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.
Not sure I can fault your approach or thinking along these lines, and yes...
It isn't so much about the format or wording, though I always do try to make myself as clear as possible. It's about the message. First, is the message properly understood? Next, do people mostly agree or disagree? Finally, why?
What I enumerate is also an effort to establish a foundation on which to build a conclusion. A conclusion I came to long ago when I wore a much younger man's clothes...
Aside that listing false conclusions and assertions in bullet points does not validate them, Your list of 'Truths' seemed to be along the right lines and i kept wondering why i was bothered by the way you did it.
Possibly it was because it came across not as your process of reasoning something out (which is fine) but as setting out the lines of reasoning for others. Even that's not Quite It as there are rules of logic which i don't find problematical.
Aside that listing false conclusions and assertions in bullet points does not validate them, Your list of 'Truths' seemed to be along the right lines and i kept wondering why i was bothered by the way you did it.
Possibly it was because it came across not as your process of reasoning something out (which is fine) but as setting out the lines of reasoning for others. Even that's not Quite It as there are rules of logic which i don't find problematical.
Agreed. There is no format that necessarily prevents a listing of false conclusions and assertions, but whatever the format, anyone can address the conclusions and assertions in such a way to point out what is false about them. Or agree they are true. That's what I had in mind anyway. First to consider the logic of my own thinking for my own personal reasons. Later to share the same with others, eventually here in this forum too. Never expected there to be so much attention or discussion about the format, but I'm open to any and all input along these lines. Certainly interested to learn more about anything I might assert or propose that anyone might see as a falsehood. I call them truths after all, not falsehoods...
Implications are lacking in the OP. Truths alone are not an issue. It is how you apply the truths. Take your first truth about the different types of reality which are universal truth and that of perception. What are the implications of identifying those truths?
Implications are lacking in the OP. Truths alone are not an issue. It is how you apply the truths. Take your first truth about the different types of reality which are universal truth and that of perception. What are the implications of identifying those truths?
Very true. Having the right principles, and acting on them appropriately are often two very different things.
Implications are lacking in the OP. Truths alone are not an issue. It is how you apply the truths. Take your first truth about the different types of reality which are universal truth and that of perception. What are the implications of identifying those truths?
Not sure about implications, but the point is simply to emphasize how there is one universal truth that applies exactly the same for all of us, no matter how we perceive it or if we perceive it. The other "truth" and/or fact is that people can and do perceive our universal truth very differently. Some accurately and some not so accurately, and to distinguish between the two, recognize this dynamic is to begin the process of separating what is actually our universal truth and what is incorrect perception of that truth.
Furthermore, how to deal with these differences in a peaceful manner instead of killing one another over them...
Not sure about implications, but the point is simply to emphasize how there is one universal truth that applies exactly the same for all of us, no matter how we perceive it or if we perceive it. The other "truth" and/or fact is that people can and do perceive our universal truth very differently. Some accurately and some not so accurately, and to distinguish between the two, recognize this dynamic is to begin the process of separating what is actually our universal truth and what is incorrect perception of that truth.
Furthermore, how to deal with these differences in a peaceful manner instead of killing one another over them...
The more I spent time visiting places like:
~ villages in Thailand where there were only outhouses and little electricity
~ villages in southern Thailand and Malaysia where everyone was Muslim
~ Singapore, Bangkok, Jakarta
~ Buddhist temples, Sikh temples, Hindu temples, and many other religious places
the less convinced I have become that there are universal truths, beyond Maslow's hierarchy.
~ villages in Thailand where there were only outhouses and little electricity
~ villages in southern Thailand and Malaysia where everyone was Muslim
~ Singapore, Bangkok, Jakarta
~ Buddhist temples, Sikh temples, Hindu temples, and many other religious places
the less convinced I have become that there are universal truths, beyond Maslow's hierarchy.
Interesting, and I suppose another good example of how one's perception, including yours and mine, might be different from what is actually our shared universal truth. Most interesting that anyone can believe there is not one universal truth same for all of us, no matter how we perceive it or don't...
