A Natural Religion

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:28 pm

phyllo wrote:
I agree that the map is not the territory but where are you going with this?
Seems to me like you are thinking about finding the 'true' reality in some other way, through the subject, through the observer.
He wants a map which is an exact representation of reality in every sense. If he had it,then he would be holding reality-in-itself in his hands.


If I understood him correctly then he wants certainty above all else.
If the map is about reality or how accurate is a secondary issue.
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby phyllo » Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:36 pm

Not sure what is your point?
You asserted something but you have not provided any evidence or reasoning as to why we should believe it : "reality is always changing subject to the beholder"
From Quantum Physics, Sciences has establish no one can be 100% certain what reality is. Despite Einstein stating such scientific theory is 'spooky' Quantum Physics is still in existence [i.e. agreed with consensus by Physicists].
The predictions of Quantum Physics are more accurate than those of other areas of physics. How is that possible if QP does not correspond to reality?
The specific Framework and System is a "beholder" albeit a collective beholder. The specific Framework and System of artists, spirituality as a collective beholder, would not agree with Science.
They have different concerns. A musician wants to play the flute well. A scientist wants to know how the flute produces sound.
You did not understand the main point here.
The main philosophical point here is 'reality is always in flux' and nothing is constant nor absolute.
You don't appreciate that flowing water contains permanent and impermanent elements. You focus entirely on the flux of the flow.
The 'permanence' you and James are talking about are merely 'foreplay' or beating around the bush.
The ultimate reason why all these talks of permanence is leading to the instincts to yearn for a permanent soul that survive after death, a God or the Absolute related to this subject.
You're afraid that if you admit that there are permanent objects and forces, then you will be required to accept the permanence of soul and/or God. Therefore, you deny all permanence and all absolutes.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9534
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby phyllo » Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:46 pm

Ierrellus wrote:Religion, because it speaks of human value and meaning in this universe, differs from science in that religious claims are seen as certainties. For the purpose of instilling in its adherents a sense of purposeful stability, religion cannot admit that it's claims are falsifiable.

But if you look at the New Testament, Jesus says several things about the afterlife and some of them are contradictory. It's not at all clear or certain what happens in the afterlife.
(Which is one reason why there are so many Christian sects.)
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9534
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby James S Saint » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:54 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Is_Yde_opN wrote:^ Like for example, in a very simplified way to describe it:
To have a collective vote on reality, on what reality is, and then to convince those who see it in a different way through social techniques.
Note Science is doing that where their views of reality can be verified, tested and repeated within the Scientific Framework and System by any one who want to do it. Science is not claiming their truths are absolute but merely conditioned and qualified to its Framework and System [i.e. Scientific Method, peer review, assumptions, rules, etc.].

And everything that I say is true within my own framework and system. Is there anyone who cannot say that?

It is a meaningless assertion merely giving the opportunity to throw in the word "Scientific"..

Prismatic567 wrote:In contrast, the Abrahamic religions are convincing their reality is the right based on fears and threat of perdition. This really works and thus many Abrahamic believers denounced the theory of evolution and cling on to creationism.

Various groups are battling within the existing battlefields of ideologies, where one is trying to convince others their views of reality are the correct ones while those of others are wrong.

The EXACT same thing happens within science. You merely don't get to hear it.

Prismatic567 wrote:I believe the wise stance is to accept whatever net-positive so-claimed truths but as conditioned upon their respective 'maps' and 'defined territories'. No truths should be claimed as absolute or as the only unconditional truth.

I don't believe you know what you just said.

Prismatic567 wrote:The greater the precision of the map the greater its representation of 'ITS' reality.

So you think that a map has its own reality??
How many realities do you image there to be? How many can be real at the same time?

Prismatic567 wrote:True absolute reality is an impossibility.

Then how can you ever say that any proposed reality is false?
And try to realize that every time you say "impossible", you are saying, "absolutely not possible".

Prismatic567 wrote:In a way 'whatever I think about what reality is, reality is.'

That certainly explains why you think that you are always right.

