Dear Paul Sir, I go along with Renzo Sir answer ,, because GOD and Faith  with Science is two different dimensions which has a cause and reaction and result in two different opposite ways. Thanks

Thank you Renzo and Dr Tajudeen for getting the discussion going. I wonder if logic might be a plausible tool to test the claim for a God. I think that empirical data on the matter is hard to find. Best wishes Paul

PS I find scientific explanations for Big Bang to be rather vague. That said, Stephen Hawkings, if I am correct, explained something coming from nothing in simple mathematical terms. I dig a hole in the ground . Call the earth removed and relocated +1 and the hole -1. Then add the two number to obtain zero. 

The existence in God of goodness, unity, simplicity, infinity, wisdom, and omnipotence The two fundamental ways to know God are through reason and Revelation. It is how faith and reason work together to help us understand God’s Revelation to us. They are proofs for the existence of God but not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences; rather, they are proofs in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. Aristotle reached the philosophical conclusion that there is one god. He reasoned that God must be eternal and perfect. We can be certain there is a God by using reason to examine the message of creation and the promptings of conscience Four Characteristic about knowledge of God are: Mediate, Natural, universal, Easy to attain.

Yes Kiran. I see your point regarding convincing argumentation. This, I believe, works well when logic plays an important role. Notwithstanding, there are competing claims to different gods, despite what you say regarding Aristotle. How does one adjudicate between these claims? Best Paul

Dear Professor Paul

Great question. It raises many other questions: what is “truth”? Does that mean one’s assuming that there is something above human comprehension, that is attainable to humanity? Is that thing God?

I’ll leave those questions aside and try to add something to this discussion.

I think one could assess different claims to truth according to one’s project and intentions. According to that inference, and paraphrasing Renzo, one can’t make a plane fly based on religious knowledge. On the other hand, one can’t “elevate” scientific (i.e., physics, mathematics, etc) or religious knowledge to anything. They’ve different objectives and ways of expression, and comparing them doesn’t lead to any conclusion — other than that they’re both human made (I believe in God, but admit that there’s a big piece of human knowledge in religious beliefs and practice).

So, I believe in something that helps me put my projects in action, until I feel it isn’t contributing to deal with my needs. If my project is building an airplane, I’ll try and use physics and engineering knowledge. When I’m flying that airplane I could be praying to God so that it doesn’t crash, because I can’t predict if it will work perfectly and withstand every difficulty it runs in while flying.

Both science and religion can’t explain and predict everything, but they’re both valid, in accordance with one's needs.

Best wishes,

Valdemar

My simple answer would be no. Faith means faith, not verifiable knowledge.

As to basing knowledge on solid arguments, that can only go so far. Arguments are only as good as the basis upon which they are built. So for example, arguments led to the belief that there are four elements. Arguments led to the belief that this planet was the center of the universe. Arguments alone have a nasty habit of becoming circular, feeding on themselves, so ultimately becoming invalid.

As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with knowledge evolving, growing and changing as discoveries are made. The problem with religion is that for the most part, it wants to prevent this evolution of knowledge. In fact, of course, at least some religions do evolve, if ever so slowly. Which is why my answer is no.

Dear Valdemar and Albert. Many thanks for your intriguing and stimulating thoughts. Yes, the issue of truthworthy argumentation is key.

For all that, logic offers, I believe, an optimal summit on which to debate issues concerning the adjudication of competing claims to truth, scientific or otherwise. Google, If I may suggest, Bertrand Russell versus Copleston SJ,  for a live but 'ancient' radio broadcast regarding what I think is an exemplary case of Empiricism versus Logic - not on the basis of valid or less valid ways of knowing - but rather on how each perspective addresses the God debate. Best wishes Paul

A lot depends on how we operationalize "knowing." By that what I mean is that it is deeply useful to consider the actual experiential processes underlying what we call "knowing something." A good illustration is provided by examining meditative procedures. Experiential "empiricism" meets spiritual "faith" in, for instance, what Western contemplative traditions sometimes speak of as practicing "unknowing" and Eastern (viz., Zen Buddhist) traditions call "non-thinking" or the experience of "no mind." 

