 sj |
||
|
||
BS: the religious case against belief
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Jul 08 - 03:42 PM Religion is a context, within which some people live their lives - it is not the only good path one may take, but it has infinite value for many people. No, "You don't need religion to be gentle, generous, thoughtful, rational" - but that wasn't my point. My point was that the stereotyped view of religion as a narrow, mind-controlling ideology is invalid. I suppose the stereotype holds true for fundamentalists - but for many others, religion is a path that brings depth, meaning, generosity, and joy that they might not otherwise have with such intensity. Rather than being an authority that restricts them, religion can be a path that draws them to freedom. I suppose there are two different things that we call religion, and they seem to be radically opposed to one another although they do have some elements in common. One is fundamentalism, and that is truly a shallow, rigid, authoritarian, ideological way of life that I find totally repulsive. The other "religion" is almost the complete opposite - it is a deep, questioning exploration of the mysteries of life. This second "religion" is rooted in a rich, ancient religious context and tradition. But no, religion is not the only good path one can choose. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Andrez Date: 12 Jul 08 - 08:59 AM Joe, I can relate to what you say. Pax! Bees point: >You don't need religion to be gentle, generous, thoughtful, rational.< is equally profound and I would have to say that I am inclined to that point of view as well. I should stress though that it not really about having your cake and eating it too but rather a recognition that the perspectives are complementary in many ways and each a path towards an understanding of what it is to be fully human. I was going to go on and make another point but perhaps the best example of what I mean is happening in another thread on Mudcat right now. For anyone who hasnt read and shared and cried on reading this thread: >Obit: My heart is broken-Mick**Update-7/11@913pm Sooner or later something comes up to remind us about what is really important: family, community, tradition, love. I rest my case! There is nothing left to say other than there are some things that are bigger than all of us however we try to characterise or conceptualise them. I'm happy living with that contradiction and dont feel any particular urge to look to scripture or other forms of revelation, divine or otherwise to resolve it. Cheers, Andrez |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 08 - 01:12 AM As I drive to and from from work each day I am listening--impatiently at times, I must add--to a recitation of "Mere Christianity", a book by the devout and brilliant C.S. Lewis. He does an excellent job of providing a rational ramp-up to Christianity, for his day. While I do not believe it will make a Christian of me, it will make me bitch less. That;s a Good Thing. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Bee Date: 11 Jul 08 - 11:17 PM "I guess I would say that there are a lot of very rational people who live their lives within the context of a religious tradition. Those outside the tradition often don't understand it and see it as something irrational and dangerous - as indeed it can be. I think it's useful to think of religion as tradition, rather than ideology - but when it gets ideological, it's likely to become dangerous. But almost every religious tradition has gentle, generous, thoughtful, rational people whose lives seem to indicate that there must be something of value in their tradition. I hope I'm that sort of person myself."-Joe- As far as it's possible for me to tell, Joe, I think you are. But remember, those kinds of fine people are just as likely to be living outside of any religious traditions, or their manner is informed by other traditions as well. There are other kinds of traditions: familial, cultural, self-invented. I grew up in a community who were traditionally decent and kind and generous, although they came from three wildly different Christian denominations. No one, friend or stranger, could walk into their houses without being given food and drink - whether they wanted it or not. If a neighbour was in danger of going hungry, boxes of fresh produce or fish would mysteriously land on their doorstep. If a neighbour was sick, people went to their house and helped them, brought food, did housework. If a person died, the wake became an occasion to fill the house of the bereaved with food, and each neighbour put what money they could afford into a sympathy card or an envelope, to help pay for the funeral and other expenses. Visiting each other was an everyday thing. Religion they took for granted; everybody had one, and it was the one you were born with, unless you married into one of the others. You could say they lived inside religious traditions, and it would be somewhat true. But when I left home, and in the years since, I discovered that despite having similar religious traditions, other communities, just a few hundred km. away, were not often like that. They were not likely to visit with each other very often, or might not offer food to strangers. Their funeral customs were different. They kept to themselves more, though friendly enough. They had different traditions, which I found strange to my own. But another community, another hundred km. away, would be much more like my own, though having just one denomination and an entirely different language. Local culture, custom, and familial tradition are factors at least, if not more, important than religions in creating the 'personality' of a community. And I think you'd find atheists or agnostics carry the stamp of their community even deeper than their religious roots. You don't need religion to be gentle, generous, thoughtful, rational. