Truth

[jeffl]

It seems to me that, as far as secular discussion is concerned, the only way that "God" presents is as a truth/faith construct(tfc). The nature of the tfc isn't directly obvious; it'd look something like a set of evolving memes. I use the label 'tfc' to make the point that truth value is arrived at by some sort of faith based mechanism, and it is the reliability of both that is tested in the fullness of time.

When it comes to dismissing someone else's faith you have to consider the perspective and intent of those that generated it. How does one rationalize such a costly exercise for so little apparent gain?

[gallo]

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that I can't reject Shintoism, Buddhism, Islam, Iroquois religion, Souxin religion, Druid religion, and so on and so forth? The exercise isn't all that costly because the alternative is to get bogged down in endless evaluation of endless religions, even thousands of christian sects. The gain of rejecting is overwhelming when one considers the actual evidence that any of those religions is true.

But of course, you actually had only one particular religion in mind, didn't you? Why is your religion any different? Is you religion one of the thousands of "christian" religions?

Please enlighten us.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: jeffl When it comes to dismissing someone else's faith you have to consider the perspective and intent of those that generated it.

Support, please.

The special pleading of religion enjoys no more legitimacy than any other faith based endeavor. Understanding that faith is belief without evidence, I really don't care why someone had faith in a used car they bought without evidence. I know they've made (at best) a risky investment or (at worst) been screwed.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: gallo I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that I can't reject Shintoism, Buddhism, Islam, Iroquois religion, Souxin religion, Druid religion, and so on and so forth? The exercise isn't all that costly because the alternative is to get bogged down in endless evaluation of endless religions, even thousands of christian sects. The gain of rejecting is overwhelming when one considers the actual evidence that any of those religions is true. But of course, you actually had only one particular religion in mind, didn't you? Why is your religion any different? Is you religion one of the thousands of "christian" religions? Please enlighten us.

You have presented an interesting perspective of the 'All, one, or none' paradox of the nature of religious belief in humanity. The choices are:

(1) None - the position of the atheist, and the provisional, conditional uncertain view of the agnostic.

(2) One - Most religions claim some sort of exclusiveness of one only belief. Even those that do not make outright claim of denying the validity of other beliefs, do so by not including other beliefs into their belief system and define others in forms of conditional tolerance, ie most Buddhist/Taoist sects.

(3) All - This is a unique catagory that as far as I know only one religion believe in a broadly inclusive religious belief that come close to this, the Baha'i Faith. It may be recognized that all beliefs cannot be true, but the universal ALL proposes that the religious beliefs of the diversity of human experience reflect the human falliable view of God and the spiritual nature of existence, and not in any way does any one offer an absolute truth. The collective religious beliefs represent a cyclic evolving progressive nature of the human soul as an individual and collective spiritual river of creation. Concepts of the nature of God, the soul, salvation, or the spiritual nature of truth cannot be defined absolutely from the human. There is a parallel in this worldview of the evolution of humanity and the knowledge of humanity in the physical perspective of civilization and science. The evidence for this worldview parallels the 'None' argument of atheism and agnostism, and if the 'Source' some call God is removed, we have choice #1.

From the perspective of my journey and investigation of the nature of existence over the past ~50 years the only viabl alternatives are #1 and #3, and you do not have to investigate all the numerous choices of theism, deism, monism, pantheism, and . . . to be aware of the nature of the human spiritual journey in its diversity, but it helps to keep an open mind and continue to investigate and understand this ourney.

[5010]

(4) You - The only truth is what is revealed to you through your experience of Nature. Nothing said or written about God or lack thereof can override your direct experience, even while considering your senses to be fallible. And that includes this paragraph!

[jeffl]

Quote by: gallo I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that I can't reject Shintoism, Buddhism, Islam, Iroquois religion, Souxin religion, Druid religion, and so on and so forth?

Often people will do things they shouldn't, simply to prove that they can. If you want to talk about rejecting them based on humble reason rather than arrogant dogma (nothing implied) then we might proceed.

Quote by: gallo The exercise isn't all that costly because the alternative is to get bogged down in endless evaluation of endless religions, even thousands of christian sects. The gain of rejecting is overwhelming when one considers the actual evidence that any of those religions is true.

As an exercise, it seems to be where to begin. Having done that, and proceeding with the exercise, one realizes that the evidence is colored by perspective; gain that once seemed overwhelming becomes... less significant in relation to the potential of (currently) unarticulatable loss.

Quote by: gallo But of course, you actually had only one particular religion in mind, didn't you? Why is your religion any different? Is you religion one of the thousands of "christian" religions? Please enlighten us.

Actually, i'm hoping for an etymological connection between the names 'Krishna' and 'Christ.'

Central to the success of most religions is the nature of meaning itself. Structures that claim truth must be given more scrutiny than those that simply delineate associations.

[jeffl]

Quote by: Zhavric Understanding that faith is belief without evidence, I really don't care why someone had faith in a used car they bought without evidence. I know they've made (at best) a risky investment or (at worst) been screwed.

