Objective Reality

[Dawnofhope]

Often peoples of different faiths or no faith find themselves so enmeshed in their worldview they struggle to empathise with others who hold apparently contradictory views . How can we better appreciate how peoples of one ideology have reached very different conclusions about the nature of reality to ourselves?

Sometimes on RF it can feel like some live in intellectual silos, disconnected from those who believe differently from ourselves and unable to understand why others have reached very different conclusions about the nature of reality. Is this a common experience for many of us?

How is it that we arrive at these varied conclusions and by what measure do we determine what is true or false, right or wrong? How do we know our take on the universe is any better than anyone else?

In summary:

(1) How can we know?

(2) Should we be more empathetic towards those who view life differently from ourselves? If so, how?

 

[allfoak]

Often peoples of different faiths or no faith find themselves so enmeshed in their worldview they struggle to empathise with others who hold apparently contradictory views . How can we better appreciate how peoples of one ideology have reached very different conclusions about the nature of reality to ourselves?

Sometimes on RF it can feel like some live in intellectual silos, disconnected from those who believe differently from ourselves and unable to understand why others have reached very different conclusions about the nature of reality. Is this a common experience for many of us?

How is it that we arrive at these varied conclusions and by what measure do we determine what is true or false, right or wrong? How do we know our take on the universe is any better than anyone else?

In summary:

(1) How can we know?

(2) Should we be more empathetic towards those who view life differently from ourselves? If so, how?

We can only know when we know.
There is no other explanation.
For those who know, no explanation is needed, for those who do not know, no explanation will do.
Whether to be empathetic or not, is not something i generally have to ask myself.

 

[Desert Snake]

Part of argumentation, is recognizing that there are different things going on.

'Arguing a text', i do this all the time, in a recognized text, and present arguments contextual to the text, example the Biblical canon, and if agreed, the apocrypha. This doesnt necessarily mean that I believe, or consider an argument, part of my religion, or whatever.

Arguing belief. This can be done with or without text, or accepted text for argumentation, and has to be noted, if the belief, differs from agreed upon text.

 

[Sunstone]

(1) Objective reality is a metaphysical concept and can neither be proven nor disproven to actually exist. One can only speculated about it -- or refuse to speculate about it at all (which is what I most often do). At best, we have as a substitute of sorts for objective reality, the knowledge that somethings can be reliably inter-subjectively verified.

(2) Unless someone's notion of reality demonstrably leads to harm for others, I think we should at least be tolerant of their views even if we still criticize them. That is, we should bear in mind that they have a right to them.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Often peoples of different faiths or no faith find themselves so enmeshed in their worldview they struggle to empathise with others who hold apparently contradictory views . How can we better appreciate how peoples of one ideology have reached very different conclusions about the nature of reality to ourselves?

Sometimes on RF it can feel like some live in intellectual silos, disconnected from those who believe differently from ourselves and unable to understand why others have reached very different conclusions about the nature of reality. Is this a common experience for many of us?

How is it that we arrive at these varied conclusions and by what measure do we determine what is true or false, right or wrong? How do we know our take on the universe is any better than anyone else?

In summary:

(1) How can we know?

(2) Should we be more empathetic towards those who view life differently from ourselves? If so, how?

(1) We can't as far as I can tell, which is why I'm a Devout Agnostic.
(2) Of course; we should recognize that all of us, mere bipedal hominid apes, on this speck of dust planet suspended in a sunbeam, are all equally clueless about deep metaphysical questions.

 

[Dawnofhope]

We can only know when we know.
There is no other explanation.
For those who know, no explanation is needed, for those who do not know, no explanation will do.
Whether to be empathetic or not, is not something i generally have to ask myself.

Thanks. Your comments accentuate for me the challenges of meaningful interfaith dialogue.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Part of argumentation, is recognizing that there are different things going on.

'Arguing a text', i do this all the time, in a recognized text, and present arguments contextual to the text, example the Biblical canon, and if agreed, the apocrypha. This doesnt necessarily mean that I believe, or consider an argument, part of my religion, or whatever.

Arguing belief. This can be done with or without text, or accepted text for argumentation, and has to be noted, if the belief, differs from agreed upon text.

Thank you.