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Joe Offer Date: 11 Jul 08 - 09:45 PM I guess I would say that there are a lot of very rational people who live their lives within the context of a religious tradition. Those outside the tradition often don't understand it and see it as something irrational and dangerous - as indeed it can be. I think it's useful to think of religion as tradition, rather than ideology - but when it gets ideological, it's likely to become dangerous. But almost every religious tradition has gentle, generous, thoughtful, rational people whose lives seem to indicate that there must be something of value in their tradition. I hope I'm that sort of person myself. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Andrez Date: 11 Jul 08 - 09:26 PM OK I wont say say it! Its too bad they cant do something more useful about starving children and important things like that. :-) Andrez |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Bee Date: 11 Jul 08 - 10:07 AM Yes, Allan's death was a tragedy, the moreso because of his youth and the possibility that mere money might have offered him a chance of living longer. Another example of a subset of Christianity that I perceive as harmful to its members is the Rapture believers. If ever there was a group that doesn't practice 'higher ignorance', here is the poster child. One of their websites is called RaptureReady, and is easy to find and read. I read quite a bit there for a while because I found the concept so astounding. Most of the posters there appear to be essentially nice, kind people, and some appear able to compartmentalize their beliefs in order to function. Others, however, are so convinced that the Rapture is imminent, any day now, maybe tomorrow, that they have lost the ability or desire to plan any kind of future. One man, despite the worried urging of his obedient (of course!) wife, has refused to arrange for the five cords of wood they need to make it through the winter - he doesn't think they'll need it, because Jesus is coming. Others don't bother going to college, or delay having children. They worry about whether the clothes they are wearing will be raptured with them - one woman wears slippers to bed, just in case. They worry about 'left behind' pets starving in their empty houses. You can't tell me this is not harmful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Andrez Date: 11 Jul 08 - 09:33 AM Bee, what a tragedy to hear about Allan. I did a search and found it was as you said and learnt a little more about him in the process. I had wondered why the site had'nt been updated for so long. Dunno where his site is being served from but then I guess cyberspace gives him some kind of immortality then. To my knowledge we haven't had any apparitions of the Deliverance Ministries in Australia as yet but thanks to you I'll be able to recognise the symptoms and know what to look out for. >At what point does a denomination slip into the realm of cults? At what point does faith become synonymous with delusion? Good questions both of them Bee. In general the answers go along the lines of having their own variation of the "truth" (whatever that might be), a mind set that is of the "them and us" kind with a good dose of the "if your not with us, your agin us" to boot. Withdrawal from mainstream society and lots of control by a smaller group of true believers centred around someone (usually male) who has had the "truth" revealed to them in some kind of divine manifestation. I needn't go on as the pattern is hardly new. Its about power and control and need for approval. The religious stuff is just a cover for these issues. Too bad about who gets hurt in the process. Despite all of the above though, I should add that I have no problem with reports by people across the ages, cultures and countries of their direct intuitive perception of Truth. Things just get stuffed up when people try to talk about that knowing and then use religious metaphors and imagery trying to pass on their experience to others. Cheers, Andrez |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Bee Date: 10 Jul 08 - 07:50 PM Nickhere, you are one of the persons I have just referenced as rational. I'll be quite disappointed if you find yourself defending what appears to be a cultish offshoot of Christianity which does indeed sometimes physically harm people. This movement is one of those that practice 'exorcisms' on members, and occasionally make the news because they've seriously injured someone in their zeal. But IMO, that is beside the point. These people live in fear. They appear often to be uneducated and superstitious. They are prone to feeding off each other's delusions, as children at a backyard campout might 'pretend' there is a ghost or monster until they genuinely scare themselves and have to run indoors. I am willing to grant you that there is no harm in believing such things as demons exist in some context. But believing that because some 'un-godly' person or family has moved into your apartment building, you are seeing 'two foot tall hideous black beings' attempting to deke into your home when you open a door because you haven't made the sign of the cross in cooking oil on the lintel since two weeks ago, is just plain barmy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Nickhere Date: 10 Jul 08 - 06:47 PM Ok Bee, I see what you're saying. It can be alarming to see people running round doing stuff you don't understand the motivation for or have the same feelings about. What you described isn't exactly my cup of tea, either. But having said that, I think it's a bit restrictive to assume that because you don't see or believe in anything you can't see or experience in some physical way that such things don't exist, or that others might not be able to percieve them. While it