New answers tagged

2

I'll say up front that it is foolish to enter this particular debate without acknowledging that almost all lines of argument therein are deeply and inherently prejudicial. People like Hitchens are not neutral, curious philosophers seeking out deeper understanding; they are pundits with a definite political agenda, largely incapable of working with (much less ...


1

TLDR: 1 yes, unsupported assumptions are necessary to establish knowledge. 2 this is not "faith" as the word is usually used in religious debates. What you are describing here is the Munchausen trilemma, the idea that in order to prove anything, to justify any knowledge, our set of proofs must be either: circular infinite (a case you don't mention,...


0

The main point to take into account is that belief and faith are psychological conditions. Belief is more or less certain and many of our beliefs are very uncertain, in particular because they are revisable. I believe, without being certain, that my neighbour is an honest fellow, but I wouldn't be too surprised if I learned that he didn't declare all his ...


-1

Yes, they are. But that is also irrelevant. Belief is when you assume something about reality, then you have a belief about reality Knowledge is when that belief can shown to be correct, through evidence Faith is when that belief has no evidence, but you still keep trusting it to be accurate. Side note... However, is it even possible to believe in ...


1

The answer above does not take a philosophical approach, so I'll try. In this context, it seems to me that in the case of Did Hitchens personally research the Big Bang? what you should be thinking about is that has the evidence for that belief has been accumulated in a scientific fashion? That meaning, whether the evidence went through the scientific method ...


Top 50 recent answers are included