a paradigm shift, from materialism to a discourse more inclusive of mind/spirit or consciousness and experience. Atheists are those unwilling to make that leap, often (IMO inappropriately) applying criteria from Science, and who therefore regard religious beliefs as unsubstantiated and therefore fanciful.
@@blankname5177 Yes… the leap of faith to “there is no God” ie. rejecting a belief system that doesn’t make sense to you must be the right thing to do. IMO it’s finding a belief system one can live with, is ethical, makes sense of the world and gives meaning to life. Eudaemonia!
Poor JLK. He seems not to be prepared to let anything reveal God. There's something about that attitude which strikes sympathetic chords. God, after all, unlike aliens in a mother ship, is no mere extra worldly entity - not an entity or mere being at all, in fact. But I would ask him why he sets the bar so impossibly high in the case of God? We trust all kinds of experience in our lives as revealing various kinds and levels of truth without (at least undue) fear of being fooled by default. Why draw that line at God - unless one is already more convinced than one is ready to admit that God is impossible?
pardonwhat
I am not sure I follow you. There is no such thing as ‘personal’ truth. Something is either true or not, regardless of my beliefs. And, while truth exists, I believe plenty of things that manifestly are true, such as I am at home as I write this.
Make believe.
I am about to find out what is on the other side if anything.
...um, how exactly?
Yea good conversation ....
I still cannot see how the same man that speaks about constructive empiricism and considers that “unobservables” can or cannot be true therefore it is not reasonable to believe in them, would go on and calmly say he believes in a god. Nothing against him or anyone who believes in a god, that is totally irrelevant for me, but what is strange is that he holds two counterintuitive theories in his own head. Van Fraasen also states that, in science, one could accept a theory while not believing they are true just for pragmatism’s sake (empirical adequacy); does he believe belief in god is not bound to his empirical views? How does that go? Again. Not trying to bash against theists belief by anyone, just questioning Van Fraasen’s cognitive dissonance here.
Hereee youuuuu areeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....my friend 🐄
A god worth worshiping would know exactly what is necessary to convince everyone to believe in him. And yet we have non-believers. Which means either god does not care whether or not all believe in him, or he doesn't exist, or he is impotent to actually convince some of his creations, who exist exactly as he planned them...and in his image.
Go use 5meo and get back to us
The problem is not that a belief is required to admit that God exists, it's actually exactly the opposite - to assume that God does not exist, you need a belief. It's basically like denying the most basic and evident thing. And I would even go further to say, that it is like denying the only evident thing. To believe that God does not exist, is actually equivalent to believing in, say, that your hand does not exist. I am not speaking from a religious standpoint, just to clarify. And I understand that these words will most likely not convey the meaning that I am trying to express for majority that will read them. Because the meaning of the words is unfortunately corrupted by our society with interpretations.
P.S. to believe in God means to deny God, its like believing in your hand instead of just admitting that you have it. You would most likely need to have your hand paralyzed, in order for it to be a matter of belief for you.
God does not bring us closer to truth, but throws us thousand years back in time and further away from truth.
There is no God.
God is imaginary so it's pointless to apply epistemology.
"Imaginary" does not mean harmless.
@@_John_Sean_Walker The notion of "God" is particularly harmful - sometimes in the extreme.
Readily < That would be a super natural being, not "our" God who watches over us all the time and saves our souls when the ship sinks.
John Walker what s bankrupt worldview.
I have a small secret to share: non believers are also believers😉
It's probably pointless to ask a priest about personal evidences for God's existence because this people are not just spiritual but follow universal ethics, they deal with things all people need and feel the same. Life and church as community is purpose of religion, facts are written in religious scripts, many times supposedly authorized by God himself and need no special interpretation. To understand why supreme ideals exist, one should only look at actual conditions of every day life and disregard all knowledge, obviously this world is a weird mixture of chaos and divine. It's not about human civilization, intelligence, consciousness or anything like that, whatever we are trying to describe are just words real world does not depend upon.
We are godlike, sometimes, this is the base of modern theology, i think, and probably most confusing natural phenomena. How can we imagine something, than take some magic dust and turn mater into something almost living, channel energy to allow abilities that defy natural order, looks like this universe is made of a magical, dream like stuff where anybody can create whatever he want and can. And if humans can do that, just because we developed and cultivate symbolic language, there must be so much more out there we can't even dream about.
We can remember things that do not exist and imagine ways energies can flow nature alone would never come up by itself, how is this not godlike?
I'm with you all the way on the first half, but I disagree on the second. Whether there is a God or not, I don't see human beings as having anything god-like. The ability to imagine things, remember experiences, maybe even to play (some version of) 'God' at a personal human scale doesn't mean we have to share some properties with the creator of our universe. You could argue that we, along with our universe, necessarily share some of his intent (even all of it) but his intent is not what makes God who he/she/it is.
To me, if there is something of a God as some form of composer and initiator perhaps even conductor, I find it yet another leap of faith to believe that he would have the means of seeing us, let alone that he would actually be focusing on us rather than a billion more interesting things happening. But that's just me, and you don't have to agree (thank God for that).
@@io3213 Hm, i try to imagine omnipotence like this, it's a paradox, maybe humans doesn't seems like a problem today, but wait and see what our biological intellect can do in the future. Sure we can blow up a planet, or create an artificial life form capable to survive in real world, even construct artificial intelligence, based on near magic quantum principles. This is what some people can do today. There is no science fiction anymore, science is way more interesting than any fiction, every day something new and completely different is discovered, no fiction writer can compete with scientific community anymore.
So it is logical to assume human exploration will not stop, civilization will grow beyond our planet and human population will start to multiply to infinity, because we can never run out of living space in an infinite Universe. One day we will reach technological level beyond attributes of the creator and lesser gods. But it still won't stop, technology will became so powerful we will be literally be able to destroy entire galaxy, maybe even all mater in the universe. This is property of a true godlike being, all things are controlled by one who can destroy them.
Problem is, why would nature create, evolve, spawn something like that? Whatever we are and this universe is, abilities to became, change and transform arise from properties of atom. But we will never destroy entire universe, even if we could, because we will never be able to live inside eternal nothing. This is how natural forces and human potential merge and story of creation come around full circle.
Try psychedelics if you want empirical evidence, or at least a better understanding of God
It's ironic that you use a substance which causes hallucinations to gather "evidence" for the existence of God.
*_Nobody_* alive today believes in the sun. 🌅 Why? Because the sun is a *_fact,_* observed by everybody, even in the North Pole and South Pole. We believe in nonfactual things like ETs, fairies, unicorns, gnomes, angels, demons, gods, and God because we’ve been heavily conditioned since childhood to do so. We will stop believing and having faith in those things the day any one of those things is as real as the sun is *now,* not in a supposed hereafter (1 Corinthians 13:12). 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
Do you believe or know your family loves you?
And yet you believe in dark matter, black holes, the big bang, abiogenesis, moon landings, etc....
All without even a shred of scientific evidence
The classic definition of knowledge is "justified true belief". So by that definition (as well as by most alternative definitions) knowledge entails belief. So it's not that we cease believing something when we know it.
Sun is a functional physical entity detectable by direct sensory experience. God by definition is not a functional physical entity. So it is impossible to detect it via direct sensory experience. Therefore above comparison and analysis is meaningless from epistomologic PoV