seems on the balance of probabilities unlikely they do, it's still possible and so we must make room in our big world for those people too. And it is a big world. The only problem would be if they were physically harming someone - I won't go as far as saying psychologically harming, as this is much more difficult to quantify. Trying to judge what's psychologically normal often seems more like simply comparing it to what happens to be the majority conformity of the time. For example people who don't aspire to a career and aren't ambitious about money and social kudos are often thought of as a bit odd or eccentric, thanks to the majority preoccupations of this sad world. But it may be that THEY are the sane ones, not the mad ones who are running round chasing their tail trying to make a few dollars more than last year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Bee Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:33 AM Since Andrez reminded me of the place, I just did a little cruise through FSTDT, as I do once in a while. It's unfortunately gotten a little strident since Winace passed away, and there's a tendency to pounce on the tiniest evidence of fundy-ness, but it still presents a smorgasbord of unintentionally funny religious (and occasionally atheist) comments. Sometimes it's just alarming, though. When I argue or debate or discuss with religious persons here, I am generally confident that I'm interacting with rational people. But there are entire mega-ministries, apparently, in the US, devoted to promoting beliefs that are so divorced from reality that I suspect they are actually harming their members. I'm particularly shocked by the so-called 'Deliverance Ministries', which seems to be a growing phenomenon, which has focussed on demons as the cause of anything bad that happens to people. These people run around dribbling 'consecrated' oil all over the place, 'anointing' their windows and doors, their posessions, the perimeters of their property and churches, themselves, and sometimes any unfortunate random person they think might be harbouring demons. If their children misbehave, it's demons, if they have a bad dream, it's demons, if they don't get along with neighbours, it's demons. They often claim to see and hear demons. At what point does a denomination slip into the realm of cults? At what point does faith become synonymous with delusion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Mrrzy Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:57 AM Oh,yeah, wrong thread. This is the religious case against belief, not the rational one. My bad! (Yes, tongue firmly in cheek...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Andrez Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:32 AM My humble contribution to this erudite debate is as follows: a link for those who are interested in seeing how logic and reason can be used to understand how religious types of all persuasions try to promote their own versions of the "truth" whatever that is! The tools and techniques used are all revealed. The Author summarises the article as follows: >This guide, Prophecy for Dummies, is a simple, concise and effective resource for jump-starting your religion, gaining or adding to your mythical reputation, obtaining additional followers, and many other worthwhile goals. It lists all of the major ways that preternatural knowledge of future events can be obtained in a detailed and easily understood fashion. No longer will you need a lengthy and exhausting initiation into a mystery religion or years of apprenticeship under a veteran Prophet. Many have found going out on their own a liberating and rewarding experience; with thorough knowledge of the ways of the Prophet, and hopefully a bit of luck, so will you. Enjoy and understand the logical structures and processes that religious types use to peddle their "visions". Cheers, Andrez |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: dick greenhaus Date: 09 Jul 08 - 05:24 PM Employing logic in an argument about faith is like using dancing to argue architecture. Religion, of course, is wide open for debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Bee Date: 09 Jul 08 - 05:14 PM M.C. Escher had an inkling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: rehab13 Date: 09 Jul 08 - 03:48 PM P.S Somethings you need to see, to believe. Some Just Faith till you experience it. If you experience it then you know. Experience is then known. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: rehab13 Date: 09 Jul 08 - 03:39 PM Well I heard it is what you do not know You do not know that hurts you/me I have read '"Xenon one of five inert gases---when properly excited --can produce a beam of energy--capable of sustaining and repairing living tissue of all kinds...... I did not know Now I know.......................What I did not know........but still do not know what I need to know.......... .. I need all the help I can get How would you feel if you acted like you were 13yr most of the time ,then to see in the mirror a 60yr old looking back at you.IT HURTS. Somebody, help me if you can is anybody out here who can. hee hee ha ha Face needs a little rehab. Truth alot dee |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Mrrzy Date: 08 Jul 08 - 05:35 PM So, the things we don't know can be divided into things we can know but don't yet (Discoverable), those things we can never know (Undiscoverable), and those which can't matter whether we know or not (like Is your blue my blue), ie which have no know/don't know differentiation (Moot). I would set out that religion / faith / supernatural stuff is the domain of the Undiscoverable, science and rationality the domain of the Discoverable, and Philosophy the domain of the Moot. -What happens inside a black hole: Discoverable. -Does alien (as in, off-Earth) life exist? *Life on other