Wo do know some things, but our knowing is both conditional and provisional. You HAVE to know a few things to survive, but it’s true that we know a great deal less than we pretend.
We should be honest about where our knowledge ends, yes. “We know nothing” is rather hyperbolic, however, if not untrue.
Hyperbolic in that I have an idea what you mean, Socrates and whatnot. But untrue in that it infers knowledge of nothing, something I do not have; I do not have knowledge of what nothing is, I only know of something. Yeah?
I like to think I know quite a bit about God, even.
I think it’s hard to tell. A good number of Christians are quality folks with reasonable, non-intrusive, even reasonable beliefs. I also think a lot of Christians believe some really weird and silly shit (disbelieving evolution and mistrusting science, for example). Plus so much of it is political and subjective, who knows what people truly believe anymore.
It depends on the perspective. I would think that ignorance of ultimate reality demands silence. Unfortunately, too many theists expect others to accept and have faith in their god, and are more than willing to coerce and/or punish others for having any other notion of the nature of ultimate reality - including no notion at all.
The number of people who have faith in god that profess and practice an inclusionary life style are few and far beween. The typical faith-in-god person is exclusionary and that generates all sorts of problems. This is the 3,437th time I’ve said this.
Right, but the stuff you don’t like doesn’t necessarily follow from every kind of faith or theism. Even if it did, theism might be able to reform and eliminate aspects of of belief that lead to things you don’t like.
I have met a lot of people who say their faith is a personal thing that is not up for discussion. They are more or less keeping to expectation of “silence”. Then there are the quakers, the unitarian universalists, and the transcendentalists who are theists but are not exclusivist.
In my experience people on the extremes of this issue be they religious fundamentalists or militant atheists seem to want the other side to shut up. Expecting people to shut because they disagree with you is antithetical to a religious discussion forum like this one.
Due to recent events, I can, will, and do claim to know the very things that you mentioned with certainty, things that even Science has yet to learn. But I’m curious as to exactly what your standard for “knowing” is. At what point do you accept that something is “known”? Much like the atheist claiming that he “sees no evidence”, what evidence would he accept? Or is it just a hypnotized passion against the subject forcing denial? Is there anything that you would accept as knowing?
You certainly accept many things with certainty like “1+1=2”, but at what point and by what reasoning would you claim to “know”? I have my own standard for when something can be claimed to be known and if anyone meets that standard, you can take it to the bank that they seriously know (even if I don’t like it).
Hey! That may be true. Nonetheless, it still doesn’t get you anywhere close to knowing that I (and everyone else) know absolutely nothing. It doesn’t even get you close to a pretty good idea. So please, disclose all that knowledge and those pretty good ideas you have hiding up your sleeve. Or stop wasting time.