Seems we have both seen many parts of the world and considered many an interpretation about these truths, and also interesting is how my experience has lead me to conclusion very different from what you have become "less convinced" about. What you and I have both seen in these respects is what I try to address and summarize in truth six. My take anyway, from lots of similar travel, study and experience with people along these lines.
No doubt a bit of a stretch that anyone like me can do true justice to properly addressing these human dynamics, but given my level of expertise and what I'm being paid for the effort, these truths are best I can do for now. And as I sign off from this forum yet again this morning to move onto other matters far less lofty...
ONE: There are essentially two realities for all human beings. One reality is as we perceive it to be, our personal reality. The second reality is all that truly exists in the universe, the same for all of us. Our universal truth.
I definitely agree with you regarding the first reality. While I also agree that there is such a thing as “universal truth,” I’m not sure that you and I are using the term in the same way. When I think of “universal truths,” I’m thinking about spiritual matters, i.e. whether or not God exists and (if He does), who or what is He? What is mankind’s relationship to Him and what was His purpose was in creating our earth and us. Clearly, even all religious people do not see eye-to-eye on these things. For atheists, the answer to the first question would be “God does not exist, so all of the other questions concerning Him are moot. To me, there are definitive, absolute, incontrovertible answers to these questions. These answers are what I would call “universal truth.” I don’t believe it’s possible for human beings to know what these truths are, but since I believe in God and in an afterlife, I believe there will come a time when we can and will know the answers, and when there will really be no need to continue to argue about them.
Quote:
TWO: Human beings cannot know all that exists in the universe. The universe is forever in flux, full of mystery that will forever be marveled and explored by Man as long as he survives.
I guess I got ahead of myself. I agree with this statement 100%.
Quote:
THREE: The first reality for human beings manifests itself in all the great many beliefs and faiths throughout the world; from Astrology to Zoraoastianism. Many books also stem from these beliefs; the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, Speaking of Faith, The Celestine Prophecy, the Book of Mormon and others. These are the books about men such as Jesus, Mohammad, Moses and Joseph Smith.
To me, it would be more accurate to say that mankind’s beliefs stem from the books you mention, rather than the other way around. Granted, I don’t know a great deal about most religions outside of the Abrahamic ones, and while I know quite a bit about Christian denominations other than my own, I can really only speak to your statement as it pertains to Mormonism. I don’t believe that Joseph Smith came up with his own beliefs and then wrote them down, resulting in The Book of Mormon, and that because Mormons believe what Joseph Smith taught, they also believe The Book of Mormon. For me, personally, I believe the things I can say with some degree of confidence that God himself has taught me. The doctrines and teachings I learned as a Mormon child are obviously what planted the seed. Still, I have received spiritual confirmation of the correctness of some of them but not of others. My personal reality is founded solely on the beliefs that I have found a deep sense of peace in accepting. They are logical to me and try as I might, I cannot “unbelieve” them. My conviction that God exists and does interact with His creations is foremost among these. No one could change that particular personal reality. I’ve genuinely tried to entertain the possibility that I’m wrong, but I can’t go there. To me, my existence depends upon God having created me. This is one personal reality that will either become a universal reality someday or not.
Quote:
FOUR: The second reality, all that exists in the universe, known or unknown, is disclosed to Man most accurately and peacefully by way of well documented history (rather than religious books) and empirical science (rather than theology). Universal truth is all we can accept as reality, the truth, with the most certainty and least conflict. What we can all most reasonably accept as true for all concerned.
Okay, so we’re clearly not on the same page when we speak of universal truth. You’d probably say that the fact that we all need oxygen to exist is a universal truth. I’d say it’s a scientific fact, and I would not be inclined to argue it. I do not, however, believe that either documented history or empirical science will ever be able to give us all of the answers. (I think you’d agree with me there.) I believe there are certain things that simply are forever going to be beyond the realm of empirical science, and that this would be true if life on earth were to continue for another few billion years. Documented history is another matter entirely. Histories are almost without exception written by the dominant factions of society, and are unfortunately seldom unbiased.
