Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

generalgrog wrote:

But couldn't you also delude yourself into thinking it's a delusion? I.E. you create your own version of truth and live by those principals, disregarding what the real truth is?

You could, but that would mean presuming the entirety of the material world is an illusion, which isn't particularly useful given that it is more than capable of causing you pain, pleasure, happiness, and any number of other sensations.

But those could all be illusory senses as well. Indeed, if you are steeped in the mantra that everything is an illusion or dream if you will then those sensations have less meaning.

Dogma I don't think I did a good job of making myself clear.

Let me give an example of what I was getting at.

Richard Dawkins wrote a book called "The God Delusion". While I haven't read the book personnaly, I have seen many clips of him and seen him interviewed. He contends that people that believe in God are deluded. So I was trying to point out that it appears that from a philosophical perspective,he could very well be the one that is deluded. And from a philosophical perspective he would believe that I am deluded.

Of course from a theological perspective I believe he is deluded.

So either Richard Dawkins is deluded or I'm deluded. Neither one of us can prove that each other are deluded, so aren't we really just wasting our time with philosophy?

GG

generalgrog wrote:

So either Richard Dawkins is deluded or I'm deluded. Neither one of us can prove that each other are deluded, so aren't we really just wasting our time with philosophy?

GG

And theology?

I had the (mis)fortune of going to the same school as my dad for the first year. Dad was a hard A$$ed former Marine who grew up in an orphanage and joined the Corps so he could eat.

Many years later, he had to take a philosophy class from a "long haired book pusher," who made the statement "nothing is real, not this room, not you, not me." So Dad replies "Cool so I can come dressed as a giant Rabbit, hit you with this chair and take your wallet, because I'm just a figment of your imagination. Everyone its Professor's buying the next round. " Professor loved that...

Hope you're hittin those 500 yd driver shots up there like you always wanted Dadman.

generalgrog wrote:

Richard Dawkins wrote a book called "The God Delusion". While I haven't read the book personnaly, I have seen many clips of him and seen him interviewed. He contends that people that believe in God are deluded. So I was trying to point out that it appears that from a philosophical perspective,he could very well be the one that is deluded. And from a philosophical perspective he would believe that I am deluded.

Of course from a theological perspective I believe he is deluded.

Or, weirdly enough,.... both sides are right.

Religious people are because God can make the logically impossible possible ( ie miracles) so something could therefore be both true and false at the same time.
Horrifically reality might b much more democratic than we'd like to think.

And of course, IF we accept that God is benevolent/loving/wishes us the best.... then he also doesn't exist, but only for the non believers. Whilst simultaneously existing for those who do believe.



Quantum mechanics eh ?

Quoting frazzled:'I had the (mis)fortune of going to the same school as my dad for the first year. Dad was a hard A$$ed former Marine who grew up in an orphanage and joined the Corps so he could eat.

Many years later, he had to take a philosophy class from a "long haired book pusher," who made the statement "nothing is real, not this room, not you, not me." So Dad replies "Cool so I can come dressed as a giant Rabbit, hit you with this chair and take your wallet, because I'm just a figment of your imagination. Everyone its Professor's buying the next round. " Professor loved that...'



Interesting story, is it true?
The very question of whether or not it is true is not so to as cast aspersions on your honesty, but rather to wonder just how much one can trust second/third hand information.
Like many doctrines, they may contain interesting stories, even 'parables', but just how much can one verify their reliablility, when the author, even if a first hand witness, will inevitably have had his own unique interpretation of said events?
Or possibly the authors of any texts, will have a particular message they want to express, for a particular reason, which can easily get lost in our own interpretation of the text itself?

Interesting story, is it true?

But what IS truth ?

reds8n wins the thread.

Ozymandias wrote:reds8n wins the thread.

And my prize is what...?

..oh.

Uri Lee wrote:Quoting frazzled:'I had the (mis)fortune of going to the same school as my dad for the first year. Dad was a hard A$$ed former Marine who grew up in an orphanage and joined the Corps so he could eat.

Many years later, he had to take a philosophy class from a "long haired book pusher," who made the statement "nothing is real, not this room, not you, not me." So Dad replies "Cool so I can come dressed as a giant Rabbit, hit you with this chair and take your wallet, because I'm just a figment of your imagination. Everyone its Professor's buying the next round. " Professor loved that...'



Interesting story, is it true?
The very question of whether or not it is true is not so to as cast aspersions on your honesty, but rather to wonder just how much one can trust second/third hand information.
Like many doctrines, they may contain interesting stories, even 'parables', but just how much can one verify their reliablility, when the author, even if a first hand witness, will inevitably have had his own unique interpretation of said events?
Or possibly the authors of any texts, will have a particular message they want to express, for a particular reason, which can easily get lost in our own interpretation of the text itself?