The experiential processes involved in the practice of Western contemplation and Buddhist zazen both entail cultivating and allowing "other ways" of knowing that are apart from, and generally more simple and fundamental than, discursive conceptual thought. A Christian like the 14th century anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing will speak ultimately of "coming to rest in a naked, blind feeling of being" as both the most basic experiencing possible and simultaneously a deeply spiritual and ultimately revelatory realization. Similarly, a Zen teacher like Dōgen will offer instructions for the practice of "suchness" as cultivating an intimacy with the most matter-of-factly profound truth of experiencing that occurs before we even conceptualize a sense of egoic agency having or "owning" that experiencing. And, again, practitioners of that "just sitting" mode of Buddhist meditative process uncover thereby the experiential foundation of their religiousness -- a worth and wonder too simple for words or constructed concepts.

There are some who understand by "faith" precisely that sort of unconceited openness to experience. And of course there are some who understand by such experience a quintessentially empirical activity. Given that those meditative procedures are eminently verifiable, by our straightforward opportunity to practice them and see for ourselves, they offer an immediate recourse to "assess" their "claims" -- but the framework of course is a bit shifted at this point, since the statements made to portray and communicate meditative experience are not so much "claims" as they are descriptions (though admittedly such experiential descriptions will often be marked by a poetic or paradoxical quality, given that the relationship to linguistic process is different for experiences that are uncovered quite literally "before words").

(A fascinating and touching illustration of some of these points is provided in the RadioLab episode, "Unraveling Bolero," which speaks of enhanced artistic function manifesting in some persons who have fronto-temporal dementia -- as such individuals lose their linguistic functioning, it is not uncommon for them to exhibit a period of greater artistic production, as in effect another way of "knowing," or at least another way of processing, phenomenal experience.)

http://www.radiolab.org/story/217340-unraveling-bolero/

Thank you David. You have really got me thinking with this illuminating reply. I connect with the notion of other ways of knowing but have been socialized in my professional life to trust only in empirical data; and in logic. This is why St Thomas in a strange kind of, indeed inexplicable way, gives me strength. All best wishes, Paul

The answer to this question depends upon what we mean by "closer to truth". Science defines "closer to truth" in terms of empirical verifiability, which makes sense because that is science's bailiwick. In this context, philosophy would argue that "closer to truth" means provable by sound arguments. Religion asserts that its scriptures embody the truth, and so exegesis is its method for assessing a proposition's the proximity to truth. While each discipline is a "way of knowing", science and philosophy provide mechanisms for disproving elements of their core bodies of knowledge, while religion does not. Religion can only determine where a given proposition is on the orthodoxy/heresy scale.

Faith is not a form of knowledge. Belief is a form of knowledge.Many people thnk they are the same.

The term epistemology is very balanced and wide in nature and belongs to the knowledge of any kind. If we are using the terms like 'knowledge' and 'Truth' in absolute, universal and all pervasive sense, we are going nowhere.

Yes Anurag, faith is a form of knowledge but it is a different form of knowledge to the privileged ivory tower of science. Best, Paul PS. I still believe /have faith in good science though

Faith and beliefs, not nec ssarily restricted to delusion,  is certainly an individual way of knowing and relating oneself with the world. Such a faith or beliefs may be shared in ways that overlap among individuals, with or  without they  being same in how they manifesting cognitive or behavioral fields. Faith is a mode of knowing and being and is independent of how I might be described. 

If "faith" means belief without proof, calling it "knowledge" is a misuse of words even if the belief happens to be true.  One knows only those beliefs for which one has proof of truth. What is truth?  "If one says of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, one says what is true,"  Aristotle.

I would consider faith to be a way of being. Noesis is a form of knowing that is called "revelation" in many religious traditions. Not only are there various ways of knowing, but there are various kinds (objects) of knowledge. Knowing what is feels like to be loved is a very different thing from knowing the Pythagorean theorem, or the postulates of Quantum Physics of Relativity, and these different objects of knowledge require different ways of knowing, including sense knowledge, knowledge gained by being taught by others (actually, this is a form of faith), direct experience, and others. Faith is often involved in the experience of noesis, revelation, or direct perception (different names for the same way of knowing), but is not a pre-requisite. In Christian theology, knowing God (borrowing from the Hebrew sense of "knowing") is experiential and above all, relational, and does require faith. So your question opens into a wide area of study!

