Can you *know* there is no God?

[Mike82ARP]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Trust as a close corollary to faith? I don't see that, but I realise many think so. Trust is or should be reality based, on what you know, not arbitrary. Though that doesn't mean it is risk free.

Trust is the confidence to get on a small boat to take you to the other side. Faith is believing you don't need a boat ...

A "dedicated O'ist" might answer that honesty and integrity tops most considerations in the character of those people close to him. Without omniscience one can never know for certain, and individuals can change, so I think it's wrong to elevate any person to some ideal of endless, trustworthy 'perfection'. However, from early on, an other's honesty (and deceit too) will show itself to an equally honest person. (The easiest man to con is a con artist, and the hardest an honest man, they say). One's many small evasions in not wanting to truly note the flaws in someone else's character is usually the start of a distrusting relationship. So trust has to be important to any rational person. He/she looks to the long term and values his self-confidence, which doubt and distrust in a significant other will diminish. 

Hi Tony:  Thanks for your comments.  I get your point about trust and honesty.  Why I compare trust and faith is that both entail a degree of uncertainty yet they are acted upon.  

So, I wonder what degree of evidence, e.g., behavior, observation, reason, etc., is necessary to form that trust?  Is it the case that the levels or types of evidence necessary are subjective or objective, or is it really a fool's errand to make that determination?

[anthony]

16 hours ago, Mike82ARP said:

Hi Tony:  Thanks for your comments.  I get your point about trust and honesty.  Why I compare trust and faith is that both entail a degree of uncertainty yet they are acted upon.  

So, I wonder what degree of evidence, e.g., behavior, observation, reason, etc., is necessary to form that trust?  Is it the case that the levels or types of evidence necessary are subjective or objective, or is it really a fool's errand to make that determination?

Mike I see I was kinda scattered there and will try to correct, and I warn you it may take a while...

I assume we are on the subject of romantic love? Not simply trust for a friend or business associate?

Well off-topic, but what the heck.

I reckon you agree the old adage is true: trust has to be earned (and both ways). It, the being trusted and the trusting, has also to be built up gradually at its own pace, I think. N. Branden's "visiblity", the corollary of honesty, plays a big part too in this evolution of 'knowing' the reality of an intimate other. To be 'visible' to someone denotes a confidence and esteem in one's self - and for an other. Trust then, is a high compliment to its recipient -  not blind trust granted to just anyone, but earned by your perceived virtues and past experience of you.

To meander some here. I heard many years ago from a much older and wiser man, a basic 'formula' for longevity of love. He told me how it should naturally proceed: Attraction - infatuation - acceptance - respect  - then finally - trust. And it comes with important provisos: that starting from the first, both partners have to mutually experience each stage; no 'stage' can be jumped; both should move on to the next at roughly the same time; and right to the end, the first 'stages' - mutual attraction, infatuation - must be still existing for both (if less dominant with time) all resulting in the end aggregate, mutually trusting love.

I think I took all that lightly back then as much too dogmatic and simplistic. Later and with better experience I began seeing sound sense there. Eg. How often may one feel a petty non-acceptance of a partner's slightly irritating mannerisms or her minor physical imperfections which ludicrously and subjectively almost outweighs her known, admirable qualities? How often do we see a couple marrying in the first flush of attraction and infatuation -that exciting period - but one or both stays stuck there, to the downfall of the marriage? How may one artificially grant an as yet unfounded, premature 'respect' for someone for their outward status - or because he/she is considered by others, important? And those elderly couples still deep in love with each other, how did they do it? So many more instances I notice and have sensed in this vein.

The striking parallel to objectivist methodology occurred to me later. Similarly, my friend's 'system' also takes a sensory - perceptual - conceptual approach. Hierarchical, iow. There are one's hierarchies of both knowledge and values, beginning with 'animal' physicality and growing and integrating more knowledge about the loved one, befitting a full "rational animal". In there is the essential process of induction of the huge number of 'clues' an observant and caring individual accumulates about his loved one. These are inferences one picks up with intimate experience (as much from what a loved one does NOT do  - as for what she does do and say, in a multitude of situations). Unevasively assessing the consistency of her acts compared with what she professes and explicitly stands for, should provide the objective evidence you asked for about forming (earned) trust, I think.

(And the highest "concept" one forms of one's partner (of the "spirit" of her), can instantly be deduced back to the physical actuality she always is).

Excuse the drift, one thing always leads to another and you asked interesting questions.

[Mike82ARP]

21 hours ago, anthony said:

Mike I see I was kinda scattered there and will try to correct, and I warn you it may take a while...

I assume we are on the subject of romantic love? Not simply trust for a friend or business associate?  ...

