Logic of the Afterlife

"In other words, are you still certain that no such creature could exist anywhere else in the universe?"

Fine, Bill. If you're going to throw the whole universe at it, fine. There is no way to to know every condition in every corner of the universe. The problem with that is some people will then want to draw some unknown condition into the known, making the existence of a unicorn plausible, when it simply isn't!

I don't follow you, Teresa. Could you give me an example? Why would the mere possibility of a strange looking animal somewhere else in the universe cause people to "draw some unknown condition into the known," thereby making the animal's existence plausible?

- Bill

Post 41

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 3:58pm

"I don't follow you, Teresa. Could you give me an example? Why would the mere possibility of a strange looking animal somewhere else in the universe cause people to "draw some unknown condition into the known," thereby making the animal's existence plausible?"

I said:

The problem with that is some people will then want to draw some unknown condition into the known, making the existence of a unicorn plausible, when it simply isn't!

I meant, "in an attempt to make the existence of a unicorn plausible when it simply isn't."

Isn't that the reason we still have a God hanging around in the heads of so many millions?

Crack that door of uncertainty open, and gods start popping out!

Post 42

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 5:04pm

To be certain is to assert a fact, not a belief.

I don't agree. For one thing, assertion is not necessary. You can be certain in the privacy of your own mind. And there's a big difference between the sort of certainty that a fact has and the sort of certainty that a person has in something. Something that is certain is a fact. Someone who is certain of something is 100% sure, but what that person is certain of could be untrue. As long as a person is 100% sure, they are certain. Facts are not required. Of course, one can also be certain of things that are supported by evidence, proven by evidence, or true by definition. But if one has any doubts, one is not certain. Certainty has no gradations (although people abuse the word quite often by saying things like "90% certain").

Can you see where equivocation is causing a problem and conflict?

Should I be offended? Are you using "equivocation" to mean "lying"? Words can be slippery things. And whipping out a dictionary doesn't necessarily settle differences. There are good dictionaries, crappy dictionaries, and language constantly evolves.

Sure, you can try and make certainty mean something other than what it does, but that isn't an effective method of argument, or of discovering truth.

I agree. I don't think I'm misusing, twisting, or redefining the word at all.

Post 43

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 5:37pm

In Post 24, Linda replied,
Personally, while I agree with you, Teresa, I would not use the word "know". I would say "I'm certain". Because you don't actually know this, at least not as I use the word "know".
Later, in Post 28, she explained her meaning as follows: "To me, certainty is more like belief than it is like knowledge. I'm certain that my father-in-law voted for McCain because of things he has said to me, but I don't know that he did."

Oh, I see. You're using the word "certain" to be mean the same thing as "pretty sure." I'm pretty sure my father-in-law voted for McCain, but I don't know for a fact that he did."

No, I'm 100%. Certainty has no gradations. If I weren't certain, I'd use a different word.

But by "certain," we (Objectivists) don't simply mean pretty sure. We mean absolutely certain. You wouldn't say that you're "absolutely certain that your father-in-law voted for McCain, but that you nevertheless don't know that he did," would you?

Sure I would. Why not? My certainty is a subjective thing. It doesn't require proof or even evidence. I could be certain that my father-in-law cast his vote and then flew home by flapping a sample ballot in each hand. I don't have to have any evidence for something in order to be certain of it.

Equating certainty with knowledge is also the generally accepted philosophical meaning of "certain."

I find that very surprising -- and disappointing if it's true.

As they use the term "certain," philosophers (and not just Objectivists) imply a claim to knowledge. If I claim certainty that it's going to rain tomorrow, I'm claiming to know that it's going to rain tomorrow.

I can't go along with that. You seem to me to be blurring two uses of "certain". If I say that it is certain to rain tomorrow, yes, I'm claiming knowledge. But if I say that I am certain that it will rain tomorrow, that's an entirely different statement, and it does not claim knowledge. It's a statement of belief.

If I were not willing to claim that I know it's going to rain, then I wouldn't say that I'm certain of it. At best, I'd say I'm 99% certain, or that there is a 99% probability of rain. Certainty is 100% probability.

