Objective Reality

[David T]

(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.

I think reality is about one inch away from the region of the brain that asks what is reality and debates it with other small regions. . It might take a whole life time to travel one inch but It seems all very regionalisticlly confined to a particular locality in the cranium.

 

[David T]

My approach is to first get to know them as a person and possible friend. Its much easier to appreciate a persons differing thoughts or ideologies if I do this.

I always ignore what they say and go straight to the heart. People can be very nasty and dress that up in all kinds of bs love. Other people can be thorny prickly types but have a heart of gold. Here since there is no prosody in the conversations really it's more difficult but then again it's easier to navigate what people are thinking as well.

 

[David T]

I agree.

We all need to read the reality of our own lives, assess what works best for us, and live by our highest principles.

What works for you may not work for me. Its certainly not a one size fits all when it comes to faith.

Religions tend to start that way and arrive at a one size fits all conclusion. We are naturally reductive.

 

[stvdv]

I won't debate what your country's law is about; yet I suspect some of your countrymen would. We agree that we should not "demean" the beliefs of others. But, when people come into a forum like this, where the purpose is to debate religion, we are not demeaning their beliefs when we offer reasons that they are mistaken.

In this context, to say that we should respect the beliefs of others is simply a poor choice of words. I respect people who are kind regardless of their beliefs. Agreeing with me is not a requirement.

I fully agree with that. Debate scriptures and actions is good. When I say "respect is a must" I mean Ad hominem attack is "not done" [=soul attack].

Agreeing with me is not a requirement. Agreed. Spiritual is personal anyway IMO. I am fine if Christian believes he goes to hell unless believing in Jesus. All should speak for themselves. I am willing to listen, unless Christian believes non-Jesus believers go to hell. This feels like: a)demeaning others' BeliefSystem + b)putting spells +c)using emotional blackmail as manipulation tactics. Sick games IMO, and only monologue anyway.

Of course Christian has free speech as have I. Some countries slice heads on blasphemy though. And I don't let them get away with it either. That's all I am saying. If someone takes liberty to go for an "Ad hominem" attack then he gives me "card blanche" IMO.

 

[stvdv]

My approach is to first get to know them as a person and possible friend. Its much easier to appreciate a persons differing thoughts or ideologies if I do this.

My first thought "are you sneaky, trying to smooth-talk me into Jesus or is it a genuine conversation". This happened many times, that's why I ask.

 

[David T]

My first thought "are you sneaky, trying to smooth-talk me into Jesus or is it a genuine conversation". This happened many times, that's why I ask.

Jesus was a jerk in particular to religion he was executed for being a jerk. Then a religion formed up him and over time it began executing jerks., they called them heretics.

So the whole faux love thingie has got to be the biggest Load of self induced crap ever in Christianity. It takes what is valid and transmorphs it into what is self serving. But hell that's normal. The problem with religion is generally normal well meaning Folks determine!!! Sorry Christianity wasn't started by normal folks. So keep that BS antenna up on high alert always!!! They mean we'll but wow they are they normal.like some fan club run a muck.

Some Artists inside and outside religion get this.

 

[stvdv]

I authored a thread recently that might interest you. It's entitled Global Harmony is Inevitable. However, although I applaud the goals of your religion, I can't see religion as the tool to get the Global Harmony job done because religion's sole, undeniable achievement has been the division of humanity into thousands of quarreling sects. Consequently, religion seems like more of an obstacle to be avoided in humanity's path to harmony.
Global Harmony is Inevitable

I had a quick look at your link. Only 1 remark. Indian spirituality claims that there are 4 yuga's. 3 passed already, we are in no. 4. First was a topper, the best [Peace only]. Slowly declining in second [Fights between countries]. Slowly declining in third [Fights between families]. Slowly declining in fourth [Fights in families]. Still going down. This one is called Kali Yuga, the worst in morals. I don't know many details. But this being the last might indicate Big Bang coming [or however that goes]. But don't worry. Kali Yuga lasts 400.000 years, and only 5000 years passed sofar.

I hope the Indian way is wrong. I liked your positive "Global Harmony" coming soon better. On the other hand all nature works that way: Born, Flower, Death.
[Just 1 remark, because I saw your quote. Not within the scope of this post, so better not continue with it]

 

[David1967]

My first thought "are you sneaky, trying to smooth-talk me into Jesus or is it a genuine conversation". This happened many times, that's why I ask.

