dfreybur
Premium Member
I would say that there are folks who believe that they have had such an observation, but then I am, among other things, a dyed-in-the-wool agnostic.
Direct personal observation is the basis of personal knowledge. Lack of direct personal observation by one does not invalidate the direct personal observation of another. Those of us with direct personal observation know. I acknowledge that we may be in error. I long ago accepted that - Being in error puts me in good company so I don't worry about it. The issue of error is entangled with the problem of instrumentation. If the possibility of being in error when you state that I believe but don't know, that's your assertion for yourself and I am not required to accept it for myself.
Knowledge does not mean infallibility. I know. Extension of knowledge comes with further uncertainty - I have faith that others know. I have faith that others believe. I have faith that others disbelieve. All depending on the individual and on their own personal observations.
There are those among the atheists who do not have direct personal observation who take the further step of asserting that those of us who do are either lying or deluded. I long ago realized - Do unto others ... Why should I not conclude that those who take the stance are not themselves lying or deluded.
Yes, I use the term agnostic advisedly, adhering to Huxley's original definition of the term. Unlike Huxley, my belief is quite strong. I see evidence of the Divine almost everywhere. While that evidence yields a faith that is pretty much unshakable, I will not deceive myself by equating that with knowledge.
General semantics - All knowledge is provisional. Science - All data has error bars and all theories require evidence. Those of us who chose to see the hand of the Divine in nature see that hand everywhere - Something like observational relativity?