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.
These truths are in no way capable and evaluating how reliable claims are.
They describe how humans can behave and are often use by people, locked in to statements of beliefs, against people that disagree with the reliability of a belief to minimize the person and avoid the actual claim.
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.
Surely, this is true. As I’ve said, however, there does seem to be an uncanny relationship between (1) an orderly universe that operates according to discernible laws and principles, and (2) the existence of humans with minds and faculties capable of investigating and analyzing this universe. I find this somewhat evidential in its own right, even apart from any arguments about the extraordinary fine-tuning of the universe and our little corner for the existence of life.
This second Truth just underscores what I said about the First. If the natural order (universe) is beyond our full comprehension, then any higher reality certainly is. We can know this higher reality – if it exists – only as it reveals itself or otherwise intrudes into our reality.
"Surely, this is true" is surely good enough for me. I can even go with an "uncanny relationship" as well, but how we come to understand that relationship is where I tend to lean toward science over what many have conjured to exist that really doesn't, since that relationship was first getting pondered by man. Whatever is beyond our full comprehension is all the more reason I am reluctant to speculate beyond what the scientific method is able to verify in a reliable manner. Personal opinion and/or reality is one thing, and no doubt we all know how adamant people can be about what they believe, but in terms of what we can all verify and/or what we can't? I respect all that others believe for whatever their reasons. Whatever their personal experiences. This alternative way to go about establishing the universal truth, however, is my way and the way of others who are not as inclined toward other methods.
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.
This loses me. LearnMe’s “first reality” is “personal reality,” meaning reality as we perceive it. I don’t see why he would equate this with religious beliefs and faiths.
I’d say our first level of personal reality is our assessment of what science teaches about the natural order. Even here, science isn't even close to being a monolithic entity. Each individual must decide for himself what constitutes the best scientific evidence and thinking about the natural order. With something like geology, there may be close to a scientific consensus. But in disciplines like physics, cosmology and consciousness studies, however, there is a wide diversity of views and much speculation.
Perhaps an individual concludes that the best scientific evidence and thinking point toward atheistic naturalism. This, then, is his personal reality, with no need for religious belief or faith. But perhaps he concludes that the best evidence and thinking point to something more, a higher reality. Science can’t take him any further. If he wants to go further, he must look elsewhere. The search may culminate in agnosticism or some level of atheistic or theistic conviction. A rational individual accepts that he will never achieve certainty.
The various scriptures are irrelevant at this point. Unless and until I reach a conviction about Christianity (for example), the Bible is irrelevant. It doesn’t define my personal reality or assist me in defining it to any greater extent than does the Koran, the Gita or the atheistic philosophy of Bertrand Russell.
No matter what you want to call it, of course we have only ourselves to decide what is what. What is the truth and what is not. Also of course our personal reality encompasses ALL we believe, including whatever religion if one believes in a religion. Then again there is the other reality or the truth. Universal truth. About all things! Also of course this means we must all decide what is the best method to arrive at the truth, regardless what we may believe about our personal reality. There is no getting around this, but it is precisely this evaluation of methodology that in my opinion is so important. AKA objective critical thinking that can mitigate the effects of confirmation bias that "cements" what we believe to be true. All too often ultimately beyond reason and logic. This is our personal truth, our personal reality, rather than what is necessarily true. This too is why I lean toward an methodology or source that is not reliant on my personal feelings, emotions or thoughts. Science doesn't care what any of think is our personal reality. Which simply means to me that the scientific method rather than some of these alternative methods that others proclaim as a source of truth doesn't "resonate" quite as well for me as it does for religious people.
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’d say there are three realities: (1) ourselves, as we perceive ourselves to be; (2) external reality as we perceive it with our senses and analyze it with our minds; and (3) ultimate ontological reality – i.e., the Truth – about ourselves and external reality.
The first one is a big one. Who and what are we? This mystery is what led Descartes to conclude that all he could really know was “I think, therefore I am.”
What are my senses and mind? Can I trust them? Must I not be as skeptical of myself as I am of all externalities? This is one of the points that famed epistemologist Alvin Plantinga raises in his worthwhile book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Particularly if the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm were correct, what reason would I have for trusting my own thought processes, for believing they are reliable truth-recognizing and truth-analyzing tools?