No, my certainty is all about me. It says nothing about the state of the atmosphere. You seem to be saying that if I'm not certain in the morning, but an increase in clouds brings me around to certainty by the evening, I've just changed tomorrow's weather! Now that's just plain silly. ;-)

Post 44

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 5:38pm

Sunday brain, huh - sounds like the suffering sucatash I often see around here on weekends...;-)
welcome to the forum, Linda...

Thanks, Robert! :-)

Post 45

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 5:56pm

A major part of this "certainty' problem is that in the history of philosophy, from Socrates on, "...all is considered belief, and knowledge is belief with certainty..."... and it is from this, bourne more of ignorance of the nature of knowledge acquiring, that we have now these two concepts in the same word - certainty... but yes, certainty does stem from knowing, and knowing stems from reason, the "...faculty that perceives, identifies, and integrates the materials provided by our senses..."... belief, on the other hand, is, bluntly, wishfulness - a desiring of things to be in spite or lack of evidence, or in contraryness of evidence, where there may be shades or degrees of statistical possibilities...

Post 46

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 6:26pm

Linda, could you fill out your extended profile? You don't have to answer any questions you don't want, but it helps us get to know you. Thanks.

Post 47

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 6:45pm

No, my certainty is all about me.

I don't even know where to start....

Wow.

Of what value is this kind of "certainty?" What's the payoff for you?

Post 48

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 7:20pm

I don't agree. For one thing, assertion is not necessary. You can be certain in the privacy of your own mind. And there's a big difference between the sort of certainty that a fact has and the sort of certainty that a person has in something. Something that is certain is a fact. Someone who is certain of something is 100% sure, but what that person is certain of could be untrue. As long as a person is 100% sure, they are certain. Facts are not required. Of course, one can also be certain of things that are supported by evidence, proven by evidence, or true by definition. But if one has any doubts, one is not certain. Certainty has no gradations (although people abuse the word quite often by saying things like "90% certain").

I've had this argument before.

If you're going to call the integrity of a dictionary, as well as the consensus of scholars into question, and then claim "certainty" on the chaotic mess of a lunatic mind, (because facts aren't required) what is there to discuss?

I don't agree. For one thing, assertion is not necessary.

Oh, and to tell even yourself something is to make an assertion.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 11/16, 7:21pm)

Post 49

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 7:57pm

No, my certainty is all about me.
I don't even know where to start....

Wow.

Yeah, I know that sounded creepy, but it was just another way of saying what I'd said before. Certainty of the sort found in the phrase "I'm certain that" is subjective, like belief. Certainty of the sort found in the phrase "it is certain that" is not.

Of what value is this kind of "certainty?" What's the payoff for you?

Your questions make no sense to me. I'm sorry.

Post 50

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 8:17pm

If you're going to call the integrity of a dictionary, as well as the consensus of scholars into question, and then claim "certainty" on the chaotic mess of a lunatic mind, (because facts aren't required) what is there to discuss?

I don't think dictionaries are useless, but I think one must keep their limitations in mind. I like the OED pretty well; the historical perspective it provides can be very useful.

certain, adj.
Of persons: Fully confident upon the ground of knowledge or other evidence believed to be infallible; having no doubt; assured; sure (= �subjectively certain�).

However, the example section that follows quotes someone (among others) who is clearly not in agreement with that definition.

1679 PENN Addr. Prot. II. 146 A man can never be Certain of that, about which he has not the Liberty of Examining, Understanding, or Judging: Confident (I confess) he may be; but that's quite another thing than being Certain.

:-)

Post 51

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 8:45pm

Linda said, "If I say that it is certain to rain tomorrow, yes, I'm claiming knowledge. But if I say that I am certain that it will rain tomorrow, that's an entirely different statement, and it does not claim knowledge. It's a statement of belief."

Aren't the following statements really the same?

"It is certain to rain tomorrow."
"I'm certain it will rain tomorrow."
"That it will rain tomorrow is a true piece of knowledge that I believe in without any doubt."

