Who are the wisest members?

[siti]

I want to know who can perfectly reason that their belief is singularly true. Please contact me if you're serious.

==================================================================================

BTW: Shame on most of you for not taking a serious question and genuine outreach seriously. There was far too much joking and commitment to ignorance for my tastes.

I DECLARE THIS POST RUINED BEYOND REPAIR

Oops! I think we pissed her off.

OK - I'm guessing that you feel my post straddled the "joking and commitment to ignorance" boundary?

For the record, there is an old saying: "many a true word is spoken in jest" - so my (wise) advice to you is to read (at least) some of the posts again before (unwisely) adjudging them to have "ruined" your thread.

On the "commitment to ignorance" thing - what I said was a quote from an old poem about wisdom which declares that "he who knows not and knows he knows not" is a student who needs teaching...and "he who knows and knows he knows" is a wise man. Personally, I reckon the only truly wise people are those who recognize the limitations of their own knowledge - you know what you know alright, but that's only half of wisdom - the other half is knowing what you don't know. That's not a commitment to ignorance, it's a commitment to acknowledging the fact of ignorance.

So what follows from that in regard to "reasoning that one's belief is singularly true"? That "one's" belief cannot be singularly true...and yet, there could be truth in all beliefs...how so? Because all beliefs are but perspectives - like viewing a mountain range from different angles - from one side it looks like a giant man, from the other a crenelated castle wall... but its the same mountain...those descriptions are just metaphors describing what some "one" might see from their particular vantage point. Likewise with God, some see the God of Abraham, others see Vishnu or Brahman - some see a person others a principle...some see a principle personalized - all see some aspect of the "greater reality" and visualize that according to their own experience and cultural identity...etc. They're all true...and they're all false - at the same time.

And "one" can't reason that at all, let alone perfectly, in the sense I think you mean because logically it is impossible for a claim to be simultaneously true and false - but there is no such restriction on metaphor and simile - that's why in poetry we can say things like "beneath the leaden sky" when we know perfectly well that lead has nothing to do with the sky. Of course one can't prove anything by metaphor or simile - such an argument would certainly be logically fallacious - but fallacy is how we can make sense of a world that makes no sense.

So - what do you want someone to "perfectly reason" - their belief in the existence of this or that God, or the non-existence of this or that or all or any God? Of course nobody can do that. But if you want an argument that says anyone who (unwisely) makes such an argument is both right and wrong - I can do that - but I think we'd have to narrow it down a bit first by selecting a belief and an argument to discuss. On the other hand, if you're simply into monochromatic pseudo-logical proofs of this, that or the other, I'm probably not that interested - and in that case, I'm sorry to have wasted your time - actually I'm not sorry at all - or maybe I am both sorry and not sorry at the same time. (Keep these thoughts with you - you will get it eventually even if you don't yet).

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Oops! I think we pissed her off.

OK - I'm guessing that you feel my post straddled the "joking and commitment to ignorance" boundary?

For the record, there is an old saying: "many a true word is spoken in jest" - so my (wise) advice to you is to read (at least) some of the posts again before (unwisely) adjudging them to have "ruined" your thread.

On the "commitment to ignorance" thing - what I said was a quote from an old poem about wisdom which declares that "he who knows not and knows he knows not" is a student who needs teaching...and "he who knows and knows he knows" is a wise man. Personally, I reckon the only truly wise people are those who recognize the limitations of their own knowledge - you know what you know alright, but that's only half of wisdom - the other half is knowing what you don't know. That's not a commitment to ignorance, it's a commitment to acknowledging the fact of ignorance.

So what follows from that in regard to "reasoning that one's belief is singularly true"? That "one's" belief cannot be singularly true...and yet, there could be truth in all beliefs...how so? Because all beliefs are but perspectives - like viewing a mountain range from different angles - from one side it looks like a giant man, from the other a crenelated castle wall... but its the same mountain...those descriptions are just metaphors describing what some "one" might see from their particular vantage point. Likewise with God, some see the God of Abraham, others see Vishnu or Brahman - some see a person others a principle...some see a principle personalized - all see some aspect of the "greater reality" and visualize that according to their own experience and cultural identity...etc. They're all true...and they're all false - at the same time.