Culture is far more complex than a car. Cultural evolution is not genetic evolution. Such oversimplification is a tactic a used car salesman might use.

Speed-holes.

[jeffl]

Quote by: 5010 (4) You - The only truth is what is revealed to you through your experience of Nature. Nothing said or written about God or lack thereof can override your direct experience, even while considering your senses to be fallible. And that includes this paragraph!

'Even while considering your senses to be fallible' is where i'd take issue; as a result, what is revealed to you is experience itself. 'Truth' has to do with how well the ideas in your head that were compelled by the experience correspond to the reality of the situation.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: jeffl Culture is far more complex than a car. Cultural evolution is not genetic evolution. Such oversimplification is a tactic a used car salesman might use. Speed-holes.

You do realize you failed utterly to even come close to addressing the issue I brought up in your argument, right?

Care to try again?

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: 5010 (4) You - The only truth is what is revealed to you through your experience of Nature. Nothing said or written about God or lack thereof can override your direct experience, even while considering your senses to be fallible. And that includes this paragraph!

In this view, 'You', or possibly 'Me', becomes 'God', and the ustification of 'Truth', would include the mandate that decides what is fallible and infallible, including this paragraph.

[Alive]

I think I agree with you, jeffl, though I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.

The reality is that people who "invest" in religion are not doing so to gain knowledge of factual reality, and therefore attacking their belief for being false is an absurd and pointless endevour. Attacking it for being destructive could have merit, though.

[jeffl]

Quote by: Zhavric Quote by: jeffl When it comes to dismissing someone else's faith you have to consider the perspective and intent of those that generated it. Support, please.

If someone is going to lie to you in order to get you do do something, that is one thing; if they have perceptions that are difficult to articulate, but at the same time describe some impending doom and a way to avoid it, then their effort to articulate said perceptions is something else entirely. That's how it looks to me anyhow.

[jeffl]

Quote by: Alive Attacking it for being destructive could have merit, though.

Absolutely; what i see is a very active campaign, in intellectual circles, against truth and spirituality generally, in favor of individual perspective and human well-being. It's like clear cut logging, by the blind, in the dark; which is not to excuse the logging practices of the past.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: jeffl what i see is a very active campaign, in intellectual circles, against truth and spirituality generally, in favor of individual perspective and human well-being.

Where do you live, and what college do you go to?

To even imply that intellectuals sit in "circles" all day and never interact with reality or "truth" or expose themselves to alternative viewpoints, preferring instead to attack things baselessly because they happen to be blind to it or are disgusted by it is absurd coming from my experience.

[jeffl]

Quote by: Zinkovich Where do you live, and what college do you go to? To even imply that intellectuals sit in "circles" all day and never interact with reality or "truth" or expose themselves to alternative viewpoints, preferring instead to attack things baselessly because they happen to be blind to it or are disgusted by it is absurd coming from my experience.

Sit? Did i imply sit? I thought the context implied something else.

Why do you use quotes around truth?

And the fact is, people attack things baselessly; it's our nature, and some do it for political gain (sometimes even covertly manipulate others to do it.) We have to learn to stop doing that, to stop letting it be done to us.

An analogy has been made, by Dennett et. al. i think, between religion and a parasite that grows in a snail and deposits its eggs in a bird. The analogy is more accurately made between religion and the snails shell, i think. Some might move along, toward a hermit crab sort of analogy; but that's a whole different issue.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: jeffl Sit? Did i imply sit? I thought the context implied something else.

The word "circle", when applied to groups, often implicates a stationary circle in which people sit and discuss things. Circles don't "move around", contextually speaking, when they are called "intellectual".

You might not intended to imply the image of a "sitting" circle, but that's the image you conjured up in my mind.

Why do you use quotes around truth?

The "truth" drawn from experience of the sort that requires traveling and perception can often be distorted or made misleading due to misinterpretation or ignorance.

It's a common failing in anthropology- we even had a whole book that was originally viewed as "influential" made during the colonial era that was completely flawed due to this misinterpretation called "The Golden Bough". Misleading attitudes and beliefs about primitive behaviors and superstitions still persist because of that one book. Even sadder yet, it still sells.

And the fact is, people attack things baselessly; it's our nature, and some do it for political gain (sometimes even covertly manipulate others to do it.) We have to learn to stop doing that, to stop letting it be done to us.

There are processes in place in most intellectual circles to prevent such behavior from occurring. Peer review, evaluations, and regulations concerning funding all tend to encourage having some base to one's behaviors and actions as a professional academic.

An analogy has been made, by Dennett et. al. i think, between religion and a parasite that grows in a snail and deposits its eggs in a bird. The analogy is more accurately made between religion and the snails shell, i think. Some might move along, toward a hermit crab sort of analogy; but that's a whole different issue.

Analogies really don't tell us much about the full aspects of the situation with "intellectuals" and "attacking things basically".

If you had some statistics or true, recent/modern stories to give me as an example or support than we might have something, here.