solar planets: Discoverable. *Life outside the solar system: already so probable as to be certain, but, of course, the universe is so huge that it can't really matter either way, so I would score that as Moot. +If or when we discover that living molecules happen wherever their building blocks occur in planetary formation, the probability will asymptotally (is that the right word for ever-nearing never reaching?) approach the limit of certainty, but it's already pretty close to that limit anyway. Unless you want to discuss what is meant by "life" in the context of your question... -"boundary" between thought and matter: Discoverable. I *think* we know that life is biochemistry and consciousness, electrochemistry of the biochemicals. Not sure whether "boundary" is the word I'd choose, though, perhaps interface? At any rate, I don't see any rational need, yet, to posit anything worth having Faith about... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Amos Date: 08 Jul 08 - 04:49 PM MRrz: We don't know very much at all about the boundary zone between thought and matter, for one thing. We don't "know" whether the brain is a computer or just a router. We don't know how psychosomatic work, very well, despite some estimates that they comprise 70% of human ills. We don't know exactly qwhat PR buttons would defuse the polarity of various human divides such as religious squabbles, the war betweent he sexes (as it used to be called). We relaly do not know the mechanisms of neurosis exactly and we certainly do not know how to remedy them. We do not know how to tap into, for example, point-source energy, how space really works or even, in a workable sense, what it is. 'Nuff? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Nickhere Date: 08 Jul 08 - 02:56 PM Mrrzy, I guess it depends on what you mean. We don't really know if alien life exists although we suspect it to. But is that really knowing we don't know something? I mean we understand and know the concept of alien life, we just have no idea if it exists in fact, or what form it might take and so on. But there are probably concepts that no-one has thought of yet, however we can't know this either for sure. If we think of a concept it is no longer entirely in the realm of the unknown, however little information we might have about it. Joe, I think what you're saying is along the lines of that old Oxford / Cambridge scholar's saying "the more I know the more I realise I don't know". In order to know whether absolute knowledge is attainable, we'd have to know if it it exists to begin with. Empirically we don't have that information yet. Religiously we know such knowledge does exist, since God has it (He is omniscient, right?) God is omniscient by virtue of being God. In order to have an equal grasp of knowledge we'd have to become God, or like God (which if memory serves me, was part of the idea behind eating the apple in Eden). My religious understanding is that we cannot become God, though we can aspire to imitate some of His virtues. But that's another story. Absoulute truths are attainable, and do exist. I emphasise the plural in order to mean not some great unifying truth but rather lots of things that are true. For instance, there are logical truths. One that springs to mind is the phrase sometimes quoted to me by people I know that "there is no such thing as absolute truth". But that statement is an absoulte in itself. Now it is either true of false. If it is false, then clearly some absolute truth does exist. If it is 'true' then it contradicts itself as an absolute, and so absolute truth exists, by implying it itself, cannot be true. Therefore it is true that truth exists. That's a kind of absoulte truth which we can know. Take the example of various scientists and thinkers over the years. Einstein didn't completely reject the theory of gravity formulated by Newton. The theory of relativity didn't make the truth that gravity exists untrue, rather, the new discoveries refined what we understood about the previously realised truth. Maybe that's similar to what you say about learning more along the path as we go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Stu Date: 08 Jul 08 - 02:46 PM What happens inside a black hole. (please, no giggling at the back) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Mrrzy Date: 08 Jul 08 - 01:28 PM Can anyone tell me something that we know we don't know? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jul 08 - 01:14 PM I'm wondering if perhaps "Absolute Truth" and "Ultimate Truth" are misleading terms. Both are finite, implying that somewhere there is an and. Maybe "Infinite Truth" would be a better term - we learn more and more as we go along the path, but there's always something new to explore around the next bend. Dick, I do think it's important for us to realize that while we seek truth (or what ever that ultimate goal is), we can never fully achieve it. If we understand that, it makes it easier for us to appreciate and learn from the different paths that others have taken. Take Islam, for example - not a path that many of us have taken. Still, what is there that we can learn from those good people who have taken that path? I heard last night that the Sufi Muslim mystic Rumi is currently the best-read poet in the United States. It's good to hear that people are exploring the paths that others have taken. