Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you are doing is merely describing your convictions as though they were truths - essentially preaching. Which is OK with me, but "What do you believe?" was really not the point of the thread.
Still heavy-handled, "this is the way it is" stuff. Simply one person's view, pushed as universal.
Why not instead focus on one concept / idea, and seek responses? I don't think you will, because you don't really seem interested in what anyone else thinks. It's all about hammering down on our positions. If people aren't agreeing, you hammer away more. You'll never get those square pegs in round holes, and you'll mostly exhaust yourself (though it's also annoying to others).
It's really weird to take high matters such as these, and then use the lowest of human approaches to discuss. And "this is the way it is" is one of them.
Still heavy-handled, "this is the way it is" stuff. Simply one person's view, pushed as universal.
Why not instead focus on one concept / idea, and seek responses? I don't think you will, because you don't really seem interested in what anyone else thinks. It's all about hammering down on our positions. If people aren't agreeing, you hammer away more. You'll never get those square pegs in round holes, and you'll mostly exhaust yourself (though it's also annoying to others).
It's really weird to take high matters such as these, and then use the lowest of human approaches to discuss. And "this is the way it is" is one of them.
You are missing the point, and misconstruing what I am saying, to a degree that is unprecedented in my almost 30 years of experience on internet forums. It is truly bizarre.
Hammering down? Really?
This is the way it is? Really?
Pushed as universal? Really?
Lowest of human approaches? Really?
I would urge you to put me on Ignore for the sake of your own sanguinity. It's bad enough when people become irate at things I've actually said, but to find someone beoming irate at things bearing no relation whatsoever to anything I've even vaguely said or suggested, and attributing them to me, is disorienting.
You are missing the point, and misconstruing what I am saying, to a degree that is unprecedented in my almost 30 years of experience on internet forums. It is truly bizarre.
Hammering down? Really?
This is the way it is? Really?
Pushed as universal? Really?
Lowest of human approaches? Really?
I would urge you to put me on Ignore for the sake of your own sanguinity. It's bad enough when people become irate at things I've actually said, but to find someone beoming irate at things bearing no relation whatsoever to anything I've even vaguely said or suggested, and attributing them to me, is disorienting.
Perhaps you don't realize how you come across, and I agree with the poster who critiqued you.
Despite describing the quest in terms of three levels, my quest obviously didn't follow any tidy progression. It was more like a big muddled mess, with partial convictions at all three levels being arrived at here and there as I went along. At some point it all came together, and I realized in retrospect that the above were the guiding principles I'd followed.
One cannot know the length of a table if they are using an unreliable tool to measure it.
One cannot know the length of a table if they are using an unreliable tool to measure it.
OK, and what is the table in this context?
Is it ultimate ontological reality? If that's the case, we're trying to find the table, not measure it.
Insofar as finding it goes, each of us must decide for himself or herself which tools are the appropriate and reliable ones and accept the risk that we may have decided wrongly. If our cognitive faculties are unreliable, of course, all bets are off.
If you'd care to, please expand on the point you're making.
I’m typically not a big thread-starter, but this will be the third of what I see as interrelated threads dealing with broad topics of belief and nonbelief (the others being “Making Peace With Christianity” and “Where the Conflict Really Lies”).
LearnMe suggested I review his “Ten Truths,” so I found that 2019 thread and read his original post and a few pages of responses. Very telling is his statement in Truth Number Six that "the great majority of people still today cannot accept the confines of science."
Science investigates and attempts to explain the natural order. It proceeds on the assumption that materialism is correct. If there is a level of reality outside or beyond the natural order, a non-material reality, science isn't going to discover it and really isn't interested in it.
The materialistic paradigm is inevitably an atheistic paradigm, even though all atheists aren't materialists. Accepting the confines of science begs the question as to whether materialism is, in fact, the nature of ultimate ontological reality. This is why I've described LearnMe as placing himself in an intellectual straitjacket.