We do, of course, all believe they are reliable, or the quest for Truth would be hopeless. Even at a less philosophical level, however, each individual must still must assess his or her own cognitive faculties. We aren’t all equally intelligent or rational. Even the most intelligent and rational of us have cognitive biases and quirks. Sometimes we can’t explain them even if we’re aware of them.
I’d thus say “Know yourself” is the first critical stage of a quest for Truth. This seems to be completely absent from LearnMe’s Ten Truths.
My other observation would be that LearnMe appears to equate ultimate ontological reality with “all that truly exists in the universe.” This begs the question, assumes the answer. What reason do we have for assuming a priori that “the universe” is the ultimate ontological reality?
Philosophical naturalism does make this assumption. But it’s merely a belief system like any other. This assumption is no more warranted in the abstract than is an a priori assumption there is a higher realty and perhaps a creator.
The fact is, science is capable of investigating and analyzing only the natural order. If there is a higher reality, science isn’t any more capable of discovering it than is philosophy or religion.
All that science, religion or philosophy can do is speculate about the existence and nature of a higher reality. But there is no reason to assume a priori that there is or isn’t a higher reality. This is the mistake of philosophical naturalism.
Scientific research and evidence are certainly relevant to the issue. This is the point of the Intelligent Design theorists, and it seems entirely valid to me: Let the best evidence – the best scientific evidence – speak for itself and lead where it leads. If it leads to “design” and the likelihood of an external designer as the best explanation, so be it. If it doesn’t, so be it.
I'm not sure I understand the addition of a "third reality." If we are to go from the only two I describe, what keeps us from adding many a reality about not only ourselves additionally but about others? Or you name it? I would include the reality I perceive about myself as part of our own personal reality, about ourselves and everything else we are able to perceive. This as opposed to the reality that actually exists for everyone. The universal reality that exists no matter what our personal perceptions. "What are we indeed?" Other than as we perceive per whatever our personal reality tells us?
Here too, I might add, what we perceive ourselves to be can either be just our personal reality or the actual truth. Universal truth. Somebody might believe themselves to be the son of god, for example. Their personal reality, but universal truth? For all of us to decide which is which I think...
Truth is not for all of us to decide, LearnMe. It is independent of what we decide about it. This is why your Ten Assumptions go off the rails. You refuse to acknowledge a difference between consensus truth (which you equate to your scientism) and ontological truth. Consensus truth is NOT ontological truth except to those whose religion is scientism.
These truths are in no way capable and evaluating how reliable claims are.
They describe how humans can behave and are often use by people, locked in to statements of beliefs, against people that disagree with the reliability of a belief to minimize the person and avoid the actual claim.
Never too sure if I understand what you are arguing, but I appreciate your interest in any case...
I'm not sure I am arguing my Ten Truths are "capable" of "evaluating how reliable claims are," but I think I am encouraging a methodology that is more likely to help us with the truth as compared to many an alternative. By understanding how we behave and why and also pointing a way that is a bit more objective and critical thinking in nature, it's my opinion we are better put on the path to truth.
If you have a better way, perhaps start a thread and make clear what it is? Perhaps for similar scrutiny and comment as I invite here?
Truth is not for all of us to decide, LearnMe. It is independent of what we decide about it. This is why your Ten Assumptions go off the rails. You refuse to acknowledge a difference between consensus truth (which you equate to your scientism) and ontological truth. Consensus truth is NOT ontological truth except to those whose religion is scientism.
Your opinion and perhaps the truth is not for all of us to decide, but for me the truth matters. Our universal truth, even if it ultimately contradicts my beliefs and/or doesn't suit me. For me anyway, this is important. Put another way, I don't like to kid myself. Others can do as they please of course, but for me this is the way, and it works for me, because science doesn't contradict my beliefs! It can't, because I don't stick to any beliefs that contradict science. I don't conjure any up! I patiently wait for what science can disclose for us, and I'm satisfied. Satisfied even though science can't help us know all I would dearly love to know.
