Science, religion and the truth

[mikkel_the_dane]

^ I really hate it when people confuse hubris and verbosity with insight.

How subjective of you. Is this a fact or even true?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[cladking]

It is irrelevant what humans think or do. The actual truth equates to reality. Humans might be deceived into thinking whatever they believe is the truth and behaving in accordance with this but reality just continues rolling along regardless. I'm not sure science claims to know 'truth', just our best explanations for such, and which corresponds to reality as closely as possible - which is why older theories usually are updated or overthrown by better ones. Religions, I suspect, are not playing the same game as science, so why compare them? They seem to be catering for a different need even if such often comes into conflict with science. Their problem for trying to take on such a task.

I agree except that most people want to impose the tiny bit known by science as a template for understanding all of reality. They never notice that reality does not make a good fit and is spilling out in all dimensions. They don't notice that even if we project what science might learn in the future that reality and our understanding are unlikely to ever be the same.

When an individual takes on beliefs it becomes very difficult to see anything but those beliefs. We all see everything in terms of beliefs and "scientific beliefs" can be more limiting than religious beliefs simply because it is easier to not be able to understand "God's will" than it is to not understand the "Law of Gravity". People tend to come to take for granted the stars in the sky and the satellites among them because everyone believes they understand both.

 

[Polymath257]

Correct, now start here:
James, William | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
...For James, the “reality” with which truths must agree has three dimensions: (1) matters of fact, (2) relations of ideas (such as the eternal truths of mathematics), and (3) the entire set of other truths to which we are committed. ...

So here is the first problem: I am now subjective, because I point out that I am and that is the reason I wrote this.
So is that a fact?
Do we have to include subjective facts as true? Now explain how some will answer yes and others no. What makes that no true? How is that a fact?

People will answer differently because they use different definitions. That just means they use the same word for two different notions and that we have to be clear which one is being used.

In Jame's definition of 'reality', I reject 2) and 3) as being part of 'reality' and only allow for 1). That is simply the definition I use. If you use a different definition, then we need to agree on which one to use in our discussion or else communication won't happen.

In particular, I put 2) above in the category of 'language usage' and 3) above in the category of 'opinion'. That is how I use the language.

So either you subjectively reject subjectivity as relevant for some cases of truth, but then you have just relied on the very thing you reject; namely subjectivity.

Having different definitions isn't the same as being subjective. That is simply having the same word used for different concepts. And that happens all the time.

So you decide subjectively now: Can some cases of truth be subjective? Yes or no?

Not by the definition I use, no. But for the definition you use, yes. It is a fact that we use different definitions.

It is your opinion that your definition is more useful and it is my opinion that mine is. We disagree, potentially on that matter of opinion. But, if you use my definition, or if I use yours, we can still agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Take on this for a moment:
We are trying to figure out the truth for everything, something, something else and/or nothing for the different senses of same, similar and/or different.

And now try this.

• The world is objective. No, because we can still subjectively act differently. The evidence for that is also in this thread, but not just here. It is everywhere.
• The world is subjective. No, because you can't control everything based on how you think and feel.

That is the base starting line. The world in practice for the everyday world is a combination of the objective and the subjective. So if you subjectively only accept one and not the other, I will just point that out, because that is how it works for now.

So science is either about the truth of the objective or the knowledge of everything, something, something else and/or nothing for the different senses of same, similar and/or different.
If it is the latter, then it seems to be the case that it must include subjectivity. Or you can always subjectively demand that only the objective counts. And then I will point out that you are subjective.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

So you say! That bold part is only true, because you believe so.

On the contrary, it is true by definition of the concepts involved.

So, you may not like my definition of a triangle. But once you agree to use it, the rest follows. If you want to define a triangle to be a geometric figure with four sides, you have that power, but the results you can prove will be different than the usual ones.

 

[Polymath257]

Take on this for a moment:
We are trying to figure out the truth for everything, something, something else and/or nothing for the different senses of same, similar and/or different.

And now try this.

• The world is objective. No, because we can still subjectively act differently. The evidence for that is also in this thread, but not just here. It is everywhere.
• The world is subjective. No, because you can't control everything based on how you think and feel.

That is the base starting line. The world in practice for the everyday world is a combination of the objective and the subjective. So if you subjectively only accept one and not the other, I will just point that out, because that is how it works for now.

So science is either about the truth of the objective or the knowledge of everything, something, something else and/or nothing for the different senses of same, similar and/or different.
If it is the latter, then it seems to be the case that it must include subjectivity. Or you can always subjectively demand that only the objective counts. And then I will point out that you are subjective.

