Religion

[hotchkiss]

Ourselves yes. The planet, no. The planet has gone through more in millions of years than man could ever throw at it, and it's still here. (Pratchett again)

Gauche

Just thought of somethin else.

You want to worry the Ivory poachers dont get at the four elephants, that would really upset the balance of nature!

 

[rgraham666]

So Joe posts a dictionary definition of truth. It seems fair I post one from my favourite dictionary.

TRUTH A reassuring notion which, in practice, is difficult to identify. The determination to establish truth often means that violence must be done to other people.
"Truth is life," Frank Lloyd Wright said, which inevitably includes death and suggests that while a reasoned answer if useful, it will not be true - unless life (or reality) is denied. For those who are afraid of reality - that is, of life - it is important to find a naive construct which can be identified as truth.

The Doubter's Companion - A Dictionary of Aggressive Common Sense - John Ralston Saul

Religion isn't a matter of truth or facts, but of faith. You believe in what cannot be known.

Once a religion becomes 'true' it, and it's neighbours, are in a lot of trouble.

 

[Guest]

We do have the ability to wipe life from the globe and enough to knock it off kilter.

HK, are you really including all life in your use of the word? Man may very well destroy all human and other animal life, but given time (in billions of years) the earth would regenerate, who knows in what patterns or forms, perhaps not even take the same path that led to humanity.

As for knocking the planet off kilter, are you speaking of bumping the earth out of orbit? I can’t imagine that, do you have a scientifically supported source for the possibility?

Perdita

 

[hotchkiss]

HK, are you really including all life in your use of the word? Man may very well destroy all human and other animal life, but given time (in billions of years) the earth would regenerate, who knows in what patterns or forms, perhaps not even take the same path that led to humanity.

As for knocking the planet off kilter, are you speaking of bumping the earth out of orbit? I can’t imagine that, do you have a scientifically supported source for the possibility?

Perdita

NO IT JUST REALLY WORRIES ME!!!!!!!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by rgraham666
So Joe posts a dictionary definition of truth. It seems fair I post one from my favourite dictionary.



Religion isn't a matter of truth or facts, but of faith. You believe in what cannot be known.

Once a religion becomes 'true' it, and it's neighbours, are in a lot of trouble.

Any assertion as to the nature or components of reality are matters of truth and fact. If a religious tenet is "there are two gods", then that is a statement of what exists and what doesn't. For instance, "The earth is 6,000 years old"... just because its a religious tenet doesn't exempt it from accuracy.

 

[Guest]

NO IT JUST REALLY WORRIES ME!!!!!!!

Ok, I get it. Go talk to a young child, get some optimism, it's not hard to find. Take care, P.

 

[gauchecritic]

Just thought of somethin else.

You want to worry the Ivory poachers dont get at the four elephants, that would really upset the balance of nature!

Naa the elephants will be fine, they have great A'tuin. (although there was the fifth elephant. Hmm Maybe you're right.

Gauche

 

[Guest]

(although there was the fifth elephant. Hmm Maybe you're right.

No, Gauche, you're thinking of "The Fifth Element". Bruce lives. Ooh, maybe you are right.

Perdita

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

because I believe we aren't supposed to completely understand these concepts....

I certainly hope you are correct!


The very idea of expecting man to be able to comprehend the requirements of a Supreme Being seems to be illogical to me.

If there is a Supreme Being, the constructs man employs to encompass Him, would be as feeble as your dog’s attempts to understand your wishes.

Why must he not enter the living room, not climb on the sofa, not chew on your shoes, not drink from the toilet, not pee on the floor? He recognizes when you get his leash that he is going for a walk, but why do you want him to heel, or why must he wait until you have collected his bowel movement?

He will never understand.

When I examine how religions have been formed, and how they are maintained — assuming only the BEST of motives — they still appear to me that they have much in common with a Dog’s Religion.

 

[Guest]

Any assertion as to the nature or components of reality are matters of truth and fact. If a religious tenet is "there are two gods", then that is a statement of what exists and what doesn't. For instance, "The earth is 6,000 years old"... just because its a religious tenet doesn't exempt it from accuracy.

Unless it is scientifically inaccurate (as many religious tenets seem to be).

Just because a group of people believes something to be factual doesn't make it so.

Instead, I'd classify it as a group-specific truth brought on by their specific faith.

It may be what they wholeheartedly believe, but it isn't necessarily a fact.

OK. Enough of this. I'm gonna go talk to my husband's dick.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetsubsarahh
Unless it is scientifically inaccurate (as many religious tenets seem to be).

Just because a group of people believes something to be factual doesn't make it so.

Very true. However, to clarify... even if it is scientifically inaccurate, it is still a truth-issue (accuracy and inaccuracy, falsity, etc... all these are issues of "whether a thing is true").

Instead, I'd classify it as a group-specific truth brought on by their specific faith.

I think classifying it as an anything-truth is a misnomer. Because it isn't actually true--just believed.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Virtual_Burlesque
The very idea of expecting man to be able to comprehend the requirements of a Supreme Being seems to be illogical to me.