And "one" can't reason that at all, let alone perfectly, in the sense I think you mean because logically it is impossible for a claim to be simultaneously true and false - but there is no such restriction on metaphor and simile - that's why in poetry we can say things like "beneath the leaden sky" when we know perfectly well that lead has nothing to do with the sky. Of course one can't prove anything by metaphor or simile - such an argument would certainly be logically fallacious - but fallacy is how we can make sense of a world that makes no sense.

So - what do you want someone to "perfectly reason" - their belief in the existence of this or that God, or the non-existence of this or that or all or any God? Of course nobody can do that. But if you want an argument that says anyone who (unwisely) makes such an argument is both right and wrong - I can do that - but I think we'd have to narrow it down a bit first by selecting a belief and an argument to discuss. On the other hand, if you're simply into monochromatic pseudo-logical proofs of this, that or the other, I'm probably not that interested - and in that case, I'm sorry to have wasted your time - actually I'm not sorry at all - or maybe I am both sorry and not sorry at the same time. (Keep these thoughts with you - you will get it eventually even if you don't yet).

It's cool. She was talking about me, Enoch and Dan, which we understand. I think we'll be more careful in the future since we usually mean well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not talking about 'Notable members'. This only means that they've posted a lot over a long period. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're knowledgeable, let alone wise.

I want to know who can perfectly reason that their belief is singularly true. Please contact me if you're serious.

==================================================================================

BTW: Shame on most of you for not taking a serious question and genuine outreach seriously. There was far too much joking and commitment to ignorance for my tastes.

I DECLARE THIS POST RUINED BEYOND REPAIR

Delivered as it is, I do not consider it a serious thread. I saw several comments and questions put to you that were not taken seriously and they should have been. I am actually very interested, but your delivery is very lofty.

 

[siti]

It's cool. She was talking about me, Enoch and Dan, which we understand. I think we'll be more careful in the future since we usually mean well.

Yeah I can see that! But my advice still stands - there are sometimes pearls of wisdom to be found in the humorous posts - and "truth" (whatever it is) is certainly never as black and white as a logical argument.

 

[Quagmire]

How will you know the wisest?

There's the question.

I'm getting almost nothing but joking and committed to ignorance responses on this thread. Private seems the way to go.

We're not committed to ignorance, we just like to make it feel at home when it shows up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's cool. She was talking about me, Enoch and Dan, which we understand. I think we'll be more careful in the future since we usually mean well.

I do not think we were alone and the request was for the impossible delivered with the attitude that considering it impossible meant that the person so considering it only did so, because they lacked intelligence and ability.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I do not think we were alone and the request was for the impossible delivered with the attitude that considering it impossible meant that the person so considering it only did so, because they lacked intelligence and ability.

I understand. I wasn't really accusing us. Just acknowledging how things seemed to come off in a positive, "maybe we can do a little better" way, and applying it also to myself and being reflective. Your points are also understood.

My best suggestion is for Kelsey to talk to EvangelicalHumanist if the two agree to talk.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah I can see that! But my advice still stands - there are sometimes pearls of wisdom to be found in the humorous posts - and "truth" (whatever it is) is certainly never as black and white as a logical argument.

If the route is to argue for the existence of God, there are a number of arguments for the existence of a deity. The argument from morals, the fine tuning argument and the Kalam cosmological argument are three. They are logical and if the premises of any of those arguments are true, then the conclusion that God exists is true, but the truth of the premises has not been found to be true. I can propose my own versions of those or others, but that is all I can do. I could not show that my personal favorite argument is valid.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand. I wasn't really accusing us. Just acknowledging how things seemed to come off in a positive, "maybe we can do a little better" way, and applying it also to myself and being reflective. Your points are also understood.

