Is Truth personal?

[5010]

Originally posted by orgaelin, Now I'm confused. Are you a man of faith, science, or both? ~ Org.

Unless one verifies every experiment and observation, a man of science is also a man of faith.

I have some faith in science, but I have doubts too. I have some faith in scripture too, but doubts as well.

[LogicaLunatic]

5010 -

I agree with Gorgo and Liberal - (as I usually do for some reason)

You have a VERY broad definition of faith. In my world the baseball player concludes that the ball will fly through a certain piece of air and sticks his/her glove there. This conclusion is based upon the fact that they observed the trajectory of the ball before it was obscured by the sun. This, according to Gorgo and I is called thinking.

This is not faith.

I would consider it faith if he were to see the ball go a certain way but simply stick his/her hand in the air and 'believe' the ball was going there whether or not his senses told him the same thing.

[orgaelin]

Originally posted by 5010, Unless one verifies every experiment and observation, a man of science is also a man of faith. I have some faith in science, but I have doubts too. I have some faith in scripture too, but doubts as well.

In other words, you're in exactly the right place!

~ Org.

[5010]

Originally posted by LogicaLunatic, I would consider it faith if he were to see the ball go a certain way but simply stick his/her hand in the air and 'believe' the ball was going there whether or not his senses told him the same thing.

The facts are the position and trajectory and time when he could see the ball. Once the sun gets into his eyes he can no longer confirm where the ball is and goes on faith in his theoretical prediction of the trajectory. Regardless of whether this is based on science or practice, it is based on assumptions.

Consider a faithful dog. Master has always been kind to him, so the dog assumes his master will always be kind to him. And you know what, it pretty much works. Likewise, people who have benefitted from religeon may find themselves trusting it. People who have benefitted from science may find themselves trusting that.

People who study history may find themselves trusting neither

[Ken Carman]

Perhaps, bouncing off a cliche', we are all trying to describe one part of an elephant and, maybe, when we die we will see how it all fits together into a magnificent, or horrible, beast? One can only hope for the first.

[Ken Carman]

Originally posted by LogicaLunatic, People who study history may find themselves trusting neither

True, how true. Of course those who dive deeper into History may find themselves not trusting that either. Some say, "History is written by the victor." Sometimes I think some history is written by morons.

[Livemike]

Quote by: orgaelin For some people, the bible is Truth. For some, Truth is to be found inside them. For some Truth is to be found through a scientific viewpoint. Is anyone right? Can anyone find Truth? Or is Truth less of a universal property and more of a personal one? My own view is that Truth is unique to each person. What is true, is what is true for you.

Then how can you say it's "true"? If it is no more valid then the opposite belief then
it's clearly not true. If I say that the orbits of the planets are predictable for as long a
period as you might care to name that's either true for me and true for you or false for
both. In fact it's false (they are chaotic over a 20 million year range I believe). The
orbits of the same planet can't simultaineously be chaotic for you and non-chaotic
for me.

Quote by: orgaelin Obviously that doesn't mean that if I believe the sky is pink it is true for me. There has to be some kind of line drawn, whereby if your personal definition of truth varies so much from the majority, you become insane.

How does the opinion of the majority make someone insane? Only their own opinion
could do that. If everyone believed that spirits ruled the world and that it was basically
unpredictable and you believed that it was ruled by scientifically verifiable rules and
was basically predictable would you be insane?

Quote by: orgaelin The basic point is this: if you hold a certain view, you then go looking for evidence to support your view, while avoiding evidence which goes against your view. In the end, you can only find what you are looking for. We choose our truth and then we prove it to ourselves.

Well then stop doing that.

Quote by: orgaelin Thus someone who believes in an afterlife finds the 'proof' he needs, and one who believes in the simple 'you live, you die, get over it' philosophy finds everything he needs to 'prove' his hypothesis. Is there any difference between a real truth and a view we have totally convinced ourselves is true? (Aside from the fact that others are unconvinced)

Yes, the effects of believing something that is true are different from believing something
false but convincing. For instance you might be absolutely convinced that you refeuled
the plane before your flight over the Pacific. That doesn't get you safely there.

[Livemike]

Quote by: Gorgo Our beliefs are the filter through which we look at the world. Best not to believe, but rather to think and observe.

Do you really believe that? Or are you just posting rubbish? Think about it.

[Starboy]

Quote by: 5010 Unless one verifies every experiment and observation, a man of science is also a man of faith.

This is nonsense. This is exactly how new science is done many times. If it were a matter of faith then conflicting results would always be ignored.

I have some faith in science, but I have doubts too. I have some faith in scripture too, but doubts as well.

You don't have to have faith in science. That is the whole point of science. If you have to believe in electrons in order for you light switch to work then it isn't science. Science relies on people not having faith in science. If the day comes when you must have faith then science will have died in our society. Science is the realm of the skeptic. There could be no new science if there were not people who were skeptical of the old science. But in religion people who are skeptical enough of old religion becomes heretics. Many have been killed for it. In science you get the Nobel Prize. They cannot be compared at all.