How can anyone ever be wrong if reality itself is merely whatever they think it is? The only thing that Science can ever do is prove that a proposal is necessarily wrong. But if whatever someone thinks is necessarily true merely because they think it, what point is there in having Science?

It seems that all of those Muslims and Christians are necessarily right because reality depends merely on whatever their mind thinks. Or does that principle only apply to you?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24658
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby phyllo » Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:53 pm

Prismatic wrote:
In order to reinforce the truth of 'whatever I think about what reality is, reality is' there is a need to seek test, verification and justifications on consensus on a collective basis.
Test it against what? Against the real reality which is out there separate from what you think.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9534
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:09 am

phyllo wrote:
Prismatic wrote:
In order to reinforce the truth of 'whatever I think about what reality is, reality is' there is a need to seek test, verification and justifications on consensus on a collective basis.
Test it against what? Against the real reality which is out there separate from what you think.
As with Science you test a theory [new and accepted] within the conditions of the Scientific Framework and System, i.e. the agreed Scientific Methods and other recognized processes, procedures, rules, assumptions, etc.
If you test an existing Scientific theory and it produced the same results as claimed then you can personally claim it is true and is a Scientific reality as conditioned by the Scientific Framework and System.

There is no real reality that is separate from me or any one.
All theories and claims of reality are always conditioned by some one's or a group's conditions.
The most common view of reality that is based on common sense and conventions. The other is theological. These are obvious a crude views of reality. To get to a higher precision of reality, one will seek those of Science or other philosophical Framework and Systems that has higher degrees of objectivity.

Except for the mad, schizophrenics, no normal person would dare to claim credibility for his views of reality based on his own personal set of conditions. The general approach is one will match one's own views of reality against those of some groups, e.g. Science, theology, economics, arts, legal, various philosophical, ideology, etc.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:58 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Is_Yde_opN wrote:^ Like for example, in a very simplified way to describe it:
To have a collective vote on reality, on what reality is, and then to convince those who see it in a different way through social techniques.
Note Science is doing that where their views of reality can be verified, tested and repeated within the Scientific Framework and System by any one who want to do it. Science is not claiming their truths are absolute but merely conditioned and qualified to its Framework and System [i.e. Scientific Method, peer review, assumptions, rules, etc.].

And everything that I say is true within my own framework and system. Is there anyone who cannot say that?

It is a meaningless assertion merely giving the opportunity to throw in the word "Scientific"..
We humans have reached a stage where no normal person [other than the schizos and the very mad] would dare to insist one view of reality within one's Framework and System is the true reality. First one will have to admit it is a personal view. To get more credibility for one's personal views, one will have to test it against the existing generally accepted Framework and System. One can invent and introduce a new Framework and System and if there is enough consensus it will be recognized as a new system. Quantum Mechanic is relative a new Framework and System, albeit a subsidiary of the existing Scientific Framework and System.

Virtual Reality is a new reality with its own Framework and Systems and it has benefits for humanity and thus is generating expanding acceptance and consensus. Virtual Reality is not conventional reality, but as long as it is defined within its Framework and Systems, then it is acceptable for use.

Prismatic567 wrote:In contrast, the Abrahamic religions are convincing their reality is the right based on fears and threat of perdition. This really works and thus many Abrahamic believers denounced the theory of evolution and cling on to creationism.

Various groups are battling within the existing battlefields of ideologies, where one is trying to convince others their views of reality are the correct ones while those of others are wrong.

The EXACT same thing happens within science. You merely don't get to hear it.
So what?
Regardless whether it is Science or otherwise. What counts is whether there is sufficient consensus on its claim of truth and usefulness without serious side-effects.

Prismatic567 wrote:I believe the wise stance is to accept whatever net-positive so-claimed truths but as conditioned upon their respective 'maps' and 'defined territories'. No truths should be claimed as absolute or as the only unconditional truth.

I don't believe you know what you just said.
What is wrong with what I had claimed. Prove me wrong.

Prismatic567 wrote:The greater the precision of the map the greater its representation of 'ITS' reality.