Is anything true...ah...question reality....

In this circumstance (if we believe the world is real) yes. Dad told me the story as did the professor who pulled my leg about it. It was a small school and we had the same guy. Dadman was trying to get a degree in his early sixties while still working. He was weird like that.

He was weird like that.

*googles hereditary genetics*

AHA!

That must have been well weird going to the same school as your dad, let alone being taught by the same mentor.

..... still.... easy to crib* for the test maybe ?


* steal/copy.

generalgrog wrote:
Richard Dawkins wrote a book called "The God Delusion". While I haven't read the book personnaly, I have seen many clips of him and seen him interviewed. He contends that people that believe in God are deluded. So I was trying to point out that it appears that from a philosophical perspective,he could very well be the one that is deluded. And from a philosophical perspective he would believe that I am deluded.

You're confusing theology, and philosophy. Philosophy turns on logic, and verifiability. Theology turns on feeling, and belief.

generalgrog wrote:
Of course from a theological perspective I believe he is deluded.

You can't really be theologically deluded as theology is about sensation, not logic.

generalgrog wrote:
So either Richard Dawkins is deluded or I'm deluded. Neither one of us can prove that each other are deluded, so aren't we really just wasting our time with philosophy?

GG

The thing is that the question of God's existence is not really philosophical because it cannot be resolved through logic due to a lack of available evidence. What philosophy can do is decide whether or not God is a useful illusion in the same vein as something like free will, or choice.

dogma wrote:
The thing is that the question of God's existence is not really philosophical because it cannot be resolved through logic due to a lack of available evidence. What philosophy can do is decide whether or not God is a useful illusion in the same vein as something like free will, or choice.

Actually, now correct me if I am wrong, philosophy can't decide anything, it is ourselves that make decisions, using whatever tools of the mind that we may choose to use.
Speaking possibly from a perspective of psychosis, which I am begining to see isn't that peculiar to the 'few', reality/truth is whatever a person percieves it to be. The truth is there is no truth, a perfect paradox.
(although I think this means that this statement may also be false, to someone else, if they percieve it so). LOL

(edited for more typos)

Uri Lee wrote:The truth is there is no truth, a perfect paradox.

QFT or is it true?

Squig_herder wrote:

Uri Lee wrote:The truth is there is no truth, a perfect paradox.

QFT or is it true?

Who knows????? Probably just dogma!

There is nothing wrong with religion... only the people who run it like a business. The ONLY reason that we (as a race) have problems is because of the Church / [insert your version] and their self serving propaganda.

My dad still says "If I want to worship God, then I'll do it in my house - not what someone says is His house, and I'll do it on any day - not His day (Sunday).

Humanity (moralistic overtones) is the prevalent guide... EVERY religion says (more or less) that there is only one God... every member of the Human race (and prob other races as well, except Dark Eldar) want peace and tranquility, to be treated fair and just, and to be cared about.

That’s got nothing to do with religion... it's called life... step away from the books and truly treat your fellow man in a manner that you would like to be treated (this doesn't apply to persons active in S&M).

Mik

I have found it disconcerting when a 'Youth Leader'(with whom I have been friends with for many years) from a local church, said to me, and I quote:
'Isn't it ridiculous, how scientists believe the Universe started with a Big Bang, as if two planets colliding together could cause all of this!'(unquote)

After explaining to her that according to this theory, there would have been no planets formed to collide with each other, as the fundamental particles of matter/anti matter would have only just been formed from 'Pair Creation' out of the electromagnetic radiation(actualy,imho, the best explanation of a "let there be light" beginning), let alone cohered to make simple nuclei, and in turn, atoms, molecules or planets.
I walked away worried about how a unquestioning belief in DOGMA can cause such rejection, even ridicule of knowledge.

(edited several times! feth, my typing is abismal)

How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?



Depends on how you define 'change'.

Uri Lee wrote:I have found it disconcerting when a 'Youth Leader'(with whom I have been friends with for many years) from a local church, said to me, and I quote:
'Isn't it ridiculous, how scientists believe the Universe started with a Big Bang, as if two planets colliding together could cause all of this!'(unquote)

After explaining to her that according to this theory, there would have been no planets formed to collide with each other, as the fundamental particles of matter/anti matter would have only just been formed from 'Pair Creation' out of the electromagnetic radiation(actualy,imho, the best explanation of a "let there be light" beginning), let alone cohered to make simple nuclei, and in turn, atoms, molecules or planets.
I walked away worried about how a unquestioning belief in DOGMA can cause such rejection, even ridicule of knowledge.