If there is a Supreme Being, the constructs man employs to encompass Him, would be as feeble as your dog’s attempts to understand your wishes.

It's not really an issue of logic. Logically, it is possible for a man to fully comprehend the requirements of a Supreme Being (because it is not a logical impossibility--nothing in the essential characteristics or definition of Supreme Being requires "can't be understood" as a prerequisite).

More accurately, if there is a Supreme Being, it may be that we can or cannot encompass him formally.

When I examine how religions have been formed, and how they are maintained — assuming only the BEST of motives — they still appear to me that they have much in common with a Dog’s Religion.

The best motive would be "God told them how it was", would it not?

 

[cantdog]

Joe:More accurately, if there is a Supreme Being, it may be that we can or cannot encompass him formally.

Accurate! "Maybe yes, maybe no." Accurate and logical.

Joe, about the "truth in the dictionary" screed.

First, someone said there were two kinds of truth being equated, wrongly.

Then you produced a dictionary, to the effect, apparently, that there were at least three kinds of truth altogther.

You followed that by saying there was one kind only of truth, no "Up truth" no "down truth" no "banana pudding truth."

Whereas all men know there are at least three kinds, witness merriam & webster. That was my objection. Plain as a pikestaff, I would have thought. The original poster spoke of the two kinds of truth we might call "objective, verifiable, reproducible-- in a word, scientific-- truth" and the "verifiable but not amenable to proof truth or the realm of the subjective-- in a word, truthfulness."

The objective is powerless to interpret the subjective, tesimony-based, inner-experience kind of truth, although if you decide for a moment not to insist on reproducible, objective truth, a discussion of that kind of truth is possible on its own, subjective, terms.


Clearly, the "accurate and logical" which can only state "maybe yes, maybe no" doesn't further the quest any, so drop it and get with the subjective program, is my advice.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

It's not really an issue of logic. Logically, it is possible for a man to fully comprehend the requirements of a Supreme Being (because it is not a logical impossibility--nothing in the essential characteristics or definition of Supreme Being requires "can't be understood" as a prerequisite)....

Joe,

I have been reading, or trying to read, your posts for some time now, and there is something that has really been bothering me.

Please tell me. Do you actually form these kind of sentences in your head, or merely run some old textbook through a veg-o-matic?

The best motive would be "God told them how it was", would it not?

If you mean God spoke to me, like I speak to my dog, I should rather believe it was a good reason for making a reservation at the nearest Babble Institute — the ones with the white uniforms that padlock in the back.

If you mean because someone told me that God had spoken to him — I would rather listen to my (nonexistent) dog.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
Accurate! "Maybe yes, maybe no." Accurate and logical.

Joe, about the "truth in the dictionary" screed.

First, someone said there were two kinds of truth being equated, wrongly.

Then you produced a dictionary, to the effect, apparently, that there were at least three kinds of truth altogther.

You followed that by saying there was one kind only of truth, no "Up truth" no "down truth" no "banana pudding truth."

Whereas all men know there are at least three kinds, witness merriam & webster. That was my objection. Plain as a pikestaff, I would have thought. The original poster spoke of the two kinds of truth we might call "objective, verifiable, reproducible-- in a word, scientific-- truth" and the "verifiable but not amenable to proof truth or the realm of the subjective-- in a word, truthfulness."

The objective is powerless to interpret the subjective, tesimony-based, inner-experience kind of truth, although if you decide for a moment not to insist on reproducible, objective truth, a discussion of that kind of truth is possible on its own, subjective, terms.


Clearly, the "accurate and logical" which can only state "maybe yes, maybe no" doesn't further the quest any, so drop it and get with the subjective program, is my advice.

Well, that's almost right.

I actually didn't say there wasn't "up truth" or "down truth" or any of that. I said that if a thing is to have the title of "truth", then it is beholden to the definition of the word (and all of those participate in the same truth)--all of the explanations (numbered sub-definitions) participate in "fundamentally accurate, correct, real, etc.". If one of them does not participate in that, I'd be delighted for you to point it out.

If the original poster meant what you say, then the original poster is sort of butchering the concept of truth. It is quite noticeable that nothing about the definition of truth includes "subjectivity" in either concept or labelling. Subjective truth is a bit of an oxymoron... if a thing is subjective a thing cannot have truth value. A lot of philosophers have made arguments, all inconclusive, as to how truth can be subjective... but they all have essentially ended up saying "when we talk about subjective truths, we aren't actually talking about truths at all... we're talking about perceptives".

Now, I'm by no means saying that subjectivity doesn't exist. But it can't identify truth any more than someone can concieve of a round square.

When someone proposes "X is true", they are saying--right along with it--"Not-X is not-true". If you want to talk about subjectivity, there is no truth; truth shouldn't even be in the vocabulary, as subjectivity doesn't deal in truths to begin with.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Virtual_Burlesque
Joe,

I have been reading, or trying to read, your posts for some time now, and there is something that has really been bothering me.