My best suggestion is for Kelsey to talk to EvangelicalHumanist if the two agree to talk.

I am hoping that we get Kelsey to open up a little more. She has made statements that she is here to teach us. Here to show us the correct path. She has implied that her request for someone to argue the truth of their belief is possible and has been accomplished elsewhere. I would just like to know more. I would like to know her purpose, her philosophy and her position. There are a lot of people on here that assert that they are going to teach me and imply that they, and they alone or their church, know the true path. What they are teaching me is not what they intend and what they have shown me does not meet and greet their assertions with support.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand. I wasn't really accusing us. Just acknowledging how things seemed to come off in a positive, "maybe we can do a little better" way, and applying it also to myself and being reflective. Your points are also understood.

My best suggestion is for Kelsey to talk to EvangelicalHumanist if the two agree to talk.

In defense of how serious we took the question, you and I have already mentioned that we considered the thoughts and feelings of those we think might be the wisest. It is clear that we took it serious enough to take pause in submitting names without consult or consent.

EvangelicalHumanist is a good choice. He is intelligent, knowledgeable, moral, and thoughtful. All qualities that I would consider vital parts of the infrastructure of wisdom.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand. I wasn't really accusing us. Just acknowledging how things seemed to come off in a positive, "maybe we can do a little better" way, and applying it also to myself and being reflective. Your points are also understood.

My best suggestion is for Kelsey to talk to EvangelicalHumanist if the two agree to talk.

I also note the irony of naming someone in my previous post, but he has already taken up the challenge on this thread, so I did not think consultation was necessary or failing do that to be discourteous.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

In defense of how serious we took the question, you and I have already mentioned that we considered the thoughts and feelings of those we think might be the wisest. It is clear that we took it serious enough to take pause in submitting names without consult or consent.

EvangelicalHumanist is a good choice. He is intelligent, knowledgeable, moral, and thoughtful. All qualities that I would consider vital parts of the infrastructure of wisdom.

I think that at the end of the day... we do care about the OP.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think that at the end of the day... we do care about the OP.

I think so. I cared about it from the very beginning. I have an attitude of my own about assumed authority and I contrived a presence here based on that as both a dove and a hawk. The dove in the form of humor to soften the mood and the hawk in the form of irreverence in response to what I am interpreting as a somewhat heavy-handed approach. I did not mind sweeping you up in that, and it was fun too, but I apologize for reinforcing any natural tendencies that may have let it get away. My own natural tendencies and those of others.

If someone is here to show me the way and to teach me, I just want to make sure that person has the credentials and the teaching ethic that fits with my interests and needs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Delivered as it is, I do not consider it a serious thread. I saw several comments and questions put to you that were not taken seriously and they should have been. I am actually very interested, but your delivery is very lofty.

I treated it seriously at first by noting that no one has singularly true beliefs.

 

[Thief]

with both hands waving in the air.....

PICK ME!!!
PICK ME!!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I treated it seriously at first by noting that no one has singularly true beliefs.

My interest in the posts that Kelsey has made has been and remains serious. I would just appreciate a little more information than she has been providing and toning down the judgmental responses. I have a gut feeling that I will find something useful in a more detailed discussion. My science training is used to "here is what I found and this is what I think it means and why" delivery.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

My interest in the posts that Kelsey has made has been and remains serious. I would just appreciate a little more information than she has been providing and toning down the judgmental responses. I have a gut feeling that I will find something useful in a more detailed discussion. My science training is used to "here is what I found and this is what I think it means and why" delivery.

Kelsey has not responded to well intentioned posts.

Regards Tony

 

[Revoltingest]

My interest in the posts that Kelsey has made has been and remains serious. I would just appreciate a little more information than she has been providing and toning down the judgmental responses. I have a gut feeling that I will find something useful in a more detailed discussion. My science training is used to "here is what I found and this is what I think it means and why" delivery.

Your ultimate disappointment was preordained.