(edited several times! feth, my typing is abismal)

Here is the problem with what you just said Uri. You are critisizing/ridiculing a person because they don't believe in the big bang theory as put out by the general scientific community. Yet you seem perfectly willing to accept the scientific explanation, as DOGMA. Why is it so hard for you to realize that you may be the one that is acting off of the conditioning and DOGMA of modern academia, and maybe you are the one acting off of a rejection principle?

This is pecisely what I have been getting at, if you look at the previous posts and other threads on this issue.(we covered it a few times allready)

The bottom line is that science doesn't really know, and cannot adequatley explain how the universe started, so they use assumptions(there is that word again) and guesses to create a theory.

GG

Dogma# A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
# An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

I myself am a believer, in Jesus. However, it is the 'Word of God' I have reservations in. I have learned about some sciences, and have absorbed some of the knowledge therein, yet I am totaly open to the fact that I have only the author of the science text book believe or not, and since I haven't done any high energy particle experiments my self, I am totaly open to the fact that the results and subsequent postulations about the origins of the universe may not be infact true. So why may may I not ask the same questions about the Bible?
You may ask why would I choose to learn about something, whilst being uncertain if it's validity? The answer my friend is simply one of qualifications, and doors that they may open to find out more, and possibly to link the scientific with the spiritual(in theory at least).
My point is to adress whether or not it is helpful to simply take a religious teaching as pure, untainted and unquestionable. When clearly the authors of such teachings were not privy to the imformation we have abvout the physical world in which we live(wasn't the world considered to be flat at one point, and the bible refer to taking the message to all 'four corners of the earth'),surely then we can assume that some modernisation is required in its interpretation.

Uri Lee wrote:
Actually, now correct me if I am wrong, philosophy can't decide anything, it is ourselves that make decisions, using whatever tools of the mind that we may choose to use.

We don't make decisions at all. Unless you believe that the electrons that make up your cognitive 'essence' also make decisions. Intelligence is an illusion of scale. Either way, when we discuss decisions of philosophy we discuss people making decisions in accordance with philosophical method as bounded by the constraints of apparent reality.

Uri Lee wrote:
Speaking possibly from a perspective of psychosis, which I am begining to see isn't that peculiar to the 'few', reality/truth is whatever a person percieves it to be. The truth is there is no truth, a perfect paradox.

The truth is that there is a truth, which can be interpreted multiple ways. For example, you wouldn't try to claim that the computer you're typing on is not a thing. You might claim that it isn't a computer, but you would never claim it didn't actually exist relative to those other objects which make up existence.

Uri Lee wrote:
(although I think this means that this statement may also be false, to someone else, if they percieve it so). LOL

(edited for more typos)

Yeah, that's the purpose of paradox; uncovering mental biases.

dogma wrote:
Yeah, that's the purpose of paradox; uncovering mental biases.

please explain how a paradox has any purpose, I admit ignorance, for I don't understand how it can do so.

generalgrog wrote:

Here is the problem with what you just said Uri. You are critisizing/ridiculing a person because they don't believe in the big bang theory as put out by the general scientific community. Yet you seem perfectly willing to accept the scientific explanation, as DOGMA. Why is it so hard for you to realize that you may be the one that is acting off of the conditioning and DOGMA of modern academia, and maybe you are the one acting off of a rejection principle?

No, he accepts it as a scientific theory that is well supported by mathematical and observational evidence. The Biblical creation story is not supported by mathematical or observational evidence, and so is not to be treated as sound. At least not from a strictly informational perspective, as an allegory it works well in concert with scientific knowledge.

generalgrog wrote:
The bottom line is that science doesn't really know, and cannot adequatley explain how the universe started, so they use assumptions(there is that word again) and guesses to create a theory.

Assumptions which are corroborated by observation, and under a continual process of revision.

The real bottom line is that no one knows how the universe started in the sense that he was there at the beginning. Everyone who make such a claim is merely theorizing. The question is over how consistent such theories are with the present body of empirical evidence.

Uri Lee wrote:

please explain how a paradox has any purpose, I admit ignorance, for I don't understand how it can do so.

You make a statement like: God is powerful, but also not powerful. Then you ask the person to whom the statement is posed to make sense of it. The action they take in doing so reveals (supposedly) their character. For example, a person driven by logic would simply say it was nonsense. A person driven by spirituality would say its revelatory. A person driven by science would ask for more detail. The list goes on.

oh, I just thought they made no sense in our finite minds, and have always tried to analize the paradox itself, rather than to analize a person to which it is adressed.
I wonder what that says about me?(rhetorical question)

dogma wrote: At least not from a strictly informational perspective, as an allegory it works well in concert with scientific knowledge.