Please tell me. Do you actually form these kind of sentences in your head, or merely run some old textbook through a veg-o-matic?

Teach enough basic, freshman level philosophy and it just kinda comes out... I imagine its the same for anyone with a profession that has a bit of repetitious explaining.

If you mean God spoke to me, like I speak to my dog, I should rather believe it was a good reason for making a reservation at the nearest Babble Institute — the ones with the white uniforms that padlock in the back.

If you mean because someone told me that God had spoken to him — I would rather listen to my (nonexistent) dog.

I mean "God revelated, in perfect form and understandability, all the essential knowledge and pristine encompassing of Himself directly into your mind in such a way that you can intelligibly understand it without flaw"... that is technically possible (because it isn't impossible).

 

[Guest]

Just thought of something that might help, or not. One of my best friends is a theologian with a speciality in ecclesiology (I also have philosophy prof. friends), and when she teaches a general course on Catholicism or Christianity (or more specific graduate classes) she always uses the phrase "truth claim". It helps get over having to define "the truth" or getting bogged down in more philosophical issues so that she and her students can actually learn something about the basic subject. E.g., the trinity is a truth-claim of the RCC; Jesus conquered death is a basic truth-claim of Christianity; it's usually the hierarchy of an institutional religion that gets into tenets.

I think religious discussions can be very enlightening, even helpful, if only to inspire questions about "life" and how to live well, but when these threads simply become logic swamps I lose interest.

Perdita

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Truth claim... we use that term a lot. I wasn't about to get /that/ hobo going, but its a good point.

I like religious discussions, for the same reason, I probably would have approached this one differently had I been warmly referenced. : )

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . I mean "God revelated, in perfect form and understandability, all the essential knowledge and pristine encompassing of Himself directly into your mind in such a way that you can intelligibly understand it without flaw"... that is technically possible (because it isn't impossible).

SIGH!

So now we’re back amongst Gauche’s minihedrons!

 

[Guest]

I think religious discussions can be very enlightening, even helpful, if only to inspire questions about "life" and how to live well, but when these threads simply become logic swamps I lose interest.

Perdita

Yep. Perty swampy in here.








P.S. May the force be with you.


http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/starwars/Sabers-02.gif

 

[gauchecritic]

And this is where logic fails with religion. Man encompassing God in his understanding.

Assuming that God actually is omnipresent, that would also make him infinite.

Infinity is a word concept which 'by definition' has no definition and cannot be encompassed. (that would put a limit on it)

Gauche

P.S for Perdita. Yes I did mean the Fifth Elephant. It's one of the discworld series.

 

[rgraham666]

Personally, I have a lot of trouble with the concepts 'truth', 'logic' and 'reason'.

To quote Northrop Frye, "It is a mistake to assume that only emotions can panic the mind."

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I've come to observe that religion makes the arrogant mistake of trying to define God. I believe religion's failing is that, as embodied in institutions, they are ruled by people with their own agendas. Seeing God filtered through their writings and their points of view is to follow a capricious and thus dangerous path.

I've also seen that science tries to deny the existence of God (while officially not doing so "because you cannot disprove God"). They believe that science is God - that all things can be ultimately explained by science.

Religious institutions and science alike both try and establish limits. But God is infinite. Creation is infinite in that we're starting to suspect there are even multiple universes.

Science and religions both scare the crapola out of me. I don't trust anyone who tries to define or trap God in behaviorisms or rules (even those who try to define God's gender or physical makeup), nor do I trust someone who says there isn't any God.

IMO the path to enlightenment is in both faith (God) and knowledge (science). I believe the science - the algebra of the universe - comes from the way God made the universe. I tend to believe all faiths have pieces of the truth.

 

[mismused]

Oh, my goodness,

I know I'm just sleepy, otherwise I wouldn't write this (hate these sleepy-headed impulses).

I've read both male and female descriptions here of God, if such there is, as He/he.

Why? Isn't it possible that God is a She/she? Or maybe God is an It.

Mercy, better go get me some sleep.

mismused

 

[Guest]

And this is where logic fails with religion. Man encompassing God in his understanding.
Assuming that God actually is omnipresent, that would also make him infinite.
Infinity is a word concept which 'by definition' has no definition and cannot be encompassed. (that would put a limit on it)

When I fully realized that God cannot even be fully imagined I finally felt Ok with the concept. I read a wonderful essay once by a Muslim titled something like, "How not to think about God", which very well explained such. I do believe God has no gender, no personality or character as we know these things, no time or space as we know these things, no mind as we know it, etc. etc.

Re. "infinity", Gauche: I think I've said this before, but at Caltech I worked for an astrophysicist, a very down to earth real life guy who happened to be an exceptionally brilliant scientist. I used the word, infinity, once in speaking to him and he interrupted me, speaking in his usual gentlemanly manner, but with the greatest authority, "There's no such thing." He didn't have time to explain further and I never got back to him, but I believed him.

Perdita