So you think that a map has its own reality??
How many realities do you image there to be? How many can be real at the same time?
A map is a representation of a human defined-reality.
There is no question of "how many" whatever is reality is conditioned by the subject's conditions.
There is no permanent independent reality out there other than the one that is conditioned upon the subject's condition.

Prismatic567 wrote:True absolute reality is an impossibility.

Then how can you ever say that any proposed reality is false?
And try to realize that every time you say "impossible", you are saying, "absolutely not possible".
Rhetoric, I am not asserting directly 'false absolute reality is a possibility'.
What I stated and meant is it is absolutely impossible to experience an independent absolute reality.

Prismatic567 wrote:In a way 'whatever I think about what reality is, reality is.'

That certainly explains why you think that you are always right.
I am not focussed on being right. I am waiting for you to prove me wrong. It is a lose-win for me. If you prove me wrong, then I gain new knowledge which should be the default expectation of any progressive human.

How can anyone ever be wrong if reality itself is merely whatever they think it is? The only thing that Science can ever do is prove that a proposal is necessarily wrong. But if whatever someone thinks is necessarily true merely because they think it, what point is there in having Science?
Actually that was not what I said.
Note I stated in the above.
In a way 'whatever I think about what reality is, reality is.'
Note what is within ' ' was not mine, I agreed in a sense which followed upon my earlier context, but to be precise it has to be in accordance to one's personal Framework, System, Conditions and experience in addition to thinking. There is no reality at all if what one think is merely illusory, like God or a contradiction.

We have to have Science because no individual could produce the utilities that Science has contributed to humanity so far.

If an individual is color-blind, what s/he experienced is his/her reality. This is one example, but there are so many variables within the 7 billion human beings that there is likely to be 7 billion variations of reality that is conditioned upon each individual's conditions. Many of them would have lots of commonality due to generic elements within the human DNA.

It seems that all of those Muslims and Christians are necessarily right because reality depends merely on whatever their mind thinks. Or does that principle only apply to you?
Agreed on this point and it is applicable to all. But note the majority of Muslims [like Christians] and share the same reality among themselves as brainwashed by their same main holy text. Some Muslims perhaps up to 300 million evil prone believe non-Muslims are a threat to their Islam and SOME responded by killing non-Muslims, i.e. as in attack is the best defense. Proof is some where in this stats; [29,456]

Image
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby phyllo » Sat Oct 15, 2016 2:13 pm

I think that you have mistaken the maps for the territory. Which is why can say things like this : "If an individual is color-blind, what s/he experienced is his/her reality. This is one example, but there are so many variables within the 7 billion human beings that there is likely to be 7 billion variations of reality that is conditioned upon each individual's conditions."

Yet, you cannot even make your point without referring to a "true reality" : "We humans have reached a stage where no normal person [other than the schizos and the very mad] would dare to insist one view of reality within one's Framework and System is the true reality."

IOW, you cannot even state your argument without referring to the thing which you deny.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9534
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby James S Saint » Sat Oct 15, 2016 3:26 pm

phyllo wrote:IOW, you cannot even state your argument without referring to the thing which you deny.

Precisely.

Prismatic567 wrote:We humans have reached a stage where no normal person [other than the schizos and the very mad] would dare to insist one view of reality within one's Framework and System is the true reality. First one will have to admit it is a personal view. To get more credibility for one's personal views, one will have to test it against the existing generally accepted Framework and System. ... if there is enough consensus it will be recognized

You "humans" have devolved to that level.

You accept that nothing is true until the general consensus dictates it to be true (a devotee to the Pharaoh):
    Reality is only what WE tell you that it is.


Of course, you forget (assuming that you ever knew):

    Nullius in Verbe
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24658
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Oct 16, 2016 4:21 am

phyllo wrote:I think that you have mistaken the maps for the territory. Which is why can say things like this : "If an individual is color-blind, what s/he experienced is his/her reality. This is one example, but there are so many variables within the 7 billion human beings that there is likely to be 7 billion variations of reality that is conditioned upon each individual's conditions."

Yet, you cannot even make your point without referring to a "true reality" : "We humans have reached a stage where no normal person [other than the schizos and the very mad] would dare to insist one view of reality within one's Framework and System is the true reality."