I also know there are some who like to blur this line between what is science and what is religion, and if you like to say I am religious about my faith in science, fine. Still, I maintain there is a big difference between religion and science, and I've also started a thread to better define those distinctions as well. All as best my mental abilities can achieve. Appreciate the alternative opinions, but none I've encountered so far suggest a better way of thinking far as I'm concerned or able to assess all considered.
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.
I once again make essentially the same point. Yes, science – with all its flaws and checkered history – is our most reliable tool for investigating and analyzing the natural order.
But you can see once again what LearnMe has done here. He has assumed a priori that “the universe” is equivalent to “reality.” This is an unwarranted assumption. This is philosophical naturalism.
As I’ve suggested above, if science proceeded solely on the basis of methodological naturalism rather than the question-begging and answer-assuming basis of philosophical naturalism, the best scientific theory might well be “an intelligent designer occupying a higher reality, even though science can take us no further.” Philosophical naturalism forecloses any such theory from the get-go. Any other theory, no matter how utterly speculative and unfalsifiable, is entitled to a fair hearing so long as it posits an explanation that may be characterized as naturalistic.
What I have done is focus upon "the universe" as in all that exists. I don't see this as an assumption, but if you insist. Either way, I am simply making distinctions as to how we can go about better understanding what there is to understand as compared to grappling with everyone's different version born of their personal reality. I'm all for the "fair hearing" and all for a critical evaluation of what the hearing is all about. What would we insist the jury consider if we were judge and jury? And why? Then ultimately how would we instruct the jury to decide what needs to be decided? Say a person's life is on the line...
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.
This seems to me to go off the rails.
LearnMe once again tips his hand: “universal truth as determined and defined by science.” Science investigates and analyzes the natural order. If the natural order were all that existed, and if science were able to explain it to a level of scientific certainty, then it would be appropriate to speak of science as determining and defining universal truth.
But this is the key question to which LearnMe simply assumes the answer: Is the natural order in fact all that exists?
Even for many renowned scientists, ancient and modern, the answer has been a resounding no. This fact in itself should give anyone pause about LearnMe’s perspective.
People, including scientists, look beyond science precisely because they conclude that (1) what science does teach about the natural order isn’t a completely satisfactory explanation of ultimate ontological reality and may in fact point to a higher reality, and (2) other avenues of inquiry may have as much or more bearing on the existence and nature of a higher reality.
These other avenues of inquiry may include the individual’s own experiences and observations; the experiences and observations of others; the individual’s studies in history, philosophy and theology; and the individual’s reflection and intuition.
LearnMe says that notions of a higher reality “go beyond common human awareness.” No, they certainly don’t. They are often grounded precisely in common human experience and awareness. This is surely why the vast majority of humans have arrived at some species of theist belief, even though the specific beliefs may vary widely.
LearnMe further says that such notions “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.”
As I’ve asked previously, what does someone like LearnMe think occurs when a Nobel laureate chemist or biologist holds theistic beliefs? Is the scientist overwhelmed by emotion in this one area of his life for some mysterious reason? Does he mysteriously lose all ability to think logically and rationally?
LearnMe’s statements reflect the arrogance of one wedded to philosophical naturalism and indeed Scientism. They reflect a complete misunderstanding as to how a diligent seeker goes about the quest for Truth and of the evidence that is available.
I happen to have had a number of experiences pointing toward the survival of consciousness, the existence of a higher reality and the falseness of the naturalistic paradigm. Literally hundreds of millions of people across recorded history have had identical experiences. These experiences and the people who have them have been investigated and assessed to the extent science is able. Only someone wedded to philosophical naturalism insists that this vast body of evidence – which admittedly may or may not point in the direction it seems to point – must be ignored or ridiculed because it challenges the naturalistic paradigm.
Areas of science point in the same direction. Big Bang cosmology, Intelligent Design, anthropomorphic fine-tuning, laboratory PSI studies, quantum physics, origin-of-life studies, consciousness studies, and on and on. Do all or any of these point unequivocally to a higher reality? No, but much of the increasingly mainstream thinking in these areas is at least consistent with the notion and is very challenging to the naturalistic paradigm. I've previously mentioned Bernardo Kastrup, who publishes almost exclusively in peer-reviewed journals and who believes the model most consistent with the evidence is idealism (i.e., consciousness as fundamental - pretty much the opposite of naturalism). Only someone wedded to philosophical naturalism insists this is all bogus, all pseudoscience, all unworthy of even being considered.