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: PoppaGator Date: 08 Jul 08 - 01:07 PM Rather than add to discussion of the main topic, I'd like to explore the side-issue of nuclear power. I don't think it's accurate to equate the short-form "nuke" strictly to nuclear weaponry. When opposition to nuclear power plants was at its peak back in the 80s, the short slogan "No Nukes" was widely ued in reference to power plants. Regardless of the general public's sudden and belated realization that we finally ought to think about moving beyond petroleum as a primary energy source, one inescapable danger of nuclear power remains as undeniable as ever: Plutonium is forever. Nuclear waste, once it has been inadvertently "manufactured" by generation of electricity or by any other application of nuclear technology, is fatally dangerous and cannot be swept under a rug. It has to be stored somewhere, as safely as humanly possible, for a l-o-o-o-o-n-g time. Of course, we already have huge amounts of this crap littering the planet, and ~ very understandably ~ no one wants it anywhere near their own home. This is perhaps the ultimate case of "NIMBY" )"Not In My Back Yard"). It's also unavoidably true that we'll continue to generate this lethal stuff at least for a little while longer, but it certainly would seem to be incumbent upon anyone with a brain in his/her head to do whatever they can to promote truly clean alternative forms of energy and to try and minimize, and eventually to phase out, continued reliance upon the atom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: dick greenhaus Date: 08 Jul 08 - 12:04 PM "But there are also unknown unknowns - there are things we do not know we don't know. And each year we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns". - Donald Rumsfeld Yep. And those are the ones that are fun to look for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Ed T Date: 08 Jul 08 - 11:46 AM OK, I'll stop soon. My last quote on this: Blaise Pascal: "There are truths on this side of the Pyranees, which are falsehoods on the other". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Ed T Date: 08 Jul 08 - 11:36 AM Buddha: "Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true". [paraphrased] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Ed T Date: 08 Jul 08 - 11:32 AM Bertrand Russell on what one has a tendancy to accept as fact: "What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Ed T Date: 08 Jul 08 - 11:22 AM A quote from a former leader on the catagories of what one knows and does not know...but...does it take us any farther? "The message is that there are known knowns - there are things that we know that we know. There are known unknowns - that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns - there are things we do not know we don't know. And each year we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns". - Donald Rumsfeld |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Amos Date: 08 Jul 08 - 10:44 AM We do little else! But one of the things we insist on knowing is that we don't know them. This proves convenient for various purposes, such as hiding pain and convincing mothers to give birtyh a second time. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: GUEST,mRR Date: 08 Jul 08 - 10:22 AM Why can't we just know things? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: BanjoRay Date: 08 Jul 08 - 05:48 AM Dick - I totally agree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: dick greenhaus Date: 07 Jul 08 - 09:36 PM While I'm willing to postulate that ultimate truth is unobtainable, I fail to see what benefit that postulate conveys. I'd druther just keep seeking it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Ed T Date: 07 Jul 08 - 09:04 PM "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Sir Stephen Henry Roberts |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Jul 08 - 08:30 PM Well, Nick - I think that some "truth" is beyond the capacity of the human words to explain or of the human mind to understand. And the words used to attempt to express such truth can often be contradictory. And I think that too often, people look on this "truth" they see as a rational object, something that can be comprehended. Let's take political systems, for example. So many people are so absolutely sure that there is a political system that is the ultimate, absolute best political system for all people and all situations. But is that really true? Or take religious faith - I'm quite sure that my Catholic faith is what's best for me, partly because it is an intrinsic part of who I am. For most of the non-Catholics I know, that's not the case. Some are part of religious groups that don't fit them, and some are tied to religious groups that are very much a part of their lives. My religious faith is truth for me, and theirs is truth for them. But for most people who seem to "fit" into a religion or other philosophical or cultural group - it's not a set of beliefs they hold that make them "fit" - it's something much deeper, something of their essence. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Amos Date: 07 Jul 08 - 07:46 PM Nick: I don't know what to tell you, exactly, except that the order of truth that comes from comparing data and checking them for consistency, propositional truth, and the kind of truth that comes from comparing semantic constructs with the world to see if they match, is a whole different order of thing than the dynamic instantaneous sense of higher truth attributed to metaphysical insight, religious or spiritual epiphany, and the truth that surpasseth all understanding. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: BanjoRay Date: 07 Jul 08 - 07:40 PM Dick - higher ignorance ie knowing that the truth is unobtainable, is what agnostics believe in. Atheists believe in the "truth" that there is no god. Agnostics just don't know.... I'm an agnostic who assumes, purely for practical purposes, that there isn't one until somebody proves to me there is. Ray |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Nickhere Date: 07 Jul 08 - 07:15 PM Amos, I never mentioned religion. But you say I am parsing the notion against the narrow notion of 'logical' or 'semantic' truth. Tell me more? