mfbukowski Posted December 30, 2021 Posted December 30, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Analytics said: In principle, everything that interacts with objective reality is within the purview of science. This includes the smell, sizzle, babble, and experience of eating a steak. Science clashes with religion only when religion makes truth-claims about objective reality that are demonstrably false. "Truth Claims" ? You can't even define what that means! Like what? "Claims " are all subject to interpretation, which science does not even consider. Here's one: "Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, sinned, and brought death into the world" Where is the Truth Claim? Adam & E. were characters in in a play, in the temple, representing Everyman, who violated natural law, in one of a billion possible ways, eventually causing death. It's a parable teaching us to obey natural law, lest we die. It becomes a tautology since following natural law becomes the commandments, violate commandments and one dies. See The Didache, The Way of Life, Death. Tautologies are always true. The loss of "innocence" happens to all, AND we all die. The correlation is 100%. And causation IS correlation per Hume. So where is the truth claim that is "false"? And how does science prove that morality is "moral", or are scientists all immoral? Where are the facts? Do scientists find purpose in their work? Of course! What is it? Perhaps something like " the good of mankind" So how is their "truth claim" proven as fact? What is their method for scientifically measuring "good"? It's always the same discussion, and never any answers back. There are no answers because science does not even look at purpose an value in our lives. Of course tacitly it provides TONS of value for mankind without definition, it's the definition that is missing and left to others to define What a shame it is that science is not able of showing its own value using it's own criteria for "truth claims" It cannot even define that phrase since it cannot define truth It's absurd. Edited December 30, 2021 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted December 30, 2021 Posted December 30, 2021 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: How to discover real truth: YES!!!!!!
mfbukowski Posted December 31, 2021 Posted December 31, 2021 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Lol! And math is just the way the human mind works!! It starts with A=A and goes downhill from there When have two real things been the "same" if you include their relations? One is to the right or left, higher or lower than the others? Does that prevent them from being the "same thing"? Are they EVER really the "same "? I'm just kidding, but hopefully this illustrates the problem when we see the world as relational. Reminds me of our @Kevin Christensen, who makes the point that understanding relative truth is among the higher intellectual skills, iff I understand him
mfbukowski Posted December 31, 2021 Posted December 31, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Duplicate Edited December 31, 2021 by mfbukowski
pogi Posted December 31, 2021 Posted December 31, 2021 (edited) 23 hours ago, Analytics said: I don't think it is helpful to focus on what we don't know, especially to the extreme position you seem to be taking of almost completely disregarding everything we do know because of stuff that we presume is out there but don't know anything about. I don't think it is helpful to disregard the limits of our perception in observing and interpreting objective reality as it is. The fact is, what we don't know can and does affect our perceptions and understanding of what we think we do know. This is demonstrably true throughout history. New discoveries alter our perceptions of objective reality. What we don't know can and does affect what we do "know". Period. It is not helpful to deny that. To disregard the idea that the very act of observing alters reality itself is not helpful. The enormity of what we don't know and can't observe and pretend like we are 99.9% confident that our interpretations of data correlate with objective reality as it is (and not merely as we perceive it), then that is not intellectually honest or helpful. Such confidence in what we think we "know" is itself a crippling bias...and an incredibly strong one. More intellectual humility and honesty is more helpful (not less) in scientific pursuits. We may be 99.9% confident that what we know correlates with objective reality as we perceive it, but we should be cautious and reserved in claiming that what we know correlates with objective reality as it is. Our interpretations of what we perceive, may be obscured by what we don't know and can't perceive. We can't perceive at least 1 side of the entire coin of objective reality. Knowing that and acknowledging that fact, how can we pretend to be so confident that what we don't know won't alter our interpretations and perspective of what we do know? 23 hours ago, Analytics said: Regarding your question here, it's interesting that you want to discount what we objectively are pretty sure about in order to accommodate subjective, ineffable impressions. My point is that the idea that we can approach objective truth/reality with any degree of confidence is a myth. Objective reality will forever be out of reach so long as we are trying to observe it. Maybe some things can only be revealed as we close our eyes and quiet our minds in stillness. We need to accommodate for those subjective experiences that happen in stillness. They are real. I am not suggesting that we can approach 99.9% confidence that our personal interpretations of those subjective spiritual experiences are accurate (there is still too much we don't know to have that kind of confidence), but I have experienced enough to have a degree of faith in them. I fully anticipate that my understanding and interpretation of my experiences will evolve with further light and knowledge, but I have experienced too much to discount it. 23 hours ago, Analytics said: "The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions." The problem with this is that all "facts" are based on mere appearances, aka"observations". We can replace demonstrations for impressions all day long, but the results of those demonstrations are mere appearances that we interpret based on our collective knowledge and is inevitably limited by what we don't know. Until we can see the BIG PICTURE and understand how each variable relates with the next, then "there are no facts, only interpretations". Edited December 31, 2021 by pogi 2
pogi Posted December 31, 2021 Posted December 31, 2021 22 hours ago, The Nehor said: How to discover real truth: I love it! 1
pogi Posted December 31, 2021 Posted December 31, 2021 (edited) Deleted Edited December 31, 2021 by pogi
mfbukowski Posted December 31, 2021 Posted December 31, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, pogi said: Maybe some things can only be revealed as we close our eyes and quiet our minds in stillness. We need to accommodate for those subjective experiences that happen in stillness. They are real. I am not suggesting that we can approach 99.9% confidence that our personal interpretations of those subjective spiritual experiences are accurate (there is still too much we don't know to have that kind of confidence), but I have experienced enough to have a degree of faith in them. Great post, thanks. Just a suggestion: "accuracy" may apply in situations of interaction with the world where we are observers. But are we "observers" of our own spiritual experiences? I think not. The experience itself IS the reality of whatever we experienced! It is not an observation of something inside, it is a direct experience in itself. It IS the reality, for us, it is not an interpretation to be "accurate" or not, it literally "IS WHAT IT IS" Does one OBSERVE a dream or does one HAVE a dream? One HAS a dream. One is certain beyond a doubt that the DREAM "really happened"! Interpretation of dreams is entirely different from having a dream. One has to shift to "observer mode" to INTERPRET. So for me, epistemologically the subjective mode more directly reveals reality - is more directly real- than the observervation mode. Yes if one speaks about the dream, language distorts "what really happened" because then we must speak as an observer of our own dream. So "I know the church is true" is not a statement about the church, but a statement about my certainty about the church. The question of "accuracy" of the subjective can only exist subjectively! DIRECT EXPERIENCES ARE MORE REAL EPISTEMOLOGICALLY THAN OBSERVATIONS. There are no perception filters in direct experience, no doubt in "what I really experienced"? I KNOW I saw "water" down the road which turned into a mirage, but the EXPERIENCE of water was real! So for me, there is no question of the accuracy of spiritual experience. It is not "through a glass darkly", it is face to face. As Joseph said, he knew that God knew that the EXPERIENCE was real, yet for us, it was "only" subjective! Edited December 31, 2021 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts