Truth is not simple

[outhouse]

Well least we have little common ground on which we should celebrate and build a cathedral ! .

I use the original Koine word "ekklesia" for assembly

 

[Augustus]

I particularly like the point Halsted makes in his second section - pointing out that what the "truth" is just plain doesn't matter to some people on any day-to-day basis. Whenever I see arguments about "how was the universe created," I just scratch my head and go "the answer to this is relevant to my daily life how?" Like Halsted, I'm more interested in the meaningfulness behind the truths people find for themselves and less interested in "the truth."

It's sort of like with aphorisms, some people look at them as containing an aspect of truth that works in many situations but isn't a cast iron 'law'. Then you get others who try to find examples to 'disprove' the aphorism and say that it is 'false' just because it doesn't apply in 100% of the situations all of the time.

Or you get some people who claim that when atheists do good deeds then it is actually more moral than when Christians/Muslims/etc. do good deeds because the atheist did it because they really wanted to but the theist only did it to go to heaven. If it is the same action then why does it matter what the ultimate reason behind it was?

There is a strange paradox that some people believe that it is very important for all of their beliefs to be (as close as possible to) objectively 'true', yet this belief itself is not objectively 'true' (I'd personally say it is demonstrably false).

Wish such people realised that it matters when it matters and it doesn't when it doesn't.

 

[Willamena]

Is that a truth now?

Only if successful.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Religion does no such thing. It relies on ancient mythology and modern mens poor interpretation of topics few actually understand in its anthropological context.

Science on the other hand gives credible explanations of nature as it can with the evidence it observes.

You are mistaken science is the only possible other explanation to origin so doubters jump on this boat they need it to be correct , they need truth more than thiests. Science has not disproved God or it by any means gravity is the weakest of the forces , DNA the simplest of building block s , this universe 46.3 billion light years big , and growing , science can't even find the end of it never mind suggesting its origins .Apparently observations in science can be changed by observation , how reliable is that ?
Hey science is wonderful anything that tries to make sentient experience more comfortable worthwhile , however some parts of science is a religion an I'm not having otherwise .

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Apparently observations in science can be changed by observation , how reliable is that ?

By the very nature of observation, that is literally as reliable as it can possibly be. An assumption that doesn't change with further observations can't possibly or reasonably be as reliable as an assumption that is open to change with the availability of new information. The fact that science allows for the possibility of conclusions and assumptions changing is what makes it more reliable, not less.

Hey science is wonderful anything that tries to make sentient experience more comfortable worthwhile , however some parts of science is a religion an I'm not having otherwise .

Care to give examples?

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

By the very nature of observation, that is literally as reliable as it can possibly be. An assumption that doesn't change with further observations can't possibly or reasonably be as reliable as an assumption that is open to change with the availability of new information. The fact that science allows for the possibility of conclusions and assumptions changing is what makes it more reliable, not less.


Care to give examples?

Assumptions , Unreliable observations , Conclusions ,possibilities not very reasurring selection of words for something that describes truth .
By definition reliable means truth , consistantly , proven most certainly not assumed ,probable or concluded .

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Assumptions , Unreliable observations , Conclusions ,possibilities not very reasurring selection of words for something that describes truth .

Science isn't supposed to "describe" truth - it's a methodology used to distinguish fact from fantasy. If you're looking for method that asserts absolute certainty without room for progression or alteration then you aren't looking for anything honest or reliable.

By definition reliable means truth , consistantly , proven most certainly not assumed ,probable or concluded .

Reliable means "consistently testable and proven". The scientific method is those things. You need only look around you at how science has been used to reshape almost every aspect of your life and provide countless tangible benefits to see that it is absolutely the most reliable method we have for discerning fact from fantasy.

And I'd still like examples of where science becomes a religion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Copied pasted
1. General religious orientation of scientific method
Scientific thought is the most prevalent current form of religious thought.
Religion is generally defined as a system of fundamental principles and positions held without evidence, that is, by faith.
At the same time, science is the development of and theoretical systematization of objective knowledge about reality in order to describe, explain, and predict processes and phenomena of reality, based on that which is discovered by means of its laws.
Even in this definition of science there are indications of its religious aspects, in particular:

• Belief in the objective existence of natural laws.
• Belief in the unity of these laws in spatial-temporal continuum, which is seen both through immediate observation as well as through laboratory experiments.
• Belief in the rational character of these laws that allows one to comprehend them by similar rational means.

Where are you getting this? Absolutely none of these stated beliefs are believed in without evidence or by faith. Belief in the existence of natural laws is entirely dependent on observations of the effects of these laws and how the application of the law itself lead to predictable results. Where exactly is faith a requirement?

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Where are you getting this? Absolutely none of these stated beliefs are believed in without evidence or by faith. Belief in the existence of natural laws is entirely dependent on observations of the effects of these laws and how the application of the law itself lead to predictable results. Where exactly is faith a requirement?

Well prove your objective reality exists in the first instance.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

It is not uncommon for discussions about various religious matters on our forums to revolve around this concept called "truth." We owe this, perhaps, to the dominance of certain religions that profess to have "the" truth in Western culture. And yet, from time to time, it might be a good idea to step back and recognize that "truth" is a complicated creature, particularly when it comes to religious issues.