Generally I find discussion about scripture a useful starting point with my Christian brothers. It doesn’t always go well of course. However a shared belief in the authority and authenticity of the bible can not be underestimated when engaging in interfaith discussion.

 

[tayla]

How can we know?

In my view, neither revealed religions not revealed spiritual paths can be trusted to generate truth. In fact, in many cases they contradict things provably true from science, history, psychology and archaeology. This is borne out by noticing they all have contradictory claims. Fictional stories can contradict, but truth cannot.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

We know what we think we know and don't know what we don't realize we don't know. The world is subjectively objective and objectively subjective.



“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the Weather.”
― Bill Hicks

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Often peoples of different faiths or no faith find themselves so enmeshed in their worldview they struggle to empathise with others who hold apparently contradictory views . How can we better appreciate how peoples of one ideology have reached very different conclusions about the nature of reality to ourselves?

Sometimes on RF it can feel like some live in intellectual silos, disconnected from those who believe differently from ourselves and unable to understand why others have reached very different conclusions about the nature of reality. Is this a common experience for many of us?

How is it that we arrive at these varied conclusions and by what measure do we determine what is true or false, right or wrong? How do we know our take on the universe is any better than anyone else?

In summary:

(1) How can we know?

(2) Should we be more empathetic towards those who view life differently from ourselves? If so, how?

Id say true and false, right and wrong is more from interaction and experiencing alignment or misalignment of peoples cultures. Actually adapting to cultural clashes than reading about it in a tour book.

I would replace empathy with respect. I know this doesnt apply to most, but take into consideration people who cant have empathy and/or do not know how to show it. I know in my case, its hard to understand and pin peoples emotions. I found out it wasnt just "me." A lot of factors play into why one is more open to differences than others. Some can be taught and learned others cant be changed but easier to find other cues to adapt to the issues.

Respect is a better term because it concentrates on how you treat someone regardless their empathy or lack thereof. Its more on ethics than morals and empathy. I may not have the ability to show empathy to someone but if we understand each other in perepective of respect (not tolerance) it wouldnt matter the judging feelings.

Respect, patience, and openness to learn are good ways to be around people who differ. At bare minumum respect. I may not bow to every senior who lives her but because we respect each others cultural boundies, they dont expect it from me.

-

I honestly know reality because to say I dont is to say Im questioning my own perception of truth. Im doubting myself for "what-ifs" and I see thats probably why there are many religions, not comfortable with a reality of suffering.

Reality is very individual. Take someone who hears voices we know isnt here. Its not our right to judge they are or not (outside if they need medical and psychological attention). Thats their reality and if they (as one therapist told me) feel they dont need to get help and go about their day, thats their view of life.

Religion works the same way. I mean, if your reality is open to "what if there is no god" (if we say 'what if we dont know') then is god your reality or can you jump from one faith to another trying to find whats already there.

Anyway, if we trust ourselves to be blunt: yes. We do know reality. The only thing we know is our perception of things at the core of it. Unless going to an alternative realm or sci-fi, I dont think that will change.

Empathy isnt something Id use. Id use respect. Depending on culture, we can learn respect gradually despite the obstacles on behavioral challenges. Empathy not so much. Maybe external empathy but internal I feel is experienced.

I wouldnt ask if someone can be empathetic, just more respect than tolerance.​

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

In my view, neither revealed religions not revealed spiritual paths can be trusted to generate truth. In fact, in many cases they contradict things provably true from science, history, psychology and archaeology. This is borne out by noticing they all have contradictory claims. Fictional stories can contradict, but truth cannot.

True and false, fictional stories can harbor truth and science can be outright wrong (when it doesn't truly upheld the skeptical scientific method). Religion is kind of a middle-ground in this respect.
Psychology is a bit of a grey area there (there is a lot of pseudo-psychology, like with philosophy, out there) and archaeology has it's practical limitations.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

We certainly don't experience reality objectively though.

 

[osgart]

When a worldview creates me as an enemy, or commands submission i take offense. Otherwise i seek to understand.

Even trying to be understanding, to be supremely understanding takes quite a bit of effort.

I have been squashed a few times. And also think it rather ridiculous when someone has the motive of beating the other guy/gal down just for the sake of winning an argument.

I have met some very nice people i dont agree with one iota though.

Every kind of circumstance i can think of is bound to happen; within the guidelines no doubt.

