Real Truth Seekers?

Grasping the status of truth (ontology of truth) I hold in general Truth is a value judgment we place on what we think is evidence. One who is a follow-thinker usually asks simple questions.   Whereas, one who is a free-thinker not only usually ask hard questions, they question simple answers.   *Simple question like do you have enough faith? (Which is epistemologically meaningless as lots of faith doesn’t work as lots of evidence)   *Question simple answers like I don’t understand so god did it or it is evidence of god. (Which is epistemologically prudent as questioning simple and likely inaccurate answers demonstrates increased thinking standards are working well) To me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), subjective (Coherence theory of truth), or to the objective (Correspondence theory of truth).   *Pragmatic theory of truth: very subjective   “our ideas are true is they work to solve problems, are useful”   A common feature is a reliance on the pragmatic maxim as a means of clarifying the meanings of difficult concepts such as truth; and an emphasis on the fact that belief, certainty, knowledge, or truth is the result of an inquiry. The pragmatic maxim is a normative recommendation or a regulative principle in the normative science of logic, its function is to guide the conduct of thought toward the achievement of its purpose, advising on an optimal way of “attaining clearness of apprehension”. Ref Ref  *Coherence theory of truth: subjective   “our ideas are true if they are internally consistent not contradictory”   A common thinking is to regard...

Absolute Knowledge?

Absolute Knowledge?   “No one has absolute knowledge; therefore the Christian God (God of the gaps) must exist.” or “No one has absolute knowledge; therefore atheists do not exist.”   We could attack all kinds of things in this but we need only expose the error in thinking supported by faulty word use.   What I am talking about is the biggest error which is the word “absolute”, because absolute is a religious philosophy concept no more valid as a thing then the term soul. Knowledge is a epistemic property of beliefs in epistemology, absolute as I am guessing a projection of certainty. but as certainty relates to epistemology it is also a epistemic property of beliefs. Thus it cannot be said to really be absolute anything universally, at best it can only be absolute in a particularly relevant way to a fixed thing, which is not really the nature of a commodity like knowledge. Knowledge is a set of confirmed and justified true beliefs which is constantly cumulative and growing. There are a few valid forms of certainty in epistemology not one is said to be absolute. To me the entire premise of “absolute” is a fallacy that does not really need refuting or should we need refuting even though now you need to, as they are trying to use it as if it’s real. it is as real as any lie. The exact point at which one ceases to be certain is the degree of certainty as opposed to the degree of belief measured as a probability function. Probability is quantified as a number between 0 and 1...