(By ultimate ontological reality, which is a commonly used term, I mean the bottom-line nature of reality. Is it a material universe that "just is," with no cause or explanation at all? Is it a creator - a deity of some sort? Some impersonal force or consciousness? Something of which we can't even conceive?)
Even though I've reached convictions about theism and Christianity, I've always viewed my quest as broad and flexible - certainly not limited to the confines of science. With this in mind, here is how I'd frame my "ten truths" (more like guiding principles). This may (and hopefully will) illustrate to LearnMe and others why we generally seem to be talking past each other.
The nature of ultimate ontological reality – be it atheistic, deistic, theistic or beyond conception – is the central question of life. It’s the central question because the convictions I reach will inform and influence every aspect of my life on earth and may have eternal consequences.
The nature of ultimate ontological reality cannot be known with objective certainty in this lifetime. All I can do is arrive at some level of conviction.
The depth and strength of the convictions I reach will depend to a large extent on the diligence with which I pursue the quest, on how wide-ranging my studies and experience are.
In reaching my convictions, I'll consider anything and everything I deem relevant to the issue of the nature of ultimate ontological reality – scientific evidence, theorizing and speculation; philosophical and theological arguments; all varieties of human experience (including my own) and testimony; fields of research that may now be considered non-scientific or even pseudoscientific; and anything else that captures my interest. I'll make every effort to be discerning and to exercise critical-thinking skills, but I will place no limits on my quest.
My first level of concern will be materialism because my quest will end if I reach a strong conviction materialism is true; my second level of concern will be the distinction between non-materialistic atheism, deism, theism and whatever other alternatives there may be for a non-materialistic ultimate ontological reality.
I accept that any convictions I reach, no matter how strong, will be provisional, subject to change, and subject to falsification when (if ever) the nature of ultimate ontological reality is objectively known (e.g., I stand face to face with God).
My third level of concern, reached only if I arrive at theistic convictions, will be which species of theism best and most plausibly explains the world in which I live and best meshes with what I've learned at the first two levels.
I accept that my convictions at this third level will rely more heavily on experience and intuition (or faith) than on evidence or arguments, although the latter will not be completely irrelevant.
Even after reaching specific theistic (e.g., Christian) convictions, I will not abandon my quest and will continue to consider anything and everything that may bear upon the convictions I've reached at all three levels.
I accept my intellectual limitations as well as the limitations of time, money and energy. I accept that, no matter how diligent my quest may be, I cannot possibly investigate more than a small fraction of everything that may bear upon the issue of ultimate ontological reality. All I can do is the best I reasonably can do.
Despite describing the quest in terms of three levels, my quest obviously didn't follow any tidy progression. It was more like a big muddled mess, with partial convictions at all three levels being arrived at here and there as I went along. At some point it all came together, and I realized in retrospect that the above were the guiding principles I'd followed.
Excellent post and excellent thread starter - I very much enjoyed reading it and you may be surprised that I identify with or at least appreciate a lot of it. I'll definitely come back at some point to give a fuller response. Unfortunately I'm going to be busy and out of town until basically this time next week but I just wanted to acknowledge that I have read it. It does indeed offer a fuller picture of what you were talking about in your other thread.
What I see as the central question is, "What is the ultimate nature of all reality?" All else flows from this.
The materialistic answer is basically, "All reality is the material universe we inhabit. That's it. It just is. Science will tell us all we need to know or ever can know." (Science does engage in speculation about things like multiple universes, but it's still a materialistic paradigm.)
The deistic answer is basically, "There is a creator of some sort, external to the universe we inhabit, but he/she/they/it has no involvement in the functioning of the universe." The creator is typically thought of as a deity - hence "deism" - but theoretically could be anything, which is the point of the Intelligent Design proponents.
The theistic answer is basically, "There is a providential creator of some sort who is involved in the functioning of the universe."