IOW, you cannot even state your argument without referring to the thing which you deny.
Where is the issue between the above two points.

Obviously the color-blind if philosophically matured would not claim his/her reality is THE REALITY, i.e. the true absolute reality and every one's else is false reality.

Just because you are the majority, you cannot play God is assert the color-blind reality is a false reality. It is a true-reality relative to his condition.

Now what is the issue with the above?

I am very confident of my philosophical knowledge and principles and generally do not present my own messed-up views. The errors I made are likely to be omissions and oversights which I will admit and need to be corrected.

Many a times what I presented appear to be a contradiction, but that is only if one view the point from one sense and perspective. This apparent 'contradiction' must be analyzed in terms of its respective perspective and there will be no contradiction.
A contradiction emerge when 'P' and 'not-P' exists and conflated in the same sense [perspective] and same time.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Oct 16, 2016 4:35 am

James S Saint wrote:
phyllo wrote:IOW, you cannot even state your argument without referring to the thing which you deny.

Precisely.

Prismatic567 wrote:We humans have reached a stage where no normal person [other than the schizos and the very mad] would dare to insist one view of reality within one's Framework and System is the true reality. First one will have to admit it is a personal view. To get more credibility for one's personal views, one will have to test it against the existing generally accepted Framework and System. ... if there is enough consensus it will be recognized

You "humans" have devolved to that level.

You accept that nothing is true until the general consensus dictates it to be true (a devotee to the Pharaoh):
    Reality is only what WE tell you that it is.


Of course, you forget (assuming that you ever knew):

    Nullius in Verbe
You are talking nonsense and transposing from your own level.

Reality is relatively-true to a Framework and System.
How true, i.e. its degree as being knowledge will depend on the degree of objectivity of the Framework and System.
Relative-truth can range from low-opinions [heavily subjective], medium beliefs to knowledge [which has high to highest level of objectivity].

God exists is merely belief relative to the theistic Framework and System which has almost zero objectivity.

A Scientific theory is knowledge and is only relatively true to the Scientific Framework and System which has a very high degree of objectivity, i.e. it is open to testing for repeatability and justifications by any one.

As I had stated many times, your views are derived from a very narrow, shallow and simple-mind philosophical base. At the same time you are so ignorant of your own state and is so desperate to condemn the views of others based on ignorance and lack of depth and width.

To strengthen your philosophical credibility you must widen and deepen your philosophical base to understand [not necessary agree] the wider base of a particular issue.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby James S Saint » Sun Oct 16, 2016 9:54 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:You accept that nothing is true until the general consensus dictates it to be true (a devotee to the Pharaoh):
    Reality is only what WE tell you that it is.


Of course, you forget (assuming that you ever knew):

    Nullius in Verbe
You are talking nonsense and transposing from your own level.

Reality is relatively-true to a Framework and System.

You wouldn't be speaking such BS if you would bother to at least get learn the meanings of your words.

"Reality" refers to what is real regardless of what anyone might believe. What is "true" is dependent upon the language and alignment with reality, also regardless of what anyone might believe to be true.

With that in rational mind, there can only be one reality, although there can be many truths/ontologies even if they are spoken in different languages. Contradiction is the only guide to discovering which of the many proposed truths cannot be true. Contradiction with observation is the guide for Science.

Prismatic567 wrote:How true, i.e. its degree as being knowledge will depend on the degree of objectivity of the Framework and System.
Relative-truth can range from low-opinions [heavily subjective], medium beliefs to knowledge [which has high to highest level of objectivity].

Babbling ignorance. Knowledge isn't at all about objectivity. Knowledge is about the lack of contradiction, logical certainty within a chosen ontology. One can have knowledge about complete fantasies. And subjective opinion can be completely true as long as they align with reality and thus objectively true despite being subjective opinion (which is how they got Relativity Theory to more accurately predict).

Prismatic567 wrote:God exists is merely belief relative to the theistic Framework and System which has almost zero objectivity.

