To see is to believe. Does this agree to Lonergan's framework of knowing?

Answer 1

It gets much, much, much more complicated than that- but, yes, that is the basis of simple empiricism.

Answer 2

Bleh. That's an awful foundation to build a philosophy of knowing on! Ever been to a magic show? Watched a movie with good special effects? Conversely have you ever seen an atom, or a virus, or any mathmatical theorem? It really seems like a clumsy tool. Certainly by this yardstick, God would exist the first time a miraculous healing happened or when a stigmatic got crucifiction wounds, or the first statue of Mary that started to bleed.

I would go with a more Kuhnsian belief (man I hope its Kuhn--it's been a while) that suggests that what we call knowing is a faith built on logical analysis of previous experiences. We've plugged enough variables into the equation so we "know" it. We've watched the animal do a certain thing enough that we "know" its behavior. We've observed a chemical reaction happen enough that we "know". These things could change overnight--our knowledge could be completely wrong, but we've walked the bridge enough that we've come to no longer doubt its stability.

There's really no such thing as absolute knowledge. Not seeing, not tasting, not reasoning, because the basis for each of these things depend on powers entirely beyond our control remaining exactly the same as they always have been. The only way to truly know anything would be to know everything, and then be able to track all of the variables independantly--until then it's all just a form of reasoned faith.