The striking parallel to objectivist methodology occurred to me later. Similarly, my friend's 'system' also takes a sensory - perceptual - conceptual approach. Hierarchical, iow. There are one's hierarchies of both knowledge and values, beginning with 'animal' physicality and growing and integrating more knowledge about the loved one, befitting a full "rational animal". In there is the essential process of induction of the huge number of 'clues' an observant and caring individual accumulates about his loved one. These are inferences one picks up with intimate experience (as much from what a loved one does NOT do  - as for what she does do and say, in a multitude of situations). Unevasively assessing the consistency of her acts compared with what she professes and explicitly stands for, should provide the objective evidence you asked for about forming (earned) trust, I think.

(And the highest "concept" one forms of one's partner (of the "spirit" of her), can instantly be deduced back to the physical actuality she always is).

Excuse the drift, one thing always leads to another and you asked interesting questions.

I get your point.  Love is a strange thing. My wife and I got engaged after 6 weeks of dating and married 2 1/2 months later.  That was 36 years ago and we remain very close.  My initial inquiry was as to whether we can "know" things. Not objective or tangible things like math, weight, etc., but those things that aren't objectively determined. Then  what degree of knowledge is required for us to act?

To get away from emotion examples, let's say you're driving to work and drive through an several intersections while the light is green.  How can you "know" the drivers on the cross street have stopped for the red light so you don't get broadsided and injured or killed?  While you may be able to "trust" the traffic lights are functioning correctly since the municipality tends to manage the traffic light's function, you can't say that about the drivers since you don't know them and can't vouch for their being sober, that they are paying attention to the traffic lights, or even that their vehicle's brakes are working properly.  Yet you drive through the intersection day after day.  Your action would not be based under "trust" as you or I would define it.  So, is this a case where we act by exercising "faith"?  

[merjet]

28 minutes ago, Mike82ARP said:

Yet you drive through the intersection day after day.  Your action would not be based under "trust" as you or I would define it.  So, is this a case where we act by exercising "faith"?  

It would be "trust" as I would define it and per the 2nd definiens as follows.

- a feeling of confidence in someone that shows you believe they are honest, fair, and reliable 
- confidence that something is safe, reliable, or effective (Macmillan)

A definition of "faith" follows, but I would not use "faith" the first two ways.
- loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person 
- complete confidence in a person or plan etc 
- a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny (WordNet)

[Brant Gaede]

57 minutes ago, Mike82ARP said:

I get your point.  Love is a strange thing. My wife and I got engaged after 6 weeks of dating and married 2 1/2 months later.  That was 36 years ago and we remain very close.  My initial inquiry was as to whether we can "know" things. Not objective or tangible things like math, weight, etc., but those things that aren't objectively determined. Then  what degree of knowledge is required for us to act?

To get away from emotion examples, let's say you're driving to work and drive through an several intersections while the light is green.  How can you "know" the drivers on the cross street have stopped for the red light so you don't get broadsided and injured or killed?  While you may be able to "trust" the traffic lights are functioning correctly since the municipality tends to manage the traffic light's function, you can't say that about the drivers since you don't know them and can't vouch for their being sober, that they are paying attention to the traffic lights, or even that their vehicle's brakes are working properly.  Yet you drive through the intersection day after day.  Your action would not be based under "trust" as you or I would define it.  So, is this a case where we act by exercising "faith"?  

Knowing has varying levels of probability depending on circumstances and past experiences. What you do "know" is that to live (and function) requires human action and risk can only be mitigated, not eliminated. To know or not to know is not the question for you will know or not know and some of what you do/will know just ain't so.

If you are seeking certainty there is always the price of time. Generally, the more certainty the more time. As you go down the roadway in your Abrams tank--how many years of work to afford that?--no longer worrying about being broadsided you now have the luxury of worrying about the A-10 Warthog flying overhead looking for a target. Of course, you could have stayed home or sent out some flunky, but that Warthog (or meteor) . . .

--Brant

disaster circles looking to pounce--that's what disaster does (buy GEICO)

[BaalChatzaf]

On 3/12/2015 at 11:16 AM, moralist said:

 

To know means to be intimate with.

To believe is intellectual masturbation.

It's ok to believe as long as you are aware that it isn't knowing.

Greg

Not at all.  I know that the Moon exists because I have seen it.  But I have not touched it,  been on it,  tasted or smelled it.  You are using "know" in the biblical sense.  And I am sure you believe that your first hand  witness of the world,  by sight, sound, touch,  taste and smell is not an externally imposed delusion or hallucination.  We tend to believe what our eyes tell us,  but it is well know that visual experience can be distorted or unreal in some cases.  I am willing to bet that you believe on day n,  the you will be alive on day n+1.   Most of us do believe so. 

[moralist]

7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 And I am sure you believe that your first hand  witness of the world,  by sight, sound, touch,  taste and smell is not an externally imposed delusion or hallucination.

Yes. That's belief. It's not knowing. Much of life is based on believing without knowing.

Nevertheless I know Divine moral law exists because how my life unfolds is dependent upon how I respond to it in each moment. This has been proven to be true to me by my own direct personal experience many times.

 

Greg