You left out the phrase > "In my opinion"


GG

Uri Lee wrote:Dogma# A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
# An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

I myself am a believer, in Jesus. However, it is the 'Word of God' I have reservations in. I have learned about some sciences, and have absorbed some of the knowledge therein, yet I am totaly open to the fact that I have only the author of the science text book believe or not, and since I haven't done any high energy particle experiments my self, I am totaly open to the fact that the results and subsequent postulations about the origins of the universe may not be infact true. So why may may I not ask the same questions about the Bible?
You may ask why would I choose to learn about something, whilst being uncertain if it's validity? The answer my friend is simply one of qualifications, and doors that they may open to find out more, and possibly to link the scientific with the spiritual(in theory at least).
My point is to adress whether or not it is helpful to simply take a religious teaching as pure, untainted and unquestionable. When clearly the authors of such teachings were not privy to the imformation we have abvout the physical world in which we live(wasn't the world considered to be flat at one point, and the bible refer to taking the message to all 'four corners of the earth'),surely then we can assume that some modernisation is required in its interpretation.

Uri I agree with most everything you said there. And I find it refreshing that you acknowedge that science doesn't have all the answers, which unfortunately a lot of people don't seem to get.

I see where you are coming from when refering to religious teaching as untainted and unquestinable. And I encourage anyone to question the teachings they are receiving. Questioning is a good thing, and in fact the Bible tells us to test everything that we hear. The issue relates to how you test. And when it comes to doctrine, I believe that you must use the scriptures to test scripture, otherwise you end up with scripture being taken out of context, and people worshiping with poisonous snakes and drinking poison and such.

When you say "Word of God" are you refering to the Bible(I.E. the doctrine of infallibility of scripture)? or what someone may arbitrarily call the "Word of God"

If your talking about the reliablity of the books of the Bible and whether or not they have been redacted/edited/changed, etc. That is another debate and can get rather detailed.

GG

I was refering to the Bible, for some of the most interesting, and in my opinion, enlightening texts have not been included in the old testament, the new testament or even the apocrypha, they have been merely labeled 'pseudoepigraphica'. It seems to me that the church decide what to tell people, not 'THE SOURCE' (as I call God, the reason being that I find it limiting to anthropomorphicaly personify a metaphysical concept).

(edited again, I must proof read before posting)

generalgrog wrote:
Here is the problem with what you just said Uri. You are critisizing/ridiculing a person because they don't believe in the big bang theory as put out by the general scientific community. Yet you seem perfectly willing to accept the scientific explanation, as DOGMA. Why is it so hard for you to realize that you may be the one that is acting off of the conditioning and DOGMA of modern academia, and maybe you are the one acting off of a rejection principle?

This is pecisely what I have been getting at, if you look at the previous posts and other threads on this issue.(we covered it a few times allready)

The bottom line is that science doesn't really know, and cannot adequatley explain how the universe started, so they use assumptions(there is that word again) and guesses to create a theory.

GG

Look, I"m getting annoyed. Your repeated, and by now almost assuredly intentional, misunderstanding and misstatements about the role of science in determining truth are simply insulting. You know, by now, that Science isn't saying with 100% certainly that the big bang is how the universe was formed. They looked at the evidence and tested a few theories and are pretty sure, until a better idea comes along, that they've got a decent working theory. Yes, there are elements of group think in science, but the roots of the theory lay in evidence, logic, and the scientific method. You know this, because you're clearly a relatively intelligent and educated man.

Your insistence on bashing science, and trying to compare it recklessly with matters of faith, bothers me personally as both a man of science and a man of faith, because frankly watching somebody completely miss the point on two things I care about for no gain is a mystery.

So, this leads me to wonder why you keep posting this stuff on science. I can think of four reasons:
1) You genuinely don't understand the role of the scientific method. In this case, your ignorance is excusable, but you should probably refrain from posting on things you know so little about.
2) You're simply a very zealous advocate for bible based Christianity, and things that conflict in any way with the world view ensconced in your faith must be minimized or ignored. That is less excusable, but understandable. However, it does shift you pretty completely into the category of people who aren't debating, simply preaching. Tread carefully on that one.
3) You are aware and understand the reality of science, but you see it as threatening to a religious advocacy, and are willing to engage in intellectual dishonesty to win the bigger prize, which is bringing people to Christ.
4) You just like winning arguments on the internet, and are willing to do what it takes.

I'm sure you think you have a valid point, but you really don't. People believe in big Band theory because while there's maybe a 30% chance that's it's accurate, it's the best working theory we have, and it allows scientists to explore interesting ideas. To compare that process to the process of faith, a whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all, really misses the point on both things.