Many thanks for your insightful critique Richard. Like you I believe that there are differers ways of knowing. However, in Western culture science appears to be the most privileged discourse. But then this is to  position it in a league table, when sometimes different only signifies not the same. Best Paul

Good to read your thoughts, Paul. I would like to point out that there is a vast difference between science and scientism. Much that passes for science is actually scientism, which entails a blind belief in whatever the adherent considers to be science. Scientism is not itself scientific, since it commonly includes the practice of ignoring all data that does not fit into its preconceived notions. In the US, scientism is not found so often in true scientists as among the press, "debunkers", and some educators. The relatively recent book Beyond Physicalism offers valuable discussion, and its

600+ pages are well worth the read!

Thank you both Renzo and Richard. Yes, Renzo, I agree that science is best placed to know scientific facts. My query, and this relates to your insightful comment Richard, I wonder if there are different ways of knowing. Consider in that regard, logic. I do not believe that science is gifted to be the only discipline that owns that form of argumentation. Best wishes, Paul

Hello Paul, There's a lot of stuff written on the theme of your question. 98% is crap, but 2% is good, and some of that tends to an affirmative answer. Serious discussion of your question requires a lot of thought and argument; don't look for cheap answers. I am attaching two papers (if they will attach) - not by myself - that can give you a handle on some of the people and some of the literature.

Many thanks indeed Mikael. Best wishes Paul

Yes, both attachments are received Mikael and they make for fascinating reading. Paul

Hello Paul. Thanks for initiating this insightful discussion. I was concerned with the topic as I did research on traditional and modern medicine in Africa. My conclusion is, that in fact there are different ways of knowing. If you look at how knowledge is derived form praxis and practices are designed according to knowledge it is especially important to analyse reasoning. It is possible to compare epistemes according to which forms of reasoning are regarded to be valid ways of inferring. If you do so you see what status knowledge bears and also why different epistemes often conflict.

Hello back Klaus, and thank you for continuing this discussion in such a sophisticated manner. I have a question. Is it possible to adjudicate between different claims to truth, namely, as you put it, between different epistemes? If yes, how might one do so in the context of a belief in God?

Best wishes, Paul

Hi Paul. Thank you for your interest. I think this depends on what you expect from God. It is never just that he exists? Or an other example. Does 'Nature' exist? Is nature the origin of all life? If your ideas would be restricted to only these points you could exchange 'God' and 'Nature'. My point is that it is essential how you frame the terms and what practical consequences you expect from what you name 'God' or 'Nature'. In this respect I am fully a pragmatist.

E.g. healers expect their ancestors to provide information about their clients. During the consultation ritual they in fact experience that they receive intuitive ideas. There is undoubtedly a source of this intuition which other might perhaps call 'creativity'. But even creativity is not something which is clearly understood by sciences. We can thus only adjudicate by asking further questions. With ideas derived by means of creativity we would not assume that they will definitely capture a clients health status. In modern thinking creativity is thus the better word for the source where intuition comes from. However, this assumes that healers think their spiritual intuitions always are true in the sense that they really cover a patients health status. I found the latter not being true. The information provided by the ancestors by no means are regarded to always be true, as ancestors are not regarded to be all-knowing. On the other hand, believing in the ancestors and practising rituals is a very effective way to produce intuition, probably much better than any program to enhance creativity.

So, do the ancestors exist?

Hello again Paul, It may be worth your while to consider the epistemological ramifications of Benny Shanon's work on "Biblical Entheogens" (hallucinogens). That Shanon's work could have serious epistemological ramifications will, of course, be pooh-poohed by many, but his own reflections are serious, intelligent, and worth considering. This article provides a starting point, but doesn't raise the serious epistemological questions:  http://catbull.com/alamut/Bibliothek/7616docid6743.pdf However, his book gives extensive indications: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Antipodes-Mind-Phenomenology-Ayahuasca-Experience/dp/0199252939/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460373179&sr=1-1&keywords=antipodes+of+the+mind  Benny Shanon is not some weirdo religious dabbler, but a serious, and perceptive, cognitive psychologist. His reflections are, of course, not only speculative, but "outside the box"; nonetheless, he provides a welter of empirical phenomena material to thge consideration of "alternative epistemes". Best wishes, Mikael

If we know a truth  then you refresh your memory with Aristotle's categorizations:-

1 Skill: Knowing by doing.

2 science: Knowing by demonstration

3 Practical reasoning: Knowing by reasoning through various reasoning possible answers.

4 intuitions: Knowing without the demonstration of invariable facts.

We can think of religious faith as a kind of intuition, a way of knowing the truth without its being demonstrated in logic or facts. I want you at least to consider that truth derived from faith is not a lesser kind of knowledge because of this.