Regards
Mikkel

And I will even agree. But I also reject the latter characterization as being what science is.

 

[Jim]

@mikkel_the_dane For now I’m calling what people think they know from science “science dogma.”

 

[HonestJoe]

Correct, you answered subjectively to my different subjectivity, so you have confirmed my claim.

I was just pointing out the irony of your declaring something a definitive and single truth in the context of an argument against declaring anything as a definitive and single truth.

I think there is something to the point you're trying to make, you're just not presenting it very effectively (partly because it's complex and partly because of the distraction of trying to spin an irrelevant "religious vs science" angle in to it).

 

[Aupmanyav]

So there can't be different versions of the truth.

I go with science and mould my religious belief on what science says. They are always in perfect sync.

You think it is irrelevant that humans think and you have done something, namely said so and that is irrelevant.

Yeah, THE TRUTH does not depend on what we think. It remains the same.

...For James, the “reality” with which truths must agree has three dimensions: (1) matters of fact, (2) relations of ideas (such as the eternal truths of mathematics), and (3) the entire set of other truths to which we are committed.

For me, only the first.

"vyavasāya atmikā buddhih, ekeha, Kuru-nandana;
bahu-śākhā hy anantāh ca, buddhayah avyavasāyinām." BhagawadGita 2.41

Those who are on this path are resolute in purpose, and their aim is one. O beloved child of the Kurus (Arjuna), the intelligence of those who are irresolute is many-branched.

So the reality of truth equals reality in that you wrote it.

We will face another problem here. What is the reality? Is it what we perceive?
An old problem in Indian religions.

 

[dfnj]

Okay, something simple. The grammatical status of the words "the truth". Those words means that there is one version of the truth. So there can't be different versions of the truth. That is simple to test: 2 examples are given now.

Someone: The truth of how the world is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and think differently about the truth than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the truth as only one truth for the world.

Someone: The one true God is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and believe differently about God than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the one true God.

Yeah, it is that simple. In practice both science and religion are limited as it comes to the truth. I know, how to test for it, because I accept for the subjective subjective results as valid evidence. For the objective I accept objective evidence as valid, but I try not to confuse the 2.
That is how I learned to do it and I accept that you can do subjectivity and objectivity differently, but I will still just check if what you do appears to be subjective regardless of you claim science or religion, how ever you do it.

Regards
Mikkel

I think it's great you understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. No many people do or spend the time learning it.

I've spent a lot of time studying belief systems or dogmas. What I have found is every belief system has a set of assumptions which are consider to be true without any proof. These assumptions are then used to create and process statements within the system as being true or false. But if you take any assumption, and this may be true for all assumptions, and put it under scrutiny or treat it like an hypothesis it will most likely be proven false. I think this is the nature of human language. Human language has inherent ambiguities and limitations when it comes to accuracy and completeness.

In terms of truth, there is something to be said for the simplicity of philosophical materialism. The idea is the only things that are real and true are things that can be experienced by more than one person. If it can't be tested then it doesn't exist. The problem with this way of thinking is there are some ideas that cannot be tested. In other words, there may exist or there will always exist truth beyond our ability to test. People who are strong advocates of materialism go one-step further and hold the assumption everything is testable and there are no unsolvable problems. But what if a problem really is unsolvable. In Jungian archetypal psychology the difference between a hero and a warrior is a warrior knows his/her own limitations. A hero does not believe they have any limitations, rushes into any situation, and consequently dies either spiritually or physically. A warrior not only knows his/her own limitations but only applies only the exact amount of energy required to achieve the desired result.

Getting back to the idea of truth and belief systems. I think all belief systems are true as long as you accept the set of assumptions as being true and you limit your scope of thought. I think what this means is there is not a single belief system that is complete and accurate. Complete meaning no matter what the belief system consists of there will always something that is true that has yet to be discovered. This is the old adage the more you know the less you know. And accuracy meaning different scopes of focus have different sets of truth. The problem with accuracy is there is no limit to how big and wide the scope can be. The scope is like layers of an onion. With accuracy the old story the World sits on the back of a turtle story comes to mind and the punch line, "It's turtles all the way down." Accuracy becomes a problem when there are things happening within the system that cannot be explained which may require an expansion of the scope in order to have coverage.

So my question to you is having a set of truths about the nature of truth the only real truth?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People will answer differently because they use different definitions. That just means they use the same word for two different notions and that we have to be clear which one is being used.

In Jame's definition of 'reality', I reject 2) and 3) as being part of 'reality' and only allow for 1). That is simply the definition I use. If you use a different definition, then we need to agree on which one to use in our discussion or else communication won't happen.