Starboy

[jeffl]

Quote by: Starboy In science you get the Nobel Prize.

If you're connected. If you're a nobody you have to drink a vial of bacteria to prove a point.

[jeffl]

If you're a crack jounalist who exposes the drug trafficing of the CIA then you have to kill yourself. etc.etc.

It's not the science or the religion, it's what they do with it.

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl If you're connected. If you're a nobody you have to drink a vial of bacteria to prove a point.

Even if you had a point, you miss mine. In religion new religion does not get a prize, it gets the boot or worse. Whereas in science, no matter how it is done, there is new science that is honored every year in many ways. The Nobel Prize is only one of them.

There have been notable cases of science outsiders making important contributions. Perhaps you were not aware that Einstein was a patent clerk when he published his three papers that rocked physics.

There is nothing stopping anyone from investigating reality. It is there for everyone. And if you have something to show for your work that can be reproduced by anyone else then there is no reason why you cannot eventually get your work published somewhere as long as it is new science. What do you think science is? It is not as if new science is like trying to add or a change a gospel in the bible.

In science it is very simple. You do not get respect by whining about how you don’t get respect. You get respect by producing new science that makes predictions that people can reproduce. If you can’t do that then you might as well be doing science fiction.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl If you're a crack jounalist who exposes the drug trafficing of the CIA then you have to kill yourself. etc.etc. It's not the science or the religion, it's what they do with it.

How shocking! Jeffl say it ain't so! Do you mean to tell me that there are people in the world who would use whatever is available to suppress and control people? Oh my!

Errrr, so what. It has always been so.

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

By Starboy.........Even if you had a point, you miss mine. In religion new religion does not get a prize, it gets the boot or worse. Whereas in science, no matter how it is done, there is new science that is honored every year in many ways. The Nobel Prize is only one of them.

Merlin writes......Hmmmm' the boot? Do you consider Satanism (not witchcraft) and the many cults .old religions? Just wondering. And what are Cults? Cults are scapegoats for use of illegal criminal of deadly force. The governments definition of a NON APPROVED religion is a cult! A cult!

We are like the Rome of old! Hail Caesar bush...(hee hee). And this may sound sarcastic, but all religions were new at some point. (this applies to scientific paradigms as well)...

mb

[jeffl]

Quote by: Starboy Even if you had a point, you miss mine.

I didn't miss your point; it is, as usual, moot. Because at the same time it's important to remeber that science will naturally favor a materialistic perspective, because it is as yet blind to consciousness. Before we learn to see conscious dynamics we will have destroyed what few natural dynamics might remain. I think reading the flights of birds was once a viable cognitive mechanism, but we don't let ourselves consider the potential implications. It's the integrity of the ancient record that's important; but your juvenile foolishness would wipe that out in favor of new age bullshit! This is not a contest, it's about listening to hear.

In religion new religion does not get a prize, it gets the boot or worse. Whereas in science, no matter how it is done, there is new science that is honored every year in many ways. The Nobel Prize is only one of them.

To wash his hands of the deaths caused by dynamite, he creates an individuating reward structure; thus doing in the spiritual what he did in the physical. Open you eyes. i love the scientific method; but you have to explain consciousness too.

[jeffl]

Quote by: Starboy How shocking! Jeffl say it ain't so! Do you mean to tell me that there are people in the world who would use whatever is available to suppress and control people? Oh my! Errrr, so what. It has always been so. Starboy

Inexplicable. Intensely irresponsible.

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl Inexplicable. Intensely irresponsible.

If there were no guns people would use bows and arrows to hurt each other. If there were not bows and arrows they would use swords to hurt each other. If there were not swords they would use rocks and sticks to hurt each other. The common denominator is not the dangerous tools but the dangerous people.

It is irresponsible to blame the hammer when it is the craftsman who has made the mess.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeffl I didn't miss your point; it is, as usual, moot. Because at the same time it's important to remeber that science will naturally favor a materialistic perspective, because it is as yet blind to consciousness.

What are you talking about? This has historically been a big area of scientific research. Why do you lie so?

Before we learn to see conscious dynamics we will have destroyed what few natural dynamics might remain. I think reading the flights of birds was once a viable cognitive mechanism, but we don't let ourselves consider the potential implications. It's the integrity of the ancient record that's important; but your juvenile foolishness would wipe that out in favor of new age bullshit!

What new age bullshit? You type your messages on a computer connected to the internet and you call it new age bullshit? It is hypocritical to denounce the process that created the tools you use while you are using them. If you don't like it then get thee to the woods.

This is not a contest, it's about listening to hear.To wash his hands of the deaths caused by dynamite, he creates an individuating reward structure; thus doing in the spiritual what he did in the physical. Open you eyes. i love the scientific method; but you have to explain consciousness too.

[Edited because I confused it with another stream of thought]

I am sorry, but what does the problem of people trying to hurt each other with any means available mean that conciousness can't be explored?

Starboy

[jeffl]

Starboy; you're being incoherent. What are you saying? People can't live in community respecting each other?

[jeffl]

When have i been dishonest?