Could belief in God be a Gettier case?

As always, thank you for your thoughtful replies

4 Answers

  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Of course. As given in your link there is not much that couldn't be a Gettier case, but that is not a sufficient condition to eliminate the other possibilities, in this case or others.

    I had to read and think for a while, because I'd not met either the concept or the apparent difficulty it raises. What was troubling epistemologists took some seeing.

    I think that's because I've for a long time mostly grown out of a belief in knowledge as an absolute

    (Though for practical purposes including language it is very convenient to treat an awful lot as sure known knowledge, just mentally reserving the real provisional nature of such in case it is needed.)

    "All swans are white" was a nice piece of simple knowledge that didn't need hedging round with philosophical caveats and cautions, but on encountering a black swan, the "white swan knowledge" can be taken two ways.

    Either the unspoken but accepted provisional nature can be acknowledged, with "most swans are white", and reminding oneself and others that accumulated examples, on their own, never amount to certainty. (Though it's a pain to rehearse that every time for every damn-near certainty, so we don't usually bother.)

    Or the "white swan knowledge", so long trusted and reliable and treated as an absolute can be taken as a true absolute, leading to the conclusion "that is not a swan because it's black" on encountering a black swan. The "absolute knowledge" is preserved "intact" because it is given priority and everything else arranged around it as required. This can almost always be done, giving "proof" of the validity of the core knowledge.

    "Why are you painting white lines in the middle of the road?"

    "To keep the tigers away."

    "But there aren't any tigers around here!"

    "Good stuff, isn't it?"

    Epistemology is fun and nasty stuff.

    "How do you know you know that?"

    The geocentric solar system existed as "knowledge" for many, many centuries.

  • coral
    Lv 4
    5 years ago

    So are you going to begin worshiping Thor or Ra, simply in case? No, you are not. You're going to overlook about all the different religions. For those who have been truly pushing this wagering inspiration, you possibly can also worship all gods simply in case they have been the true ones. Nevertheless, you are not. That is the place this entire Pascal's Wager factor falls aside. Also, you discredit the "absence of proof". Can you title anything in real life that we all know is actual but nobody can furnish any proof that it exists? Why not begin believing in leprechauns? How about werewolves? Vampires? Do you feel in those? Why no longer? Early christians did? Do you think that there are demons dancing on rooftops? Do you believe that there are witches casting curses on people? Do believe that persons can fly as soon as they have made a percent with the devil? There is not any proof to help any of those however since you've decided to toss that out the window then you definitely ought to believe in these. Probably you do not apply your good judgment equally to all matters in lifestyles? Probably your logic is selective? If that's the case then you must work to your good judgment. Good judgment desires to be utilized equally if you want to truly be logical.

  • Bruce
    Lv 7
    8 years ago


    A Gettier problem is any one of a category of thought experiments in contemporary epistemology that seem to repudiate a definition of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB). The category of problem owes its name to a three-page paper published in 1963, by Edmund Gettier, called "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?". In it, Gettier proposed two scenarios where the three criteria (justification, truth, and belief) seemed to be met, but where the majority of readers would not have felt that the result was knowledge due to the element of luck involved.

    Many or most analytic philosophers would wish to be able to hold to what is known as the JTB account of knowledge: the claim that knowledge can be conceptually analyzed as justified true belief — which is to say that the meaning of sentences such as "Smith knows that it rained today" can be given with the following set of necessary and jointly sufficient conditions:

    A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:

    P is true

    S believes that P is true, and

    S is justified in believing that P is true

    Here is one of Gettier's thought experiments:

    Smith has applied for a job, but, it is claimed, has a justified belief that "Jones will get the job". He also has a justified belief that "Jones has 10 coins in his pocket". Smith therefore (justifiably) concludes (by the rule of the transitivity of identity) that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket".

    In fact, Jones does not get the job. Instead, Smith does. However, as it happens, Smith (unknowingly and by sheer chance) also had 10 coins in his pocket. So his belief that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket" was justified and true. But it does not appear to be knowledge.

    The counterexample fails because S is not justified in believing that P is true. The coincidence of having 10 coins in a pocket has no relation to getting or not getting the job. It is not evidence for the belief. Gettier is just playing with words.

    In contrast, we have very good evidence that God created the universe out of nothing in the Big Bang. Because the Big Bang occurred at the beginning of time, the cause for the universe would have to be timeless and immaterial, and in addition, an omnipotent super intelligence. This knowledge is evidence for God.



  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    If a God were real, why would he/it have to be such a case?

    Why can't it just be real IF it is so real?

    Speaking of which, they have done exactly that:

    "we have very good evidence that God created the universe out of nothing"

    "God's existence is a scientific fact"



    A belief in a God is what it is: Open and blatant bet against apparent reality dependent on an unfalsifiable position.. If a God were real you would not need such quotes.

    And given those who hilarious lies that I have quoted from, is it any wonder why the USA, in all its infinite wisdom, is so laughed at today? We call ourselves "men" yet need to lie to ourselves at any price?

    Not ripping on you, just pointing this out.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.