John Halstead wrote a thought-provoking essay on this topic over at Patheos the other day, and I'd like to share a few excerpts from it to prompt a discussion of our own (I'd encourage you to give the whole article a gander if you have the time and inclination):

"... I think there are simple truths and there are complex truths — or simple and complex ways of framing any given “truth”. Take for example, the question of whether you have money in the bank. One a simplistic level, you either do have money in the bank or you don’t.

....

On the other hand, the question of whether you “have money in the bank” really is not that simple. Does your neighborhood bank actually have your money? Or any of our money? Well, they are required by law to have a certain percentage of it. But then there’s a loophole that allows them to borrow money at the end of the day from another bank if they don’t. Does this mean there is actually money — bills and coins — that are moved to their vault? No. It’s just electronic ones and zeros that are being moved around virtual networks. And then what is “money” anyway. Is it really the bills and coins that you care about? No. Because the value of those markers goes up and down. Is it the virtual ones and zeros? Is it the fungible symbol of labor or goods? So the question of whether you have “money” “in the bank” is a complicated one.​

While Halsted doesn't draw this connection, we might observe that those who operate based on simple models of truth have a "fundamentalist" mindset. That is to say, things are either-or, black-or-white, and there is no quarter given for interpretation or complexity. The religions in our culture most concerned with "the" truth (as if it were a simple matter or a singular thing) are those which are fundamentalist, yes? But what do you think? Do you regard truth as being mostly a simple thing? Mostly a complex thing? Is simple truth models a characteristic of fundamentalism?

There's another thread from Halsted's essay that I'd like to throw in here:

"And as far as I can see, being right or having the “truth” does not necessarily make us better people, more moral people, or happier people. In fact, some of the people I know who profess great concern for “truth” are the biggest ********. I think concern about other people’s perceived lack of truth is often a cover for not dealing with our own **** — and, yes, I’m talking about myself here."​

What do you guys think about this suggestion? Do you think he's on the mark here, or way off?

Is a saying , believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well prove your objective reality exists in the first instance.

So, let me get this straight: in order for any position or methodology about reality to not count as purely a faith-based proposition you need to demonstrate that objective reality exists?

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

So, let me get this straight: in order for any position or methodology about reality to not count as purely a faith-based proposition you need to demonstrate that objective reality exists?

Would be nice so I can go finish a guy off in another thread .. No you don't , I don't believe for a second your the spirit been sent to tempt me , novel however unlikely .lol
Science has not disproved the concept of Gods.
In a universe that's expanding into something science doesn't understand that's moving away from us faster than we can ever travel 46,3 billion light years and growing .
No I refuse to become nothing more than a mobile incubator for billions of gut bacteria .
Just as today the scientists rewrite the mistakes of 200 years ago , it is just as probable the scientists of 200 years in the future will rewrite the scientific mistakes of today.
Wasn't bent after all , just like the world wasn't flat

 

[Willamena]

So, let me get this straight: in order for any position or methodology about reality to not count as purely a faith-based proposition you need to demonstrate that objective reality exists?

Heck no. It counts regardless, just as surely as objective reality does.

 

[outhouse]

mistaken science is the only possible other explanation to origin so doubters jump on this boat they need it to be correct , they need truth more than thiests

Yes science is the only credible explanation.

The bible factually has mythology, it is not in dispute by anyone with credibility. And ancient Israelites who plagiarized Canaanite did not even have a clue what a universe was.

 

[outhouse]

Assumptions , Unreliable observations , Conclusions ,possibilities not very reasurring selection of words for something that describes truth .
By definition reliable means truth , consistantly , proven most certainly not assumed ,probable or concluded .

You rip on science, and rely on mythology?

 

[outhouse]

Just as today the scientists rewrite the mistakes of 200 years ago

Instead of theist repeating mistakes written 2000 years ago, as mythology

 

[outhouse]

Apparently observations in science can be changed by observation , how reliable is that ?

More credible then ancient mens mythology most don't know anything about, because they fear the truth of what they might find

 

[savagewind]

More credible then ancient mens mythology most don't know anything about, because they fear the truth of what they might find

You are not giving ancient people the benefit of the doubt. You seem to assume their writings were for describing what they thought was real. But maybe they were telling stories that describe in pictures profound truths. Maybe they were literally smarter than you.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Yes science is the only credible explanation.

The bible factually has mythology, it is not in dispute by anyone with credibility. And ancient Israelites who plagiarized Canaanite did not even have a clue what a universe was.

You rip on science, and rely on mythology?

Exactly why should I let you turn me against Science and force me into a given choice.. I believe in God & I believe in Science seems this the best approach I have all possibilities covered ,photon logic.

 

[savagewind]

Some people call the Bible plagiarized. But if it is about unseen things that are real that can only be described adequately in familiar pictures then people who did not write for the Bible and saw the same things wrote similarly.

If I write E = mc 2 am I plagiarizing Albert Einstein?