The Instigator
Lord_Unicorn
Pro (for)
The Contender
Joeytarn1
Con (against)

We know with confidence when we know little. provide your answers with example relating to religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Lord_Unicorn has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 3,593 times Debate No: 104686
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Lord_Unicorn

Pro

I believe that it is true that we know with confidence when we know little, when it relates to religious systems, as you can see in the Islamic belief they are told not to discuss people in relation to their religion and this could possibly be due to the idea that they do not want the believers to argue as they will have increased knowledge when it comes to religion and it usually yields doubt in them and they will move away from religion, this is just a small example i would love to hear your opinions with strong examples from religious texts with citation or proof.
Joeytarn1

Con

Thank you for offering up this debate, it seems like quite an intriguing debate, and one that I believe I will thoroughly enjoy. So, let's begin
I disagree. Specifically the first pro argument references Islam and its actions in forbidding discussion of faith. However, let me offer a following counterexample from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which offers a unique and quite contrarian point.
"Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful." This quote demonstrates two things. First, it demonstrates, if nothing else, the belief that certain sects of Christianity, in this case Catholicism, profess to already have significant knowledge in theology (the center of this debate), which implies 1. That confidence doesn't exist because the lack of knowledge is not present, or 2. the Catholic Church has confidence that they know a significant amount, the exact opposite of the statement affirmed by the pro. Secondly, it references the nature of man in this topic specifically. To clarify, the specific portion in contention here is "So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful." This introspective look on the mind of man clearly outlines the exact opposite of the pro in quite an articulate fashion. It is human nature to deny ignorance, and rather it is common for man to falsely believe in their knowledge when in fact, little exists.
Thus I stand in negation of the pro position. Man does not know when they know little. In fact, history has proven itself that man nearly invariably assumes its correctness, and acts out harshly and even violently when one attempts to show them the error of their ways. This is seen through the suppression of new scientific ideas in the Middle Ages, through the continued religious intolerance, and through many more ways. Man does not "know with confidence when we know little." In fact it has historically been the nature of man to operate under the maxim of exactly the contrary of that, that man never truly knows when they are wrong, and often have confidence in their incorrectness.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by canis 2 months ago
canis
Well pro..You should have written: "We know with confidence when we know nothing"..Thats religion..
Posted by Throwback 2 months ago
Throwback
Ditto @philochristos. I would really enjoy engaging in this debate (I think!). Its jyst too vague and convoluted.
Posted by Siege18 2 months ago
Siege18
Lol, isn't this the second question for the 2018 TOK prescribed titles for the IB program...
Posted by Siege18 2 months ago
Siege18
Lol, isn't this the second question for the 2018 TOK prescribed titles for the IB program...
Posted by philochristos 2 months ago
philochristos
I don't understand what you're trying to say. You said, "We know with confidence when we know little." We know WHAT with confidence when we know little of WHAT? Be specific. What are you talking about? What is it that we know with confidence?

You say that in Islam, "they are told not to discuss people in relation to their religion." What on earth does that mean? Does that mean Muslims aren't allowed to talk about Muhammed in conversations about Islam? That doesn't seem right.

You seem to be saying that the reason people in Islam aren't supposed to talk about people in conversations about Islam is because it will lead to arguments, and arguments will lead to greater knowledge, and greater knowledge will lead to doubts about Islam. None of that makes the least bit of sense to me. Why would you think any of that? When you say, "They do not want the believers to argue," who is "they"?

You ask for our opinions "with strong examples from religious texts with citation or proof." What is it that you want our opinions on? What is your question? What are we supposed to give examples of?

Maybe your comments would be more clear if you used smaller sentences. You just used one long run-on sentence, and your meaning isn't clear at all.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.