It nags me to see people try to make fools out of someone else. But i certainly dont mind correction, edification, and enlightening comments. A well meant criticism goes a long way.

I am of the conviction that a well mannered person can get across any point whatsoever, right, wrong or just opinion, or supposed fact and it should be received well.

Personal attacks are absurd. Nothing i consider worthwhile, or decent comes in that form.

I think its hilariously absurd when someone tries to make the rules of logic for everybody else to conform too. On the nature of reality especially. Its all inductive when it comes to reality. I just dont think logic 101 is iron clad. Only the obvious is deductive. I really do think logic is enormously in the eyes of the beholder, unless you have a 100% known fact or more.

If someone dont know something, and the other one does there is no point in arguing it.

I am certain many people are overconfident in many of there deductions as well.

But the bottom line is motivation and intent in any argument. Perniciousness is ignored if you ask me.

 

[Quintessence]

A few simple things (well, I call them simple, but in practice it may be more or less difficult depending on your upbringing) are useful tools:

• Introspection. Know well your own worldview and the perspectives you bring to the table. If you know your worldview, you'll be aware of what sorts of ideas are unsettling to that worldview.
• Mindfulness. After you know your own worldview, be mindful of your thinking about things. Notice how you react to a situation or new information.
• Critical Thinking Following from mindfulness, question your assumptions. Ask yourself why you reacted the way you did, and how it reflects you rather than the situation or information.
• Exploration. Life can be seen as a series of learning opportunities, but it is up to each of us to capitalize on that. In particular, explore things you think are a waste of your time or are stupid with an open mind.

Some of the ability to appreciate cultural diversity is related to personality type. The Big Five inventory includes 'openness to experience' as one of its metrics. That basically means some people are more innately curious and inquisitive about the unfamiliar than others. They're going to be a bit more well-equipped to explore different ideas whilst suspending judgement.

 

[Dawnofhope]

In my view, neither revealed religions not revealed spiritual paths can be trusted to generate truth. In fact, in many cases they contradict things provably true from science, history, psychology and archaeology. This is borne out by noticing they all have contradictory claims. Fictional stories can contradict, but truth cannot.

As a follower of one of those revealed religions, your view has discarded what is held in high esteem by over half the worlds population who have an Abrahamic Faith. However I do share your concern about when religion makes a claim to be true, yet blatantly contradicts that which has been established by science as being true. The stories in the nine chapters of Genesis are the best example I can think of. OTOH many Christians would view these stories as being allegorical and not literal.

The contradictory claims of the differing world religions is certianly another concern. However this is an inevitability with the main religions having come about over six thousand years of human history from such varied cultures. I favour a narrative that takes their historic origins into consideration.

Thank you for your response.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Id say true and false, right and wrong is more from interaction and experiencing alignment or misalignment of peoples cultures. Actually adapting to cultural clashes than reading about it in a tour book.

I would replace empathy with respect. I know this doesnt apply to most, but take into consideration people who cant have empathy and/or do not know how to show it. I know in my case, its hard to understand and pin peoples emotions. I found out it wasnt just "me." A lot of factors play into why one is more open to differences than others. Some can be taught and learned others cant be changed but easier to find other cues to adapt to the issues.

Respect is a better term because it concentrates on how you treat someone regardless their empathy or lack thereof. Its more on ethics than morals and empathy. I may not have the ability to show empathy to someone but if we understand each other in perepective of respect (not tolerance) it wouldnt matter the judging feelings.

Respect, patience, and openness to learn are good ways to be around people who differ. At bare minumum respect. I may not bow to every senior who lives her but because we respect each others cultural boundies, they dont expect it from me.

-

I honestly know reality because to say I dont is to say Im questioning my own perception of truth. Im doubting myself for "what-ifs" and I see thats probably why there are many religions, not comfortable with a reality of suffering.

Reality is very individual. Take someone who hears voices we know isnt here. Its not our right to judge they are or not (outside if they need medical and psychological attention). Thats their reality and if they (as one therapist told me) feel they dont need to get help and go about their day, thats their view of life.

Religion works the same way. I mean, if your reality is open to "what if there is no god" (if we say 'what if we dont know') then is god your reality or can you jump from one faith to another trying to find whats already there.

