Awesome post, Zeichner.

"What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" One thing this question instantly brings to my mind is uncertainty. I cannot prove it, but I believe that no belief can ever be determined to be absolutely true or false. I believe I will never have true knowledge. One can stack evidence on either side of a proposition (for or against), but being limited by evidence means that any new and opposing evidence or any misused evidence would undermine a belief. To have true knowledge one would have to be absolutely certain of evidence and absolutely certain that there is no opposing evidence. I don't believe this will ever be the case, as you mentioned, we are an insignificant speck of sand in a vast desert. To claim absolute knowledge of the entire desert as it relates to a proposition is ludicrous.

To your comment on religous/non-religious believers: I think it is not rational to claim that there is, for a fact, the supernatural or not the supernatural. Like I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I don't believe we can ever have true knowledge. However, taking sides based on evidence is rational. I am not agnostic to whether I'm really typing at my keyboard right now or I am hooked up to a virtual reality simulator in a scientist's lab. Even though it cannot be known certain either way, the evidence points to me typing at a keyboard, so I believe I am typing at a keyboard. I think the same can be said about the supernatural. If one truly has no evidence in either direction, than a strictly agnostic belief is the best way to go. However, if there is evidence to believe one way or another, I think it is best to believe in what the evidence points to. Many people believe they have seen god, felt his spirit, etc; to these people I think a belief in god is absolutely rational. They have evidence.

Zeichner1 wrote:As for your second comment "However, if there is evidence to believe one way or another, I think it is best to believe in what the evidence points to. Many people believe they have seen god, felt his spirit, etc; to these people I think a belief in god is absolutely rational. They have evidence." I find this to be a very interesting stance on the matter and cannot help but agree to what you have said to some extent. I must question however, what you say do you refer to actual belief or to acceptance? I would take a stance where I agreed that indeed it is rational to, by all means, accept what evidence most points to. ie, 1 + 1 = 2. Based on human understanding of concepts and the invention of mathematics. I would accept that the answer to the question was indeed 2, based on mathematical proof in relation to human understanding. However as mathematics itself is a man made concept, true belief may quite possibly remain unjustified, whereas one could easily accept this claim. Whether one truly believe something may be a different matter entirely to the rationality of accepting it.

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the ideas you are attempting to convey in this section of your response. This sentence is especially troublesome "I must question however, what you say do you refer to actual belief or to acceptance?"

I am guessing you could be asking about the validity of evidence. I obviously don't believe that people have really experienced god if I believe there is no god. I believe their evidence is false evidence, much like they believe my evidence is false evidence. There can't be both a god and no god. This is the law of noncontradiction: something either is or is not--but not both.

So if evidence points to god and evidence points away from god, one of the pieces of evidence is being misused or is false evidence.

Am I on the right track? Again, I was having trouble understanding what you were getting at.

Zeichner1 wrote: I was attempting to suggest that it may be more rational to accept that which evidence points to, not necessarily believe in it. ie, One can accept a proposition based on evidence regardless of whether or not they believe in it.

Mmm, Zeichner, I think you and I may have different definitions of belief or acceptance which is why this misunderstanding is occurring. According to my definition of these terms, if I accept something to be true than I believe in it. I can't accept that God exists and then believe he doesn't exist. If I accept a proposition, I believe it to be true. If I deny a proposition, I believe it to be false.

Should true belief not be saved for that which absolute conclusion exists? As you said, conclusion is only legitimate when no opposition or doubt can exist for its evidence.

Yes, true belief should be saved for that which is absolutely certain. True belief is called knowledge. If you believe something to be true, and you are correct that it is true, then you have knowledge. If you believe something to be true, and you are wrong that it is true, then you wrongly believe.

However, I believe there is no absolute certainty. I believe all claims to knowledge are really just beliefs. I don't believe anyone has "knowledge" in the dictionary sense of certainly true belief. All propositions can be doubted. Even this last sentence can be doubted. Can all propositions really be doubted? Maybe one day there will be a proposition that is absolutely irrefutable. I posit this as knowledge--I present it as fact, but in reality I am saying "I believe that all propositions can be doubted."

-- Updated June 15th, 2012, 11:45 pm to add the following --

My comments on true belief being knowledge is wrong. Philosophers have different requirements of what knowledge is, and true belief isn't a common view. Justified true belief is, but even it has it's flaws. The rest of what I said still follows, just not what I said about knowledge in the first paragraph after the second quote.