In particular, I put 2) above in the category of 'language usage' and 3) above in the category of 'opinion'. That is how I use the language.



Having different definitions isn't the same as being subjective. That is simply having the same word used for different concepts. And that happens all the time.



Not by the definition I use, no. But for the definition you use, yes. It is a fact that we use different definitions.

It is your opinion that your definition is more useful and it is my opinion that mine is. We disagree, potentially on that matter of opinion. But, if you use my definition, or if I use yours, we can still agree.

So how objective are you? You sure use a lot of subjectivity and admit to it apparently. I admit, when I am subjective and count that as a fact and true of how a part of reality works.

So is all of the subjectivity a part of reality? Is it true? Or is it just opinions, that are not a part of reality?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

On the contrary, it is true by definition of the concepts involved.

So, you may not like my definition of a triangle. But once you agree to use it, the rest follows. If you want to define a triangle to be a geometric figure with four sides, you have that power, but the results you can prove will be different than the usual ones.

STEM is not all of reality. You can't use STEM on all of reality. Stop doing that. Admit when you do something else that STEM and maybe start treating that as true of and a fact of reality, i.e. that you do other things than STEM.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

STEM is not all of reality. You can't use STEM on all of reality. Stop doing that. Admit when you do something else that STEM and maybe start treating that as true of and a fact of reality, i.e. that you do other things than STEM.

When I do math, it is a part of reality that I am doing math. That doesn't make the math itself a good descriptor of reality.

There are many things of great importance that are subjective. Aesthetics and morality are two big ones. They are NOT factual for that reason. Whether they are included in 'reality' depends on definitions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And I will even agree. But I also reject the latter characterization as being what science is.

But I also subjectively reject the latter characterization as being what science is. Could you try to be precise about what you are doing? What makes science science, is subjective. And that you use one subjective definition and that I use another, are in both cases subjective.

So is it subjectively more useful to use a definition which includes subjectivity or excludes subjectivity? Even which one is more true for how reality works in practice?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When I do math, it is a part of reality that I am doing math. That doesn't make the math itself a good descriptor of reality.

There are many things of great importance that are subjective. Aesthetics and morality are two big ones. They are NOT factual for that reason. Whether they are included in 'reality' depends on definitions.

You in effect treat reality as a weird form of duality. That you can do math, is in effect a part of the description of reality.
So what is this reality of yours?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

But I also subjectively reject the latter characterization as being what science is. Could you try to be precise about what you are doing? What makes science science, is subjective. And that you use one subjective definition and that I use another, are in both cases subjective.

No, it is definitional. That is not the same as being subjective. Using different definitions simply means we are discussing different things. Since there is a standard definition of the term 'science', using a different definition only serves to create confusion and miscommunication.

So is it subjectively more useful to use a definition which includes subjectivity or excludes subjectivity? Even which one is more true for how reality works in practice?

The history shows that we find out more about the world when we use a definition of science that does not include subjectivity. Whether you want that as a goal is, of course, subjective.

 

[Polymath257]

You in effect treat reality as a weird form of duality. That you can do math, is in effect a part of the description of reality.
So what is this reality of yours?

That which is objective. It is an objective thing that I can do math at a certain level of competence. Whether anything I find in doing that math has anything to say about reality is a different question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was just pointing out the irony of your declaring something a definitive and single truth in the context of an argument against declaring anything as a definitive and single truth.

I think there is something to the point you're trying to make, you're just not presenting it very effectively (partly because it's complex and partly because of the distraction of trying to spin an irrelevant "religious vs science" angle in to it).

Well, I allowed for relativity because we can subjectively disagree. So no, there is in practice no single truth as long as humans remain in part subjective. So it is a conditional truth.
Further, I know of one scientist here who uses the truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

[QUOTE="Aupmanyav, post: 6577783, member: 11823]"Yeah, THE TRUTH does not depend on what we think. It remains the same. For me, only the first.
...[/QUOTE]

So it is subjectively true for you that there is only one truth: THE TRUTH. Well, I do it different and that is also true, otherwise I couldn't do it.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Aupmanyav]

What I have found is every belief system has a set of assumptions which are consider to be true without any proof.

No. I do not start with any presumption.

So is all of the subjectivity a part of reality?

Subjectivity is part of what is subjective, not of truth. Going beyond subjectivity is enlightenment.

So it is a conditional truth.

Yeah, conditional. But the question is which may be closer to reality. Science or religion? If today, since finds something contrary to what it has been saying till now, I will change my views. As Altfish said:
I think that science rarely (if ever) claims to be 'True'; it claims to be "the best current explanation".