The word and concept "God" belongs to a spiritual based ontology. God exists within all such ontologies, by definition. The existence of God in reality can only be un-true if there is absolutely nothing in reality which aligns with the definition of "God" as a concept. Again, it has nothing at all to do with objectivity or subjectivity.

Prismatic567 wrote:A Scientific theory is knowledge and is only relatively true to the Scientific Framework and System which has a very high degree of objectivity, i.e. it is open to testing for repeatability and justifications by any one.

More babbling in ignorance. Science uses a chosen (and changing) ontology. The concept of "God" is not defined in that ontology. And many things that are defined in that ontology do not align with reality. Science is confident about many untrue notions. So no, Science is NOT knowledge (even though the word "science" was intended to mean "certainty of knowledge").

Prismatic567 wrote:As I had stated many times, your views are derived from a very narrow, shallow and simple-mind philosophical base.

And as you have demonstrated many times over, you have no idea of what you say and certainly not of what forms my views. You are too busy babbling in an effort to support yourself.

Prismatic567 wrote: At the same time you are so ignorant of your own state and is so desperate to condemn the views of others based on ignorance and lack of depth and width.

Still talking to the mirror?

Can't you yet see how grossly insulting you are to others yet so terribly whiny about the slightest disagreement with you? Narcissists have such a poor reflection in mirrors, they presume it to be someone else.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24658
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Ierrellus » Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:40 pm

Just finished J. Huxley's book and would highly recommend it for those who would appreciate his attempts to complement religion and science. In the book he refers to his naturalistic religion as "evolutionary humanism". He finds the human mind to be the greatest achievement of evolution and sees human destiny, its care and concern, as the proper study of science and religion.
Although I find Huxley's views fascinating, I must admit that, for me, they tend to hint at teleology and anthropomorphism in evolution. So the question remains whether or not one can make religious statements about evolution without the statements appearing teleological or anthropomorphic?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12200
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Oct 16, 2016 6:02 pm

Where is the issue between the above two points.

Obviously the color-blind if philosophically matured would not claim his/her reality is THE REALITY, i.e. the true absolute reality and every one's else is false reality.

Just because you are the majority, you cannot play God is assert the color-blind reality is a false reality. It is a true-reality relative to his condition.

Now what is the issue with the above?
You don't have a coherent concept of reality. You mingle two separate ideas into one. You use the word 'reality' inconsistently ... sometimes you mean "true reality" and sometimes you mean "understanding of reality". You don't even realize that you are doing it. But it leads to confusion for you and everyone that you talk to. Your conclusions about "true reality" are based on "understanding of reality". That's why you deny permanence. That's why you claim that there are 7 billion realities.
I am very confident of my philosophical knowledge and principles and generally do not present my own messed-up views.
You have read too much and you have become trapped in your frameworks and systems.
The question is as simple as : "Is there something outside of myself?"
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9534
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:03 am

Is_Yde_opN wrote:I come to the conclusion that absolute certainty is very important for you, Prismatic567.

As for the rest, I'm just thinking about 2+2=5, if we all say so.
And it will be said by everybody because that's how 'we' shall define the 'we'.
Easy.
Wrong. I wonder how you get to this despite my glaring declaration against absolute certainty.
Absolute certainty belong to the theists' absolute certainty of God Exists.

It would be most stupid [philosophically] of me to insist there is absolute certainty.
Note Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' where he rejected 100% absolute certainty.

I disagrees with absolutely absolute, the 100% certainty and the likes.

I accept relative-absolute, conditional absolute, relative certainty and conditional certainty.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:10 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:You accept that nothing is true until the general consensus dictates it to be true (a devotee to the Pharaoh):
    Reality is only what WE tell you that it is.


Of course, you forget (assuming that you ever knew):

    Nullius in Verbe
You are talking nonsense and transposing from your own level.

Reality is relatively-true to a Framework and System.

You wouldn't be speaking such BS if you would bother to at least get learn the meanings of your words.

"Reality" refers to what is real regardless of what anyone might believe. What is "true" is dependent upon the language and alignment with reality, also regardless of what anyone might believe to be true.