I strongly recommend reading both Physics as Metaphor by Roger Jones and Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality by Kelley, Crabtree, et al as a way to help distinguish between knowledge and mere metaphorical structuring of percepts. Many of the things we, including physicists such as myself, think we know, turn out upon careful analysis to be no more than blind acceptance ("Idolization", in Barfield's words) of metaphors of our own minds' construction. The concept, of course, goes back to Bacon's Novum Organum and its four idols, but it still insufficiently considered today, hundreds of years after Bacon. It is difficult if not impossible to think usefully about knowledge without first distinguishing knowledge from habit and opinion. Once we so distinguish, we are likely to find that many things we thought we knew are not actual knowledge at all, in which case thinking about what is and what is not a kind of knowledge may turn out to be very superficial. As an example, consider the question, "what is matter". If you think you can answer this , you just may not understand the question.

Many thanks for such an exceptionally erudite reply. Best Paul

Let us not confuse different senses of the word 'know' with different ways of knowing or that with different kinds of knowledge.  If we do, we get category mistakes and confusion.

Renzo. Sorry for the confusion and thank you for your question. I mean, Can faith be considered a legitimate way of knowing what is true? Conversely, one might claim that truth can only be known/found through empiricism or mathematical logic. Best, Paul

Religious knowledge thrives on experience and belief which science tends not to accept because it considers them not empirical or verifiable truths. Religious experience or belief is relative and so in our postmodern world some reject their absolutism. But from the religious perspective while reason may help in the search of truth it is not the ultimate tool, rather belief and experience count very much.

Why would anyone want to confuse the two?  Isn't faith good enough?  

It is Pierce who established abduction as a basic sort of inference mandatory in all thinking and sciences, as it is necessary to bring up new ideas.

“Deduction proves that something must be; Induction shows that something actually is operative; Abduction merely suggests that something may be“ (Peirce 1992: 5.171). Simultaneously, he recognized that abduction is essential for scientific thinking to progress and not come to a standstill. “Abduction is the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis. It is the only logical operation which introduces any new idea; for induction does nothing but determine a value, and deduction merely evolves the necessary consequences of a pure hypothesis” (Peirce 1992: 4.171).

It is important to recognise that abduction cannot be processed deliberately but happens unintentionally. It happens best in a state of musing which is a casual, relaxed, and playful condition of the mind which ideally does not start with a particular goal or purpose. Musing begins with ‘drinking into’ a state of consciousness where impressions arise and associations creatively emerge (Pierce 1992: 6459). States of consciousness in which ideas might arise intuitively promote abduction. Abduction happens overwhelmingly when „the abductive suggestion comes to us like a flash. It is an act of insight, although of extremely fallible insight. It is true that the different elements of the hypothesis were in our minds before; but it is the idea of putting together what we had never before dreamed of putting together which flashes the new suggestion before our contemplation“ (Peirce 1992: 5.181.).

However, where do these ideas or insights come from. While religious or spiritual traditions see such insights mainly as deriving from spirits (e.g. ancestors) or gods, modern science see such ideas deriving from the personal creativity of the researcher. The latter at least is extremely hedonistic because what is creativity??? There is actually no comprehensive explanation about what creativity is and where it comes from but modern man regards himself as the source of new knowledge. Especially when new ideas bear the potential for constituting new scientific theories it results in a genius-cult, and it becomes the highest goal for scientists to enter the olympus of geniuses.

Richard and Claus. Many thanks for illuminating replies. In the famous BBC Radio debate between Father Coppleston SJ and Bertrand Russel on the Is there a God? question, my understanding of the consensus listener opinion - but correct me if I am wrong - is that Coppleston´s contingency logic trumped Russel´s empiricism. Paul. The celebrated radio event is downloadable on google. 

Many thanks for the download site, Susan.

Paul

Perhaps if you can clearly define what you mean when you say "know"

The answers about "knowing" get at the root of the problem.  the two wise men discussing what the earth is resting upon:  the first says, "it's resting on the back of an elephant".  the second says: "what's the elephant standing on?"  the first replies: "on the back of a giant turtle."  The second asks: "what's the turtle standing on?"  The first replies: "it's turtles all the way down!".  Knowing is a relational thing. And as such, its perceived deductive strength will depend upon the shape of the relationship between the knower and what is to be known.  Am I even making sense?