Some do that. But that is blatantly dishonest (IMHO) to be nice to someone for the sole reason of getting them to convert to your religion. So, no. I never do that.

 

[stvdv]

The trick with empathy, and most artists struggle with this l, is how to be empathetic without being pulled over the cliff.

Not sure what you mean. Being empathetic is never a problem IMO. You are just sensitive and feel exactly what needs to be done. People who are less empathetic mess up easier, because they didn't see it coming. Empathetic without being grounded can be a problem, maybe that is what you refer to "being pulled over the cliff".

 

[David T]

Not sure what you mean. Being empathetic is never a problem IMO. You are just sensitive and feel exactly what needs to be done. People who are less empathetic mess up easier, because they didn't see it coming. Empathetic without being grounded can be a problem, maybe that is what you refer to "being pulled over the cliff".

Oh it was a problem for me. Empathy is a topic we don't understand but we know it as well. Empathy influences how we perceive and if constrained only in the human world it can become problematic. That's why certain people gravitate out away from culture. Not separate but stand back a bit. Breathing becomes more primary. John Muir emphisized this quality of nature, of wild untouched wilderness places as a healthy respite from culture. I live in what I call a mental health facility for city folk. It's the oregon coast. I have to live here institutionalised full time the rest of my life!!! Whoa is me as I hike around the grounds. Lol

 

[stvdv]

Jesus was a jerk in particular to religion he was executed for being a jerk. Then a religion formed up him and over time it began executing jerks., they called them heretics.

So the whole faux love thingie has got to be the biggest Load of self induced crap ever in Christianity. It takes what is valid and transmorphs it into what is self serving. But hell that's normal. The problem with religion is generally normal well meaning Folks determine!!! Sorry Christianity wasn't started by normal folks. So keep that BS antenna up on high alert always!!! They mean we'll but wow they are they normal.like some fan club run a muck.

Some Artists inside and outside religion get this.

I am still waiting for the Pope to go on his knees on TV, for all to see, and apologize for all wrongful killings of heretics, done in the Name of Jesus, by the Church.
[But I won't hold my breath]

 

[Dawnofhope]

My comment didn't offer my view of the universe. It offered my view of Truth -- and claims of truth are true or false. Black or white. Are they not?

The sign on the forum door reads "Religion Debates." Debates are about differences of opinion. They're healthy when we can disagree yet come away with a mutual respect.

Thanks for sharing your approach and that’s what I’ve wanted to explore through this thread. I like the words mutual respect.

I have placed this thread in the religious debates section to enable us all to speak freely. However with that freedom comes responsibility.

Having a forum with so many disparate perspectives is challenging but rewarding. I think it quite an achievement to create and manage such a forum.

 

[Dawnofhope]

My approach is to first get to know them as a person and possible friend. Its much easier to appreciate a persons differing thoughts or ideologies if I do this.

That’s an approach that is the best in real life. Our workplace environment would be tough going if we were continually debating religion with each other like on RF. There would be employment issues for sure. Yet on RF it’s an environment set up so we can debate religion. For me that is both part of the attraction but challenging at the same time.

You seem like a decent human being and you’ve obviously make the adjustment lol.

 

[Ponder This]

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?

How do you throw a ball into the basket?

Do you stare at the ball and try to figure it out?

Or do you throw the ball and see if it goes in?

If you swing at the piñata you at least have a chance of getting some candy.
But if you are afraid that you are going to look like a fool and don't swing, then you have already lost.
Your enemy was never the piñata. Your enemy was yourself.

 

[Dawnofhope]

We don't, in any ultimate sense.

But we can take our views for a gallop on RF and see how many times we get knocked over. That will give some indication, though an indication under very particular circumstances.

The court of public opinion is one measure though I wouldn't see it as authoritative in any way. Its great to hear and reflect on all manner of opinions though.

I attempt to solve that one by my three assumptions. (They have to be assumptions because I can't begin to demonstrate their correctness without having first assumed they're correct.)
That a world exists external to the self.
That the senses are capable of sufficiently informing the self about that world.
That reason is a valid tool.
Those who post on RF thereby demonstrate that they already share the first two assumptions, and I hope they share the third.