With that in rational mind, there can only be one reality, although there can be many truths/ontologies even if they are spoken in different languages. Contradiction is the only guide to discovering which of the many proposed truths cannot be true. Contradiction with observation is the guide for Science.
You are stuck with a 3+ billion years old algorithm and do not have the ability to think outside that box on this matter. Note my explanation here;

viewtopic.php?p=2633834#p2633834

The rest of your post are merely babbling.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby James S Saint » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:25 am

Prismatic567 wrote:I disagrees with absolutely absolute, the 100% certainty and the likes.

I accept relative-absolute, conditional absolute, relative certainty and conditional certainty.

And are 100% certain of it. #-o

Prismatic567 wrote:You are stuck with a 3+ billion years old algorithm and do not have the ability to think outside that box on this matter.

3+ billion years, huh. :icon-rolleyes:

When "outside the box" means that 2+2=3, some of us intentionally don't think there. Idiots think "outside the box", like drawing outside the lines of reason just to be cool.

And since you have now been reduced to mere insults (rather than your normal insult followed by more preaching), I have to take it that you have no explanation for your contradictions.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24658
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:40 am

phyllo wrote:
Where is the issue between the above two points.

Obviously the color-blind if philosophically matured would not claim his/her reality is THE REALITY, i.e. the true absolute reality and every one's else is false reality.

Just because you are the majority, you cannot play God is assert the color-blind reality is a false reality. It is a true-reality relative to his condition.

Now what is the issue with the above?
You don't have a coherent concept of reality. You mingle two separate ideas into one. You use the word 'reality' inconsistently ... sometimes you mean "true reality" and sometimes you mean "understanding of reality". You don't even realize that you are doing it. But it leads to confusion for you and everyone that you talk to. Your conclusions about "true reality" are based on "understanding of reality". That's why you deny permanence. That's why you claim that there are 7 billion realities.
I am very confident of my philosophical knowledge and principles and generally do not present my own messed-up views.
You have read too much and you have become trapped in your frameworks and systems.
The question is as simple as : "Is there something outside of myself?"
I presume you are familiar with this;

Image

Image

What is reality to human beings is something like the above, i.e. there are dual truths and many truths.

Your problem with your views is given existing state you perhaps can only see, say, the RABBIT but not the DUCK. So you insist reality is the RABBIT and you cannot say anything else because you can ONLY perceive the RABBIT. Perhaps the majority of humans are like you can only see the RABBIT, thus the majority view dominate.
A percentage of humans may only see the DUCK and not the RABBIT. So in accordance to the observation and real evidence, to them the reality is the DUCK.

So when the people who perceive DUCK and people who perceive RABBIT present their respective conclusion of reality each will insist their observed and inferred reality is the true one and the other is wrong.
Unfortunately as with our current situations, the majority always win, so the propositions of RABBIT reality would be a de facto reality and the minority's DUCK reality is 'forced to be wrong.'

When we deliberate philosophically [what this forum is for] on the above claims, both the RABBIT and DUCK perception are true but only relative to their given conditions.
The point is no one can decide who is right and who is wrong. The majority win is not necessary the truth.

As for me I applied philosophy and understand both views are true, that is why I present two views of reality but I always qualify and explain my position. So you should not misunderstand my point if you reflect deeply and philosohically on the issue as I had explained.
The problem is your default position 'forced' you into seeing ONLY one view within the dual and many truths, thus prevent you from understanding my multi-views position.

Note this exercise.
What do you see in this image;

Image

If you are not informed, you are likely to see only one image but not the other.
For some it will take a lot of explaining and pointing to see the other valid truth.
There are many such exercise and for many they just cannot see the other picture from the same image.

The point here is, reality is not merely a dual-truth-image exercise but comprised of complex combinations of truths. Those [the majority] who perceive only their 'given' truth [where it work for them] will report it over generations and the minority will not be able to get their truths across.