The point being, such a quest is not necessarily driven by emotions and feelings any more (or less) than is an a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism. It can be as logical and rational as any purely scientific quest. The evidence is as compelling or deficient as the quality of the quest. What brings one person to a particular conviction may bring someone else to a different conviction.
LearnMe doesn't get to decide for me or anyone else (1) whether the best science should lead to philosophical naturalism (it doesn’t do this even for many of the best scientists); (2) what bodies of evidence (scientific and otherwise) and what inferences and arguments (scientific and otherwise) we should rely upon in our quest for a higher reality; and (3) what conclusions we should reach and what convictions we should hold.
One major problem I'll acknowledge is that disturbed individuals, frightening zealots, mindless cultists, credulous dupes and people driven entirely by emotions are undeniably over-represented in the ranks of religious believers. This can certainly create the appearance that religion is only for the simple-minded and uncritical. But this is by no means always the case. LearnMe’s dismissive characterization paints with far too broad a brush.
Good for you! Though you make many a characterization here that I do not consider fair or accurate, you do "hit the nail on the head here about the essence of what we're grappling with...
"Is the natural order in fact all that exists?"
The "million dollar question!" Is it not?
Do understand, I don't make any assumptions. I am pointing toward the methodology that will either continue to verify what we can establish as existing. As for wondering what else exists, again it simply boils down to what we are to believe and why.
If the scientific method helps us to understand there is something else there, beyond the natural order, then I'm certainly accepting of that discovery, but until then I'm simply not as accepting of the claims that others make that all seem very much a function of their personal reality. All our personal realities are simply not as reliable or worthy of my trust as compared to how the scientific method works.
So no assumptions and not a good deal else you insert in your comment as if it is my thinking. It is not, but I don't have the time or inclination to correct a good deal of the misinterpretation and/or misrepresentation other than perhaps the main points. Like this one.
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.
This seems to go even further off the rails.
The “great majority of people still today cannot accept the confines of science.” Why should any human being uncritically accept the “confines of science” (a peculiarly apt phrase, since philosophical naturalism and Scientism are indeed an intellectual straitjacket)? Science may or may not provide a fully satisfactory explanation of reality. For most people, including me, it doesn’t. In any event, we are entitled to evaluate the merits and decide for ourselves.
LearnMe again assumes without warrant that beliefs about a higher reality are inevitably grounded in nothing more than uninformed “conjecture about the supernatural.” This is arrogant and false.
Certainly, people who have reached strong convictions about the nature of a higher reality are going to promote and defend them, particularly if their religion demands this. Few wars, however, have had religious differences at their core. The human lust for power, as well as political, economic and social differences, are what mostly keep people and nations at each other’s throats. It’s perhaps noteworthy that scientific advancements have been largely in the direction of making conflict and war ever more ghastly.
Ah! Here it is again. Inevitable...
"In any event, we are entitled to evaluate the merits and decide for ourselves."
Please have mercy! I really don't know what this dynamic might be that causes people to head down this runway, but of course this is exactly what my truths are all about. Discussing or evaluating the many ways we are all free to decide what we do, and of course we are free -- absolutely free -- to believe whatever we want to believe. Clearly this is what we have been doing through the ages!
It's about evaluating our choices and consider what works better or best and why. Needless to say we'll all have our differences of opinion, largely based on our very different personal realities, but I've never EVER suggested we don't have this freedom. My thing is simply to point out what I believe works better or best as compared to the alternatives.
Again I haven't the time to address all the other false accusations about what I assume. I'm keeping my focus on the basics. The fundamentals that are the most important to understand when it comes to my ten observations, assertions, that we're all free to consider as we will, but please have mercy and don't twist all this about the rest so badly beyond the pale.
I think I'm going to take a break from this now and see what else there is to see in this forum, before I feel like getting back to #7 (as if anyone is on the edge of their seat waiting with great anticipation about any of this). I'm guessing that might be another assumption injected here as I take a break from that sort of thing now...
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.