[jeffl]

Quote by: Zinkovich The word "circle", when applied to groups, often implicates a stationary circle in which people sit and discuss things. Circles don't "move around", contextually speaking, when they are called "intellectual". You might not intended to imply the image of a "sitting" circle, but that's the image you conjured up in my mind.

Fact is you're making assumptions that are not conducive to a meaningful exchange; for whatever reason.

The "truth" drawn from experience of the sort that requires traveling and perception can often be distorted or made misleading due to misinterpretation or ignorance.

No shit.

There are processes in place in most intellectual circles to prevent such behavior from occurring. Peer review, evaluations, and regulations concerning funding all tend to encourage having some base to one's behaviors and actions as a professional academic.

How is that relevant? When do anthropologists ever write papers about the nature of truth? Step back a little further.

Analogies really don't tell us much about the full aspects of the situation with "intellectuals" and "attacking things basically".

I am to assume that you can tell me much about intellectuals? You might be able to tell me about anthropological circles (that would be anthropologists talking amongst themselves about anthropology,) and it's clear you consider yourself an intellectual, but you're not saying much about intellectual circles (that would be intellecutals talking amongst themselves about intellect.) Further, why would an analogy about religion say anything about "intellectuals" and "attacking things baselessly?"

If you had some statistics or true, recent/modern stories to give me as an example or support than we might have something, here.

On this list, and on ilovephilosophy.com, people have avoided discussing Truth; on ilp Neitche was continuosly prosletized (it seems likely to me that his articulated position is a inadequately plagerized Buddhism.). I recently went to a philosopher's forum where spirituality was spoken of by the moderator in a rather derogatory fashion. These and myown experiences as an agnostic at university have shown me that we have not meditated on the ground of language long enough; we give our own individual self way too much credit. Language is family and this is a test, not merely a test.

[Zinkovich]

Fact is you're making assumptions that are not conducive to a meaningful exchange; for whatever reason.

You asked me why I thought you were implying the act of "sitting", so I answered honestly. Just drop it- it's nothing worth debating over if the stationary or isolated nature of "intellectual circles" wasn't part of your point.

No shit.

If you already understood that, why did you bother asking me what I meant when I put my quotes around the word "truth"?

Honestly, I see no reason for the quoted response other than to provoke needlessly.

How is that relevant? When do anthropologists ever write papers about the nature of truth? Step back a little further.

Where in the quote I was responding to did you mention the "baseless" attacks being based only on the nature of truth?

I was merely informing you that any academic who does things baselessly as a professional is not going to have his funding nor his credibility for very long.

I am to assume that you can tell me much about intellectuals? You might be able to tell me about anthropological circles (that would be anthropologists talking amongst themselves about anthropology,) and it's clear you consider yourself an intellectual, but you're not saying much about intellectual circles (that would be intellecutals talking amongst themselves about intellect.) Further, why would an analogy about religion say anything about "intellectuals" and "attacking things baselessly?"

I thought you were using the analogy as support for your initial premise i.e. that there is "a very active campaign, in intellectual circles, against truth and spirituality generally, in favor of individual perspective and human well-being."

If you weren't, then I suggest you better explain what you meant about the analogy- the way you described it and inserted it into your post makes its context and meaning very vague.

It's like if, in response to your next post, I just put "I agree with Pierson's analogy of truth being a butterfly with purple wings, rather than a ground-dwelling insect". What on earth would you even do with such an analogy without a better explanation? You'd probably get the meaning confused, just as I was with your little citation of religion being like a "hermit crab".

On this list, and on ilovephilosophy.com, people have avoided discussing Truth; on ilp Neitche was continuosly prosletized (it seems likely to me that his articulated position is a inadequately plagerized Buddhism.). I recently went to a philosopher's forum where spirituality was spoken of by the moderator in a rather derogatory fashion. These and myown experiences as an agnostic at university have shown me that we have not meditated on the ground of language long enough; we give our own individual self way too much credit. Language is family and this is a test, not merely a test.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were including message boards when you meant "intellectual circles". In that case, I can agree with you.

Baseless attacks towards religion in academia, though- I don't see it all that much. Maybe some freshmen might come in with that attitude at the campus I happen to go to, but usually their attitude tempers with age/attendance, so I certainly do not think it is anything to be too concerned about.

As for "ground of language", if you mean language defining perception, I would like to ask you how far you think that definition goes. Perhaps we can find a meaningful direction to go with that aspect of "truth", instead of continuing in this empty line of debate that's leading nowhere.

[jeffl]

Quote by: Zinkovich "I agree with Pierson's analogy of truth being a butterfly with purple wings, rather than a ground-dwelling insect". What on earth would you even do with such an analogy without a better explanation?

I'd say why limit truth to one or the other; why not consider the worm and the butterfly, it provides better access to catharsis.

You'd probably get the meaning confused, just as I was with your little citation of religion being like a "hermit crab".

Probably:)

As for "ground of language", if you mean language defining perception, I would like to ask you how far you think that definition goes.

All the way to Justice. I have truth, meaning, and justice being transcendent to Meaning; another iteration to Truth and Justice, and Meaning falls away to humility in Unity. Or something like that.