Isn't certainty always about confidence in some understanding? The difference is an attempt to put the certainty out into reality, but certainty is always a mental state. Sometimes it is word-smithing to make a stronger argument, other times it is telling the listener that there is no reason to have a doubt, but that is still a statement about confidence. Certainty doesn't reside, as an intrinsic property in a tomorrow's rain - only in our understanding.
----------

I use the word understanding, because I can't, in my mind, separate 'belief' and 'knowledge' the way Linda did.

If I 'know' it will rain tomorrow, is that significantly different from a 'belief' it will rain tomorrow? One can always say, 'probably rain,' or 'certainly rain,' or say, I know it will rain, if that cold front gets closer. We all know that a belief can be wrong, and I believe that what I know today may prove to be wrong tomorrow - however, I'm fairly certain it won't :-)

Post 52

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 9:57pm

I think I see what Linda is saying, even if she isn't saying it as clearly or as unequivocally as we would like.

She's saying that a person can BE certain (i.e., have no doubt in his own mind) that there is an afterlife, without KNOWING that there is an afterlife (because, of course, there is no afterlife). With that I would certainly agree.

But what we're saying, Linda, is that he can't CLAIM certainty that there is an afterlife without (implicitly) CLAIMING to know that there is, even if his claim happens to be false.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 11/16, 9:58pm)

Post 53

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 5:06am

Linda,

Welcome to RoR. I didn't read your posts until now so this is belated ...

I maintain that I don't know the answer to that question even if I'm certain that the answer is no. How can that be illogical?

The only way that that can be illogical is for you to say that you are philosophically certain while, at the same time, not knowing.

For instance, I'm philosophically certain that you won't ever roll a 13 from two normal dice. It's because of the identity of dice and the causality involved in rolling them. This epistemological position of mine (about the dice) is not merely my conscious and willful mental assent beyond a reasonable doubt -- as they sometimes use as a benchmark in deciding court cases, when they say proof beyond reasonable doubt. It's stronger than that. It's unshakable.

Here is my essay on the two kinds of certainty that are possible for us to experience:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Thompson/Human_Certainty_The_only_kind_there_is.shtml

Ed

Post 54

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 8:00am

Aren't the following statements really the same?
"It is certain to rain tomorrow."
"I'm certain it will rain tomorrow."
"That it will rain tomorrow is a true piece of knowledge that I believe in without any doubt."

Not at all. They might all occur in the same situation -- someone who is certain is likely to say that it is certain as well -- but that doesn't mean that the different statements communicate the same ideas.

Isn't certainty always about confidence in some understanding?

Yes.

The difference is an attempt to put the certainty out into reality, but certainty is always a mental state.

I disagree. To say "it is certain" is not the same as to say "I am certain". I feel as if I've typed that a dozen times now.

Sometimes it is word-smithing to make a stronger argument,

What does that mean?

other times it is telling the listener that there is no reason to have a doubt, but that is still a statement about confidence. Certainty doesn't reside, as an intrinsic property in a tomorrow's rain - only in our understanding.
----------
I use the word understanding, because I can't, in my mind, separate 'belief' and 'knowledge' the way Linda did.

So would you say that when someone believes that there is a god, they know that there is a god?

If I 'know' it will rain tomorrow, is that significantly different from a 'belief' it will rain tomorrow? One can always say, 'probably rain,' or 'certainly rain,' or say, I know it will rain, if that cold front gets closer. We all know that a belief can be wrong, and I believe that what I know today may prove to be wrong tomorrow - however, I'm fairly certain it won't :-)

I must admit to having some difficulty with the word "know". I have no doubt that it is not the same as "believe", mostly because I think that one should have very strong evidence to back up its use, but the widely differing levels of evidence that different people are willing to accept as reason enough for them to use the word "know" make it tricky. I'm sure that there are those who think that meeting one very pleasant and seemingly sane person who insists that there are chatty elves in her garden is reason enough to "know" that those elves exist. I have met such a person (an elf-chatter) but her conviction was not enough to get me to use either "believe" or "know" in relation to elves, no matter how clear-headed she seemed to be.

