txaq007's Inescapable Error

[Kripke]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be normal to define a mathematical certainty as something that can be proved mathematically; so no unless you cheat.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, mathematical certainty is something that can be proven mathematically. And something which can be mathematically proven is thus a mathematical certainty.

As you can see, Piers, you are merely restating David's stipulation. If this indeed is what David has in mind we are left with just a definitional disagreement. But that definition seems clearly wrong. That would entail that e.g. Fermat's theorem was not a mathematical certainty 50 years ago, but that it is a mathematical certainty now.

Obviously, this is not the case.

- Kripke

[RJT]

Bluff,

You are basically correct. The problem is that David never goes on to state any relevance to his theory (that since scientists are smarter than most and are thus more often right than most then they are probably correct about Christianity being false).

Probability speaking he is probably correct.

You are correct too when you say as you basically say here “So what? That is: because they are usually correct it doesn’t mean they are always correct. If they aren’t always correct then this theory should have little relevance to one’s life and beliefs systems.

I ask the question posted here earlier. 40 % of scientist believe in a God. What are the standards for following his basic theory? If over 50% of scientists believe something then we should go that route too? Or is the standard some arbitrary percentage that he makes up out of whole cloth?

David can’t be disagreed with because he comes to no conclusion.

Furthermore this also does not take into account my earlier point - that without knowing the percentage of scientist that have a clue about religions to begin with, especially Christianity, his theory is that much more moot.

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Geeting closer but I think you are exploiting a looseness in the language rather than addresing the point in context."

I really don't think so. In retrospect and on second thought, I actually find the phrasing 'mathematical certainty' to be most surely a non-epistemic term.

Clearly, if someone asks 'is that a mathematical certainty?' they are not asking whether someone can be entirely sure of that - rather they are asking whether it could turn out to be false?

- Kripke

[/ QUOTE ]

fine but if they ask if someone is certain a mathematical theorem is true then it means something different.

Looking at DS's very short post in isolation might persuade you towards your interpretation but in the context of two long threads about certainty of beliefs it might look a bit different.

Does it really matter? do you and I disagree on anything here other than how we are interpreting the question?

chez

[Kripke]

Im not sure [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

- Kripke

[Lestat]

I cannot seem to come up with any arguments that hold water with respect to smart people Vs. average people. So higher intelligence = greater chance of success or accuracy in any catagory. I guess the only point I was able to make is that this isn't "always" the case. Not enough. I must be wrong and I'm done this subject.

[ QUOTE ]
First of all faith isn't 100% certain,

[/ QUOTE ]Faith is complete trust in that which cannot be proven. Complete = 100%. In regards to Faith (that with the capital "F") there is no doubt in the believer's mind -- he is 100% certain. Again, the inability to prove Faith is an intrinsic quality of Christianity. With proof it would be something very different; Christians, I imagine, would say it would be something of far less value.

[ QUOTE ]
But that definition seems clearly wrong. That would entail that e.g. Fermat's theorem was not a mathematical certainty 50 years ago, but that it is a mathematical certainty now.

Obviously, this is not the case.

- Kripke

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops, there's a catch. He said "can be proven" not "has been proven". Fermat's Theorem obviously can be proven, and that was always the case. It just wasn't proven until recently. Thus, until recently, we didn't know if it was a certainty because we diodn't know if it could be proven.

I don't know why you're making a big stink about this. It's not so hard to admit that "certainty" (i.e., 100% true) requires proof, is it? You've gone so far as to propose hypotheses as counterevidence, but a "hypothesis" is obviously not a certainty or it wouldn't still be called a hypothesis, now would it?

Now you may return to your quibbling about the definition of "certainty".

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
That would entail that e.g. Fermat's theorem was not a mathematical certainty 50 years ago, but that it is a mathematical certainty now.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
the use of certainty as regards mathematical proof, and the use of certainty in describing human feelings are too different definitions of the word. If you treat them as one you just confuse yourself,

[/ QUOTE ]

Mathematicians were not certain of Fermat’s theorem until recently, however it has always been a mathematical certainty.

[ QUOTE ]
we are left with just a definitional disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually the answer with these sorts of arguments.

[Macedon]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't deny that there is a psychological factor involved with coming to Christ. When you accept Christ, it is more than just accepting a new belief system. The Holy Spirit enters your life and fills an emotional void. I think it is something that cannot be adequately explained to those who have never experienced it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's my question: Why does it seem, more often than not, that those who have embraced religion with this type of seriousness have often experienced an emotional/happiness-void in their lives?

What is it about unhappiness and religion? And if more people were happy [to begin with] would there be less religiousity in the world?

Could the issues of religion/beliefs/faith be better understood if we had a stronger grasp of human psychology?

IMO all of this talk about logic and scientific evidence misses the point. We humans were clearly not given the proper tools (brains) to truly understand anything (including our own beliefs) without a heavy dose of skepticism.

[andyfox]

Actually, flat earth is a good example, but in a different way: it is a myth that both intelligent and less intelligent people felt the earth was flat.

With extraordinarily few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.

A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters, by the time of Eratosthenes, followed by Strabo and Ptolemy, the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.

Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by taking passages from the Bible as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. No educated person believed otherwise.

Historians of science have been proving this point for at least 70 years (most recently Edward Grant, David Lindberg, Daniel Woodward, and Robert S. Westman).