Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
Actually, knowledge is a belief. Specifically, it is a justifiable, true belief.
Let's say, for example, you're a theist gnostic (I realize you don't describe yourself as such, but this is for the sake of argument). You might tell me that you know a god exists, based on personal experiences. You might even tell me what those experiences are (your justification). However, I do not know that God exists, because I don't have any experiences that prove God to be true. I can't describe whether your belief is true or not, only that it is certain. So the best I can do is say that you're certain that God exists.
Now, let's say you meet a gnostic atheist, and he says he knows that God does not exist. To your perspective, this is impossible. One of you is wrong, you can't both 'know' your differing perspectives. It becomes impossible, then to have gnostic theists and gnostic atheists. But it is possible for you both to be certain of your beliefs. So we talk about these questions in terms of certainty rather than knowledge. Otherwise, the debate would be impossible.
|
Yes, the best you can do is say that I am certain which is second hand but if I could say, show you what I experience than you would also know and thus be a gnostic theist. I dislike these labels though as they are something made up by our minds and is not the way I understand this god, energy, etc. or as the Jews say about the name of YHWH, the unspeakable, and yes the debate is impossible which may make some uneasy but I don't want to do that. What I practise is very peaceful.