Post 55

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 8:31am

I think I see what Linda is saying, even if she isn't saying it as clearly or as unequivocally as we would like.

LOL Heaven knows I've tried. :-D

She's saying that a person can BE certain (i.e., have no doubt in his own mind) that there is an afterlife, without KNOWING that there is an afterlife (because, of course, there is no afterlife). With that I would certainly agree.

Woo-hoo! :-)

But what we're saying, Linda, is that he can't CLAIM certainty that there is an afterlife without (implicitly) CLAIMING to know that there is, even if his claim happens to be false.

If the philosophical definition of "claim" is different from the everyday definition of it, I suppose that could make a difference. But as I understand the word, it means to assert or contend. Using it in that sense, I think there's very little difference, if any, between "I claim certainty" and "I claim that it is certain." I doubt that anyone would say "I claim that I am certain"; that would be kinda redundant, wouldn't it? So unless there's some philosophical definition of "claim" that I should know about, I think the addition of that word to this conversation only muddies the waters.

Post 56

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 8:42am

Hello there, Ed :-) Thanks for the welcome.

You've added an interesting angle to all this. I'll definitely read your essay.

Also, I should say -- though I'm sure it's abundantly clear -- that I am not a trained philosopher, nor have I ever read any Ayn Rand (I know -- shock! horror!). I'm just a rather cantankerous lover of words and logic. I wound up here because I was involved in the conversation that prompted the email to Luke that started this thread. But I'll get myself a copy of Atlas Shrugged ASAP, I swear. :-D

Thanks again, Ed.

Post 57

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 10:21am

I characterized Linda's position as follows: "She's saying that a person can BE certain (i.e., have no doubt in his own mind) that there is an afterlife, without KNOWING that there is an afterlife (because, of course, there is no afterlife). With that I would certainly agree." She replied,

Woo-hoo! :-)

Great, I now understand what you were saying!

I then wrote, "But what we're saying, Linda, is that he can't CLAIM certainty that there is an afterlife without (implicitly) CLAIMING to know that there is, even if his claim happens to be false." She replied,

If the philosophical definition of "claim" is different from the everyday definition of it, I suppose that could make a difference.

No, it isn't; it's exactly the same.

But as I understand the word, it means to assert or contend.

Precisely!

Using it in that sense, I think there's very little difference, if any, between "I claim certainty" and "I claim that it is certain." I doubt that anyone would say "I claim that I am certain"; that would be kinda redundant, wouldn't it?

Yes, but the point I am making is that if I claim to be certain that a proposition is true, I am thereby implicitly claiming to know that it's true, so that I would be contradicting myself if I said, "I am certain that X is the case, but I don't know that X is the case."

So unless there's some philosophical definition of "claim" that I should know about, I think the addition of that word to this conversation only muddies the waters.

But don't you see that there's a difference between my saying, "He's certain that there's an afterlife, but he doesn't know that there is (which, of course, is true) and my saying "I'm certain that there isn't an afterlife, but I don't know that there isn't." If I say that I'm certain that there isn't an afterlife, I'm implicitly claiming to know that there isn't. If I didn't think I knew that there isn't one, I wouldn't say that I'm certain that there isn't one. Of course, I can say that I'm certain that a proposition is true without knowing that it's true, if I don't have enough evidence to properly believe it, or if what I believe is false. But I cannot logically claim to be certain that a proposition is true without implicitly claiming to know that it's true.

- Bill

Post 58

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 12:43pm

Hey, Linda, let me belatedly welcome you to the forum since my e-mail exchange with your friend Reggie prompted your participation here.

Atlas Shrugged is a big read so if you like audio books you can also download it from Audible if you like.

The big red "Objectivism" link at the top right corner of this site also offers a brief overview of the ideas.

The central feature of the philosophy, objectivity, integrates the concrete with the abstract and observes that mere plays of words and logic alone do not constitute reason.

I will not clarify further as Ayn Rand writes with clarity quite adeptly.

Post 59

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 1:12pm