A Natural Religion

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.

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.

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”

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?

They have different concerns. A musician wants to play the flute well. A scientist wants to know how the flute produces sound.

You don’t appreciate that flowing water contains permanent and impermanent elements. You focus entirely on the flux of the flow.

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.

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.)

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”…

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

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

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?

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”.

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?

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.

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.

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.

What is wrong with what I had claimed. Prove me wrong.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

Precisely.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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”).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?”

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.

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.

And are 100% certain of it. #-o

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.

I presume you are familiar with this;

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;

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.