Quote:
FIVE: Faith is spawned from the human inclination to speculate or suppose beyond universal truth as determined and defined by science. Such notions, religions, often involve spirituality or a belief in an energy, power or force. A belief in a deity, god or gods, the supernatural. These notions that go beyond common human awareness are typically based or recognized more by emotions and feelings rather than facts, reason and logic. They typically call for faith rather than proof, all stemming from personal experience rather than common observation or scientific verification.
I would definitely agree that faith comes from the human inclination to speculate beyond what science can prove. Beyond that, however, we disagree. I believe it exists because of an actual bond that exists between us and the Higher Power many of us refer to as “God.” If we were not, as human beings, so indelibly tied to our Creator, I believe that we would not even be inclined to feel the spiritual pull towards Him. (I recognize, of course, that not all people are so inclined.) I read a really good book on the subject a while back, and the author expressed that idea so much more articulately than I can. If you’re interested, I’ll try to dig up what he said.
Well, I got through the first five of them. I'm afraid brevity has never been my strong suit. I'll tackle the remaining five tomorrow.
I decided to finish up tonight. Here are my thoughts on the last five of your ten truths:
Quote:
SIX: Man's ability to theorize is a faculty that allows Man to advance toward greater awareness and understanding of universal truth. The theoretical guides Man to further scientific discovery. However, when conjecture about the supernatural leads to faith and religious inculcation rather facts, reason and logic, great harm can and does come to Man instead. This is because the great majority of people still today cannot accept the confines of science. Instead conjecture is continuously promoted as truth ultimately to the point of creating profound divisions between people resulting in great conflict, violence and war still raging to this day; the Crusades, Protestants v Catholics, Jews v Muslims, Shiites v Sunnis.
I agree completely with your first two statements. I just don’t believe that scientific discovery is ever going to give us answers to certain questions, questions which are clearly important to people all over the world. And to look for scientific answers to those questions is going to lead only to frustration and discouragement. We can either choose to continue to look to science for all the answers or we can look elsewhere for answers we shouldn’t even expect science to give us. We can either shelf the questions entirely or look to an entirely different realm for answers – unless we are going to insist that such a realm (we’ll call it the “supernatural” for lack of a better word) doesn’t even exist and that if we wait long enough, science will come up with the “universal truth” we’re all going to be able to accept. Now I hope I haven’t come across as “anti-science.” That’s the last thing I would describe myself as. Since the sciences were always my most difficult subjects in school, I have a tremendous amount of respect for people whose aptitude is in the arena of science. I also think that it’s entirely possible for people of vastly differing religious belief to learn to respect and understand one another. I don’t think religious differences of opinion inevitably lead to conflict. Of course, with as narrow-minded as some people are, they often do.
Quote:
SEVEN: The alternative skeptical challenge and test of faith to limit spiritual conjecture is to foster a greater respect for the truth as currently defined or understood by science. Science is the most universally accepted effort to arrive at truth with no agenda other than greater knowledge and understanding of universal truth for all human beings. This path or quest of scientific discovery offers the way to peace instead of the sure madness that arises from the significant amount of conflict between differing faiths. As Man learns to universally accept both the great promise and reasonable limits of what science can teach, the source of conflict between Man is diminished, the path toward progress cleared and the prospect of peace improved.
Again, what about those things that science can’t teach? Should be simply dismiss those things as not worth concerning ourselves about? A lot of us simply can’t do that. We feel a connection to Someone greater than ourselves and are unable to simply ignore it. We look for answers that are important to us. When we find those answers, we can either use them in such a way that they make us better individuals and see the trials of life from a different perspective. Unfortunately, some who find what they believe to be the answers they were seeking, can’t seem to keep from trying to constantly shove them down other people’s throats.
Quote:
EIGHT: Science fosters the peace of a universal patience and acceptance of our common condition and experience as humans. Faith forbids followers to question thus retarding Man's progress. Science encourages inquiry thus expanding Man's awareness and enlightenment. Faith typically deems any question about God's existence as evil in nature, not to be tolerated. Science has no such restrictions or judgement. Accordingly, there is no manner in which to reconcile these two competing approaches toward revealing Man's universal truth.