There are, of course, all sorts of gray areas and permutations. Perhaps some personal or impersonal consciousness is the ultimate reality and matter is basically an illusion or construct of this consciousness. Perhaps we live in a virtual reality and the "creator" is just some genius in another dimension. Perhaps ultimate reality is something utterly beyond our comprehension.
As I say, all we each can do is arrive at some level of conviction. Those convictions will inform and guide every aspect of our lives. They will determine whether we attach meaning and purpose to our existence or do not and what sort of meaning and purpose we attach.
I lost my first wife to breast cancer. As Christian theists with strong convictions about an afterlife, our perspective on ourselves, our long marriage, her illness, her death and the hereafter were obviously fundamentally different from those of two materialistic atheists. This is true no matter how much the atheist and his wife loved each other, cared for each other, cherished their marriage and grieved her illness and death. The perspectives are fundamentally different, 180 degrees different. Our perspectives were likewise somewhat from two devout Hindus, but nothing like 180 degrees different.
We might all be wrong. That's why I believe it's worth the effort to arrive at the strongest convictions we can. When my wife was diagnosed, we were both very consciously grateful that our convictions were pretty firmly in place long before her diagnosis. We weren't having to decide what we believed on the fly, a task that would have been difficult to do in a careful and rational manner with her death staring us in the face.
Thank you, O'Darby. I was curious so that I could know how to better contribute to this discussion.
I’m typically not a big thread-starter, but this will be the third of what I see as interrelated threads dealing with broad topics of belief and nonbelief (the others being “Making Peace With Christianity” and “Where the Conflict Really Lies”).
LearnMe suggested I review his “Ten Truths,” so I found that 2019 thread and read his original post and a few pages of responses. Very telling is his statement in Truth Number Six that "the great majority of people still today cannot accept the confines of science."
Science investigates and attempts to explain the natural order. It proceeds on the assumption that materialism is correct. If there is a level of reality outside or beyond the natural order, a non-material reality, science isn't going to discover it and really isn't interested in it.
The materialistic paradigm is inevitably an atheistic paradigm, even though all atheists aren't materialists. Accepting the confines of science begs the question as to whether materialism is, in fact, the nature of ultimate ontological reality. This is why I've described LearnMe as placing himself in an intellectual straitjacket.
(By ultimate ontological reality, which is a commonly used term, I mean the bottom-line nature of reality. Is it a material universe that "just is," with no cause or explanation at all? Is it a creator - a deity of some sort? Some impersonal force or consciousness? Something of which we can't even conceive?)
Even though I've reached convictions about theism and Christianity, I've always viewed my quest as broad and flexible - certainly not limited to the confines of science. With this in mind, here is how I'd frame my "ten truths" (more like guiding principles). This may (and hopefully will) illustrate to LearnMe and others why we generally seem to be talking past each other.
The nature of ultimate ontological reality – be it atheistic, deistic, theistic or beyond conception – is the central question of life. It’s the central question because the convictions I reach will inform and influence every aspect of my life on earth and may have eternal consequences.
The nature of ultimate ontological reality cannot be known with objective certainty in this lifetime. All I can do is arrive at some level of conviction.
The depth and strength of the convictions I reach will depend to a large extent on the diligence with which I pursue the quest, on how wide-ranging my studies and experience are.
In reaching my convictions, I'll consider anything and everything I deem relevant to the issue of the nature of ultimate ontological reality – scientific evidence, theorizing and speculation; philosophical and theological arguments; all varieties of human experience (including my own) and testimony; fields of research that may now be considered non-scientific or even pseudoscientific; and anything else that captures my interest. I'll make every effort to be discerning and to exercise critical-thinking skills, but I will place no limits on my quest.
My first level of concern will be materialism because my quest will end if I reach a strong conviction materialism is true; my second level of concern will be the distinction between non-materialistic atheism, deism, theism and whatever other alternatives there may be for a non-materialistic ultimate ontological reality.
I accept that any convictions I reach, no matter how strong, will be provisional, subject to change, and subject to falsification when (if ever) the nature of ultimate ontological reality is objectively known (e.g., I stand face to face with God).