You can condemn my philosophical views but I know for sure you will lose the opportunity to understand [not necessary agree] other aspects of truth within realities and 'reality'. There is no permanent absolute independent external reality out there. As Hume asserted what you claim as a permanent reality is merely because you are habituated and accustomed to it psychologically.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:10 am

phyllo wrote:
From Quantum Physics, Sciences has establish no one can be 100% certain what reality is. Despite Einstein stating such scientific theory is 'spooky' Quantum Physics is still in existence [i.e. agreed with consensus by Physicists].
The predictions of Quantum Physics are more accurate than those of other areas of physics. How is that possible if QP does not correspond to reality?
QP or QM do correspond to reality but is conditioned by its defined system and the overall Framework of Science.

The specific Framework and System is a "beholder" albeit a collective beholder. The specific Framework and System of artists, spirituality as a collective beholder, would not agree with Science.
They have different concerns. A musician wants to play the flute well. A scientist wants to know how the flute produces sound.
The point is no one can claim their specific reality is absolute without making reference to their conditions [Framework and System] they churn out their conclusions.

You did not understand the main point here.
The main philosophical point here is 'reality is always in flux' and nothing is constant nor absolute.
You don't appreciate that flowing water contains permanent and impermanent elements. You focus entirely on the flux of the flow.
The elements within water, i.e. Hydrogen, Oxygen, the electrons and sub-atomic particles are always changing and in flux. There is no permanent element within water-H2O.

The 'permanence' you and James are talking about are merely 'foreplay' or beating around the bush.
The ultimate reason why all these talks of permanence is leading to the instincts to yearn for a permanent soul that survive after death, a God or the Absolute related to this subject.
You're afraid that if you admit that there are permanent objects and forces, then you will be required to accept the permanence of soul and/or God. Therefore, you deny all permanence and all absolutes.
Emotional?
What I am stating is objective fact based on whatever Framework and System that is applicable.
The grounds for a preference of objective fact over the illusory [both has their Framework and System] is the striving towards the ideal morality of the highest good and no evil for the overall well being of humanity.

Note any one can insist there is permanent soul and God arising out their Framework and System. If theists in general keep it private and bring no long term harm nor hinder the progress of humanity, no body would bother with such ideas.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby phyllo » Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:39 pm

The point is no one can claim their specific reality is absolute without making reference to their conditions [Framework and System] they churn out their conclusions.
They don't have different "specific realities" - they have opinions about reality, they have points of view, they have different interests, they have different understanding and different knowledge of reality.
The elements within water, i.e. Hydrogen, Oxygen, the electrons and sub-atomic particles are always changing and in flux. There is no permanent element within water-H2O.
If you can't accept the permanence of protons and electrons, chemical bonds, electric charge or gravitational attraction of water, then there is nothing more to be said about it.
What I am stating is objective fact based on whatever Framework and System that is applicable.
Objective fact??
That's a bit too much. :D
Last edited by phyllo on Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9534
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby phyllo » Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:54 pm

Your problem with your views is given existing state you perhaps can only see, say, the RABBIT but not the DUCK. So you insist reality is the RABBIT and you cannot say anything else because you can ONLY perceive the RABBIT.
I see your point of view perfectly well.
You can condemn my philosophical views but I know for sure you will lose the opportunity to understand [not necessary agree] other aspects of truth within realities and 'reality'. There is no permanent absolute independent external reality out there. As Hume asserted what you claim as a permanent reality is merely because you are habituated and accustomed to it psychologically.
Okay, you think that "there is no permanent absolute independent external reality out there". I disagree.

Moving on.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9534
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Ierrellus » Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:15 pm

S.J. Gould spent many pages attempting to refute the notion that humans are the evolutionary crown of creation. But something of the sort has to be admitted if one believes, as J. Huxley appears to believe, that humans have evolved to the extent that they can change their evolution for the betterment of mankind.
We can manipulate matter for our own good or ill, which tends to suggest that we know something about the reality of our material universe. Still, the notion of what is true must be seen as a pragmatic idea when what is true can be gleaned from what is real or authentic as accessible for our purposes.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12200
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Oct 18, 2016 6:43 am

phyllo wrote:
The point is no one can claim their specific reality is absolute without making reference to their conditions [Framework and System] they churn out their conclusions.
They don't have different "specific realities" - they have opinions about reality, they have points of view, they have different interests, they have different understanding and different knowledge of reality.
It is very obvious different humans has different opinions on the same thing.
This is the common everyday conventional sense of different people having different views on what is going on within reality. This is typical of the various subjective views of different people reporting on the same events, e.g. new reporter, sports commentary, political views, etc.