Anyway, if we trust ourselves to be blunt: yes. We do know reality. The only thing we know is our perception of things at the core of it. Unless going to an alternative realm or sci-fi, I dont think that will change.

Empathy isnt something Id use. Id use respect. Depending on culture, we can learn respect gradually despite the obstacles on behavioral challenges. Empathy not so much. Maybe external empathy but internal I feel is experienced.

I wouldnt ask if someone can be empathetic, just more respect than tolerance.​

I have certainly noticed you to be respectful to others in your responses which is a core value of any world view that is worth while. This quality is arguably more important than being right.

I take your point about empathy. It is a quality that comes naturally to some, and to others not at all. I’m not so naturally empathetic and have learnt over the years that taking the time to listen and consider the views of others has remedied my short comings to some extent.

Good point about being open to no god. If I hope you can be open to the possibility there is a God, then perhaps I should be open to His not existing. Having a belief in a God as an unknowable essence goes some way to bridging the gap.

Thanks for your considered response as always.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@adrian009

Something got me thinkin' if there is no objective reality, what reality does the earth see if we arent here to see it? (Does the falling tree make a sound when we're arent there to experience it?)

Saying yes (agnostic) would make sense when we dont know. We arent there.

Saying yes (atheist) for some of us can say of course, our being there or not doesnt change the sound a tree makes when pulled by gravity (aka, the world doesnt depend on us function)

I dont know a good theist comparison. The world doesnt revolve around us; so, could be just we have no ability to be around to experience it.

As for empathy, Id replace it respect. We cant be taught empathy but we can be taught how to express what a lot of us call empathy for better social interaction and health. We feel what we feel growing up. How we see others and affects us is more questions about behavior rather than how one feels about another.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have certainly noticed you to be respectful to others in your responses which is a core value of any world view that is worth while. This quality is arguably more important than being right.

I take your point about empathy. It is a quality that comes naturally to some, and to others not at all. I’m not so naturally empathetic and have learnt over the years that taking the time to listen and consider the views of others has remedied my short comings to some extent.

Good point about being open to no god. If I hope you can be open to the possibility there is a God, then perhaps I should be open to His not existing. Having a belief in a God as an unknowable essence goes some way to bridging the gap.

Thanks for your considered response as always.

I love questions that make me think (but it comes with a price to writing so much) I think our realities are pretty fixed. There's only but so much we can be open to without thinking we are playing fiction. What I experience, others would call god. What a lot of people who believe in gods experience, Id say many are syncronized events wraped in culture, upbringing, and history (like ol school myths, cant think of the term, when you use a paper bag to stop nose bleads. That or cob webs. Upsidedown horse shoes (grandmother used it over our door to ward bad spirits. Even got the priest to bless the house). Edit. Superstitions. Thats what they're called.

Though atheist dont have sacraments to "test" the experience

 

[Dawnofhope]

@adrian009

Something got me thinkin' if there is no objective reality, what reality does the earth see if we arent here to see it? (Does the falling tree make a sound when we're arent there to experience it?)

Saying yes (agnostic) would make sense when we dont know. We arent there.

Saying yes (atheist) for some of us can say of course, our being there or not doesnt change the sound a tree makes when pulled by gravity (aka, the world doesnt depend on us function)

I dont know a good theist comparison. The world doesnt revolve around us; so, could be just we have no ability to be around to experience it.
.

Reality exists independently of us. Night time is not a sufficient proof that the sun does not exist. Just because something is not immediately apparent does not invalidate it’s existence, and our perspective is just that. With health, doctors rely on the best possible information to diagnose if we have a medical problem. Objective truth and knowledge is important. It can guide us and inform us of the best path to take in life.

Having a worldview that makes sense and is founded on the best principles can assist us to live better lives. If it can’t do that then why bother?

 

[stvdv]

How is it that we arrive at these varied conclusions and by what measure do we determine what is true or false, right or wrong? How do we know our take on the universe is any better than anyone else?

In summary:
(1) How can we know?
(2) Should we be more empathetic towards those who view life differently from ourselves? If so, how?

1): Do what you know is good for you + refrain "thinking to know what is good for others". They will tell you if needing your input.
2): If one could be more empathetic it would create more love in the world. Be more humble, realizing "I am not as big as my ego"