So in my view, on the basis of those assumptions, we know because there's a world external to the self, our senses can sufficiently inform us about it, and we can validly use reason to find out about it.

That external world is objective reality. As for 'truth', a statement is true if it accurately reflects / corresponds to / conforms with, objective reality.

As far as I can see you are the only one thus far to consider what the philosophers would call an epistemology of knowledge.

Epistemology - Wikipedia

In regards how we know, we could categorise experience, reason, and authority. Religion adds another dimension of course with the nature of Divine Revelation.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 297-299

The problem arises when our religious outlook contradicts experience and reason.

At the dinner table, in the bar, in public, we should endeavor to maximize respect between people, stay away from unnecessary argument, and be good friends and citizens.

On RF, well, if we don't argue, we'll never learn, and worse, we'll never have any fun.

We need to enjoy our time here on RF for certain.

Thanks for upbeat and well considered response,

 

[Dawnofhope]

I authored a thread recently that might interest you. It's entitled Global Harmony is Inevitable. However, although I applaud the goals of your religion, I can't see religion as the tool to get the Global Harmony job done because religion's sole, undeniable achievement has been the division of humanity into thousands of quarreling sects. Consequently, religion seems like more of an obstacle to be avoided in humanity's path to harmony.

Global Harmony is Inevitable

I started a similar OP about the same time last year.

World Peace - Is it possible?

I hope to look at your thread a little more closely and at first glance it looks as if you had a well informed discussion.

The discussion in my thread became derailed at the outset as I had approached the topic from a Baha'i perspective which was like a red rag to a bull for some posters lol.

 

[Dawnofhope]

1. If a persons opinion contradicts definition then we know

2. If a persons opinion contradicts definition then surely it is up to that person to review the definition and either a/ use a different wording so not to cause confusion or b/ revise their opinion in light of their new knowledge.

A third option c/ would be simply to accept that person is misusing a general definition and bury your head in the sand.

The manner in which we use language is certainly vital to a shared exploration of truth as you suggest. That includes using words in a manner that is clear and consistent with common usage.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Religions tend to start that way and arrive at a one size fits all conclusion. We are naturally reductive.

That certainly is a risk as history has shown. I would ask if that is a problem with us as people, an inherent flaw in a specified religion, and what safeguards are in place to uphold and preserve the fundamental human right for each one of us to believe as we choose.

 

[Vinayaka]

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?

Personally, I just accept it. The planet is diverse, and there is no one right truth. Once an individual gets that idea in their head, it's relatively easy. But I confess to not being so tolerant of folks who want to convert me, or do think one size fits all. So in the phrase 'mutual respect' the operative word is 'mutual' and perhaps 'respect' should be changed to tolerance. So often the feeling I have isn't mutual. As Sunstone said, people have the absolute human right to believe in what they want to. I don't have to respect some views, as they're intolerant, but we can still tolerate the people holding these views.

This forum in my view, seems to be fair in determining how far one can go with their 'my way is the only way' view.

 

[stvdv]

Personally, I just accept it. The planet is diverse, and there is no one right truth. Once an individual gets that idea in their head, it's relatively easy. But I confess to not being so tolerant of folks who want to convert me, or do think one size fits all. So in the phrase 'mutual respect' the operative word is 'mutual' and perhaps 'respect' should be changed to tolerance. So often the feeling I have isn't mutual. As Sunstone said, people have the absolute human right to believe in what they want to. I don't have to respect some views, as they're intolerant, but we can still tolerate the people holding these views.

This forum in my view, seems to be fair in determining how far one can go with their 'my way is the only way' view.

Thanks, I like this "there is no one right truth...."

I use in this context "respect", but maybe "tolerance" is better. Never thought about that. Just try to get it clear for myself [I find it an important issue]
When I use "respect" in this context I mean "see the other as a creation of God, who got life and freedom to explore religion in his own way"

Google gave for "respect" 2 definitions:
1): "a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements."
2): "due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others" [Seems to cover "innermost feelings, soul level...." in our context quite well]

Using definition 1) I fully understand `you are not too happy to use the word "respect"`
Using definition 2) I find it quite good to use this in our context. How you feel with this definition? Better? or still not good?

As @joe1776 also pointed out to me the word "respect", I like to have it cleared up. Especially because this is an essential part in this context for me.

For me the word "tolerant" misses this "divine connection" that I can feel when using "respect".