However apart from the conventional subjective opinions and belief there is a deeper level of cognition that is going on. This is based more on beliefs rather than on personal opinions. Such an emergence [not conception based on opinion] of reality is due to the common algorithm of various groups of human beings due to more of inherent evolved nature [than of their nurture].
This is taking DUCK-RABBIT happenings at a more sophisticated level.

When I am discussing is not having different opinions on political events but different emergence of reality relating to permanence or impermanence, god or no-God, soul or no soul, external or interdependent worlds.

When you stated they have different opinions, you are not differentiating from the conventional sense of having different opinions and the philosophical sense of having different beliefs and cognition of reality. [interdependent and not independent reality].

It is a fallacy to conflate two distinct senses, i.e. common sense and philosophical sense.

The elements within water, i.e. Hydrogen, Oxygen, the electrons and sub-atomic particles are always changing and in flux. There is no permanent element within water-H2O.

If you can't accept the permanence of protons and electrons, chemical bonds, electric charge or gravitational attraction of water, then there is nothing more to be said about it.
What I am stating is objective fact based on whatever Framework and System that is applicable.
Objective fact??
That's a bit too much. :D
How too much?
What I have stated is based on accepted theories that can be repeated, tested and verified by any one based on whatever Framework and System that is applicable.
Where in the world can we ever get a permanent proton? The particles therein a proton are always changing and are bombarded by quarks and particles from everywhere.

One day a proton may have, say 1000 elements, the next day it could have 950 or 1100 elements and thus not permanently the same at all times.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby James S Saint » Tue Oct 18, 2016 6:57 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
The elements within water, i.e. Hydrogen, Oxygen, the electrons and sub-atomic particles are always changing and in flux. There is no permanent element within water-H2O.

What I have stated is based on accepted theories that can be repeated, tested and verified by any one based on whatever Framework and System that is applicable.
Where in the world can we ever get a permanent proton? The particles therein a proton are always changing and are bombarded by quarks and particles from everywhere.

One day a proton may have, say 1000 elements, the next day it could have 950 or 1100 elements and thus not permanently the same at all times.

Total BS.

Find even one reputable scientist who believes that water need not have hydrogen and/or oxygen. He would be definitely wrong. And similarly, any proton that has 1000 quarks would not be a proton. You are making completely ridiculous assertions concerning a subject that you obviously know nothing about. There are no accepted theories at all in science asserting what you claim. You are lying.

As I said, for your own sake, you really should avoid the subject of physics.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24658
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:15 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
The elements within water, i.e. Hydrogen, Oxygen, the electrons and sub-atomic particles are always changing and in flux. There is no permanent element within water-H2O.

What I have stated is based on accepted theories that can be repeated, tested and verified by any one based on whatever Framework and System that is applicable.
Where in the world can we ever get a permanent proton? The particles therein a proton are always changing and are bombarded by quarks and particles from everywhere.

One day a proton may have, say 1000 elements, the next day it could have 950 or 1100 elements and thus not permanently the same at all times.

Total BS.

Find even one reputable scientist who believes that water need not have hydrogen and/or oxygen. He would be definitely wrong.
A water molecule by definition is H2O, i.e. 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms. The fact is the particles within those atoms changes all the time.
And similarly, any proton that has 1000 quarks would not be a proton. You are making completely ridiculous assertions concerning a subject that you obviously know nothing about. There are no theories at all in science asserting what you claim. You are lying.
Note for simplicity I stated "say 1000 elements." It just for example, I could have stated 'x elements.' By 'elements' I meant the smallest components within the proton, i.e quarks, gluons and other particles, etc.

As I said, for your own sake, you really should avoid the subject of physics.
You should get an education on philosophy. I admit I am not an expert in Physics but I am not wrong in principle that each phase of the physical world is made up of smaller parts which are not permanent, i.e. never change.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users