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Nickhere Date: 07 Jul 08 - 07:13 PM Joe, two perspectives may be correct but they are only aspects of the same truth, aren't they? Maybe 'the truth' whatever it is, is more than the sum of the perspectives. I think I can understand what is meant by 'truth can be mutifaceted' perhaps along the lines above regarding perspective, but I'm not sure how truth can be (self?)-contradictory. What does that mean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Ed T Date: 06 Jul 08 - 11:10 PM Joe, Thanks for the encouragement. Regardless of opinions/viewpoints, we are likely all on the same train ride,just different tracks. Jerry Ruben (in Do it) said something like, "an ashtray to one person may be a candy dish to another". Very few recognize personal smugness. Could it not be viewed differently from different perspectives? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Jul 08 - 10:47 PM I think you're getting there, Ed. I think Truth may be comething we cannot capture or control - that ultimate truth may be multifaceted and even contradictory. My perspective on something may be correct - but another person's different perspective, may be equally correct. And Ultimate Truth may well include an infinite and inexhaustible number of valid perspectives. So, the lesson is, we ought to explore and to listen - and not be so damn smug. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: GUEST,Ed.T Date: 06 Jul 08 - 10:07 PM The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." - Niels Bohr "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco "I choose a block of marble and chop off whatever I don't need." - Francois-Auguste Rodin (1840-1917), when asked how he managed to make his remarkable statues Ages ago, God and Satan went for a walk. As they walked, Satan notice that God was holding something bright and shiny in his hand. Satan asked God what it was. God replied, "This? This is truth." Satan snatched it from God's hand and said, "Give this to me, I'll organize it for you." - Krozabeeep Kollections |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Amos Date: 06 Jul 08 - 08:04 PM You are parsing the notion against a narrow guide of logical "truth" or semantic "truth". I suspect there are man degrees and kinds of truth, but the kind that religionists tend to talk about is the kind that cannot BUT be recognized when encoutnered; it is the inner nature of the viewer and is undeniable and overwhelms all systems or data. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Nickhere Date: 06 Jul 08 - 07:54 PM That leads I suppose to three further important questions 1) how do we recognise the 'truth' when we do find it (which afterall, is the final purpose of the quest of inquiry) 2) If we do not, or cannot recognise the 'truth' when we find it, is it of any practical value to us? 3) Once we do both find and recognise the 'truth' (and assuming we do), what are we going to do about it? 'Truth' seems to me by nature, to be final and ultimate in itself. I mean that something is either true; or it is not, and is therefore false. There doesn't seem to be any gradation in truth - something is not more true than another thing, as far as I can make out. Ok, so you might say 'it's true that the weather is good today' but also 'it's true that actually the weather is excellent today' but each of these statements is true in and of itself, neither is more true, allowing for subjectivity in what constitutes good weather. I feel forced to conclude that once we discover and recognise something to be true, there doesn't seem to be any further quest for inquiry in that direction, though the discovery of one truth might in turn lead us to enquire after another truth (though this would not invalidate the first truth, which by definition, must stand alone as truth). Right, head's beginning to hurt, I'm off to put the kettle on for one last cuppa. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Nickhere Date: 06 Jul 08 - 07:46 PM "higher ignorance (a learned understanding that no matter how many truths we may accumulate, our knowledge falls infinitely short of the truth" What's interesting to me is that so many of the people here discussing this tacitly seem one way or another to accept that there is some kind of ultimate 'truth' to be had (an idea I'd concur with). Of course, if there were no truth then all quests of knowledge and learning would be somewhat pointless. It would also be contradictory, since the absence of truth is falsehood. If everything were falsehood, then nothing we learn or know would be of any practical value. I'll have to think about that, myself. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: dick greenhaus Date: 06 Jul 08 - 03:54 PM Amos- of course every good scientist know that his knowledge falls far short of the truth. A good scientist (unlike a rigid believer) tends to keep trying to increase that knowledge. "God did it" pretty well stifles further research. And Ray-What "higher ignorance" do you attribute to agnostics? I don't get your comment. (Athiests, yes. Agnostics, no.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: BanjoRay Date: 06 Jul 08 - 01:33 PM Sorry the last guest was me Ray |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: GUEST Date: 06 Jul 08 - 01:32 PM Higher ignorance is more or less the definition of being agnostic, Dick Rasy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Bee Date: 06 Jul 08 - 01:28 PM Perhaps Truth is a god anyone can believe in: we think it's out there, we admire it, we can strive to get closer to it, we can't ever know more than a little of it, some are obsessed with it, some avoid it, and it is Itself omnipresent and completely impersonal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: the religious case against belief From: Amos Date: 06 Jul 08 - 12:51 PM Hell, Dick, any good scientist knows that his knowledge falls far short of Truth. A |