Well, in my own experience this has not been the case. I’m sure that it’s true for some people, though. Keep in mind that for Mormons, life is all about progress. After all, we’re the ones whose prophets have said that we are “gods in embryo.” I have, for quite some time, described myself as “not your average Mormon.” I was raised by parents who would have been very disappointed in me had I not questioned things I was taught in a religious setting. I can remember coming home from Sunday School class and telling my dad what I’d learned that day. I can still picture him rolling his eyes and sitting me down to talk about it. Now he was an academic, but he was also very spiritual. He never made me feel like I was doing something wrong when I doubted something I’d heard in church. In my life, there has always been very little conflict between my belief in God and my acceptance of scientific fact. Religion and science may be entirely different in their approach, but I believe there will come a time (not in this life, though) that they will be understood not to be in conflict after all. I have never felt that my spiritual growth and my intellectual growth need to be pitted against each other.
A man by the name of Hugh Nibley, an LDS scholar who was widely respected by his peers both in and outside of the Church, once said the following: “The first rule of scholarship [is]: You are never playing with a full deck. You never know how much evidence you may be missing, what it is, or where it is hiding. What counters that and saves the day for scholarship is what I have called the "Gas Law of Learning," namely, that any amount of knowledge, no matter how small, will fill any vacuum of ignorance, no matter how large. He who knows one or two facts can honestly claim to know at least something about a subject, and nobody knows everything. So it is with the schoolmen who make the rules and move the goalposts." Now he was speaking both of religious and scientific knowledge – not just one or the other. Eventually, all of the cards will, I believe, be laid out before us.
Quote:
NINE: Faith can and does promote goodwill between some people. Creation of beautiful places of worship, help for those in need, community and comfort through difficult times. Even a code of conduct necessary for some to be moral. Yes of course, but with the good there is no need for the bad or falsehoods. Truth is best realized and peace most successfully promoted as more people patiently accept and embrace Man's common reality as revealed, defined and/or revised by science. The movement toward this patience and acceptance very slowly growing from one century to the next is the maturing of Man. His best chance for lasting peace and true understanding of all that exists in the universe, proven or yet to be proven.
My only comment to this would be to say that we should all consider it our responsibility to accept truth wherever we may find it. There is an LDS passage of scripture (found in section 93 of our “Doctrine and Covenants”) which says, “The glory of God is intelligence.” Mormonism teaches us that God wants us to gain as much knowledge as we possibly can in this life. Much of the knowledge we have can be attributed to the findings of science. I will personally accept every last fact that science can provide me with. But as the German poet, Goethe, once said, “Human life divided by reason leaves a remainder.” I believe that faith deals with the remainder, and I am not ashamed to have faith.
Quote:
TEN: People of faith will deny if not condemn these truths for many reasons; from fear of god to fear of no god. Fear of death to fear of Hell. Typically beginning with the significant influence of inculcation at a young impressionable age, the subsequent effects of confirmation bias over time, development of ego and bigotry all prevent objective reason and logic to prevail for Man as quickly as it should. Instead the condemnation persists even to this day much like when Galileo was even imoned for attempting to overcome these same obstacles centuries ago. Much like the Jesuits denounced Elvis Presley. Much like Harry Potter books are banned in Catholic schools today. The ignorance and intolerance persists. Much like the ongoing effort to overcome the ills of racism, sexism, xenophobia and homophobia that also still persist today, the effort to overcome these backward ways very slowly and painfully is the progress of Man that each generation represents better than the last.
That is truly the negative side of religion, but I don’t believe it’s fair to paint all people of faith with that same broad brush. I personally know many people (both LDS and non-LDS) who seem to feel that they cannot question what they’ve been taught for fear of either incurring God’s wrath or His profound disappointment. That’s not my position and never has been. I am not afraid to doubt nor to question, but if I ever come to the conclusion that I have all the answers, I hope someone will just remind me (kindly, if possible) that it may just be that I’ve decided to stop thinking about the questions.
Lastly, I was too tired to proofread either of these two posts. Please excuse any typos or other dumb errors. Generally I try pretty hard to not make mistakes of that kind, but sometimes it happens anyway.
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.