My third level of concern, reached only if I arrive at theistic convictions, will be which species of theism best and most plausibly explains the world in which I live and best meshes with what I've learned at the first two levels.
I accept that my convictions at this third level will rely more heavily on experience and intuition (or faith) than on evidence or arguments, although the latter will not be completely irrelevant.
Even after reaching specific theistic (e.g., Christian) convictions, I will not abandon my quest and will continue to consider anything and everything that may bear upon the convictions I've reached at all three levels.
I accept my intellectual limitations as well as the limitations of time, money and energy. I accept that, no matter how diligent my quest may be, I cannot possibly investigate more than a small fraction of everything that may bear upon the issue of ultimate ontological reality. All I can do is the best I reasonably can do.
Despite describing the quest in terms of three levels, my quest obviously didn't follow any tidy progression. It was more like a big muddled mess, with partial convictions at all three levels being arrived at here and there as I went along. At some point it all came together, and I realized in retrospect that the above were the guiding principles I'd followed.
I am just now realizing you not only had a look at my Ten Truths, but you started yet another thread about them. I normally just look at the threads I've been involved with rather than look at/for new ones, so I didn't see this thread before. I have mixed emotions about people who start new threads about my Ten Truths rather than add to the thread I started about them, because when I started my thread with my Ten Truths, I had hopes of ongoing discussion in that thread much like it seems you want here with yours. Someone else did the same thing. Copy/pasting my Ten Truths in another thread he started in order to "critique them" to put it mildly. On the other hand, I am pleased you found all this worth considering and that you have revitalized this discussion yet again!
If you were to review my entire Ten Truths thread, you would see that I addressed just about every comment posted about them as best I could, and there were many. I suspect many are repeated already in this thread, but no matter. I'm looking forward to giving yours equal review with hopes if my thread continues to lie dormant, yours will keep the music going a bit longer. Thanks!
LearnMe suggested I review his “Ten Truths,” so I found that 2019 thread and read his original post and a few pages of responses. Very telling is his statement in Truth Number Six that "the great majority of people still today cannot accept the confines of science."
Science investigates and attempts to explain the natural order. It proceeds on the assumption that materialism is correct. If there is a level of reality outside or beyond the natural order, a non-material reality, science isn't going to discover it and really isn't interested in it.
The materialistic paradigm is inevitably an atheistic paradigm, even though all atheists aren't materialists. Accepting the confines of science begs the question as to whether materialism is, in fact, the nature of ultimate ontological reality. This is why I've described LearnMe as placing himself in an intellectual straitjacket.
I see I even got honorable mention, and another shot at suggesting I am challenged by an "intellectual straitjacket." The last time I addressed this description, it was a "mental straitjacket." Either way, I see my attempt to correct that assessment in other comments have also "gone in one ear and out the other," so I'm not optimistic any further effort will be fruitful, but it's hard to simply ignore this sort of repeated nonsense that is somewhat insulting...
What otherwise catches my attention is the focus on number six in particular. I think you are the first to do so.
To consider number six in full context, I think it is worthwhile to review the history about this going back to the beginning. In particular how religious leaders simply could not accept what science was revealing about their beliefs. To the point of ostracizing, censoring, imprisoning and even death for all forms of "blaspheme" that well demonstrated the intolerance I am referring to here. In the same way, many people simply cannot accept what science is revealing about these truths still today and/or what science cannot demonstrate as true in any similar manner.
Again, I don't at all agree that recognizing this history or dynamic or truth is in any way some sort of mental limitation let alone a "straitjacket." To simply observe and recognize the simple truth of these matters where we can, even while considering all manner of additional possibility, theory, beliefs "beyond the natural order" is an important part of assessing the nature of the reality we all share. Identifying our universal truths and distinguishing them from all possible additional notions that all too often are passed off as universal truths but are really nothing of the sort.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
