Fact and Truth

[Fist and Faith]

I've said this many times. IMO, science is concerned with facts, religion (philosophy in general) is concerned with truth, and it's impossible to use one to prove or disprove the other. Trying to do so is foolish.

Nor is there any need to. If we ever found a way to observe the Big Bang, and were able to prove that it occurred because of some law of physics, it wouldn't mean God didn't create that law, and it couldn't matter less. Science is only concerned with that law. It's strength; under what circumstances it might happen again; consequences of its occurrence; etc. And on the flip side, believing - being absolutely convinced - that God created it all - all the matter, energy, properties, laws of physics, etc - does not invalidate the strength of gravity, the speed of light, the half-life of each element that has a half-life, etc.

[Zahir]

Totally agree.

[Vraith]

I think I agree as well, Fist. But it seems that people simply can't live that way, or accept that context. I even think the initial impetus of religion was exactly the same as that of science: to understand the world.
But how do we get to the point where people accept that? Because the problem isn't science disproving God, or God negating science...but people view it as if it is, because religion DOES make "fact" claims...and many of these are demonstrably false. The world simply is NOT only 6000 years old, and was NOT made in 6 literal days. Some religions have adjusted to that...others have not. Some scientists will make this a "truth" claim: there is no possible God [many won't, of course]. The religious side is making both a fact and a truth claim, and accusing science of attacking God. Because accepting the scientific fact does undermine the form and beliefs of many faiths; it doesn't necessarily deny a possible God, but it does deny the particular circumstances/claims of some of their truth and facts.
It would, I think, be best if we saw the issue in the terms you describe.
How do we make it so?

[Fist and Faith]

Here's what I was saying about science and religion, fact and truth, not contradicting each other; not trying to prove the other wrong. From Conversations With God:

GOD
Life evolved through a series of steps in the blink of an eye that you now call billions of years. And in this holy instant came you, out of the sea, the water of life, onto the land and into the form you now hold.

NEALE
Then the evolutionists are right!

GOD
I find it amusing – a source of continual amusement, actually – that you humans have such a need to break everything down into right and wrong. It never occurs to you that you’ve made those labels up to help you define the material – and your Self.

It never occurs to you (except to the finest minds among you) that a thing could be both right and wrong; that only in the relative world are things one or the other. In the world of the absolute, of time-no time, all things are everything.

There is no male and female, there is no before and after, there is no fast and slow, here and there, up and down, left and right – and no right and wrong.

Your astronauts and cosmonauts have gained a sense of this. They imagined themselves to be rocketing upward to get to outer space, only to find when they got there that they were looking up at the Earth. Or were they? Maybe they were looking down at the Earth! But then, where was the sun? Up? Down? No! Over there, to the left. So now, suddenly, a thing was neither up nor down – it was sideways…and all definitions thus disappeared.

So it is in My world – our world – our real realm. All definitions disappear, rendering it difficult to even talk about this realm in definitive terms.

Religion is your attempt to speak of the unspeakable. It does not do a very good job.

No, My son, the evolutionists are not right. I created all of this – all of this – in the blink of an eye; in one holy instant – just as the creationists have said. And…it came about through a process of evolution taking billions and billions of what you call years, just as the evolutionists claim.

They are both "right." As the cosmonauts discovered, it all depends on how you look at it.

But the real question is: one holy instant/billions of years – what’s the difference? Can you simply agree that on some of the questions of life the mystery is too great for even you to solve? Why not hold the mystery as sacred? And why not allow the sacred to be sacred, and leave it alone?

[Cambo]

Great extract, Fist. I must read Conversations with God, my Mum keeps recommending it to me. I absolutely agree that religion tries to explain the unexplainable, and fails miserably. That's why I have belief but no religion. It works better for me, and those annoying facts don't get in the way

[Fist and Faith]

The next several posts were split from the Pornography topic.

The one thing I have to object to is the idea that the Christian tradition treats the sex act as pointless outside of baby-making. The bed is undefiled - the act is holy, whether or not babies result, and the pleasure IS a gift to us, and not pointless. But the gift is to be used in the right context. Dessert is properly enjoyed after dinner, not whenever one feels like it. The good things in life have proper use- and abuse.

Holy Mother of God! Are you now telling us that it's wrong to eat dessert at any time other than after dinner?? Or is it not that it's wrong, but merely that one cannot enjoy it as fully at any other time? Even the latter would cause you to lose credibility. And how incredibly arrogant would it be to make such a claim!

So I hope you're not saying either of those things.

Many of us believe we already have arrived at true answers, and are discussing them. Some here may not have arrived at truths on various topics yet, and are here learning what others have to say.

The trouble I have with this is the general attitude toward truth - that it is something of entertainment, and not worth fighting over. If it is TRUE, and the others mutually and exclusively contradict it, then they are actually false. If they thereby are a threat to true human happiness, then we should fight them tooth and nail. But here what I get is the supreme unimportance of what is seen as "true" - that it is an "opinion" and a subject for mild curiosity and entertainment at best.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else on this point. For me, our worldviews do not mutually and exclusively contradict each other. Yours makes perfect sense within mine. Some people desire, even require, certain kinds of answers, a certain type of Truth, in order to navigate through life. It doesn't make any more sense for us to all need exactly the same truths as it would for us all to be exactly the same height, have exactly the same shade of hair and eye color, have exactly the same flexibility and musculature, etc. We have psychological differences, just as we have physical differences. Your Truth is not a threat to true human happiness. Indeed, it is the fulfillment of yours. Why would I fight you or your Truth?

[rusmeister]

The one thing I have to object to is the idea that the Christian tradition treats the sex act as pointless outside of baby-making. The bed is undefiled - the act is holy, whether or not babies result, and the pleasure IS a gift to us, and not pointless. But the gift is to be used in the right context. Dessert is properly enjoyed after dinner, not whenever one feels like it. The good things in life have proper use- and abuse.

Holy Mother of God! Are you now telling us that it's wrong to eat dessert at any time other than after dinner?? Or is it not that it's wrong, but merely that one cannot enjoy it as fully at any other time? Even the latter would cause you to lose credibility. And how incredibly arrogant would it be to make such a claim!

So I hope you're not saying either of those things.

Of course not. You certainly have a talent for inferring more than I intend from analogies...

Many of us believe we already have arrived at true answers, and are discussing them. Some here may not have arrived at truths on various topics yet, and are here learning what others have to say.

The trouble I have with this is the general attitude toward truth - that it is something of entertainment, and not worth fighting over. If it is TRUE, and the others mutually and exclusively contradict it, then they are actually false. If they thereby are a threat to true human happiness, then we should fight them tooth and nail. But here what I get is the supreme unimportance of what is seen as "true" - that it is an "opinion" and a subject for mild curiosity and entertainment at best.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else on this point. For me, our worldviews do not mutually and exclusively contradict each other. Yours makes perfect sense within mine. Some people desire, even require, certain kinds of answers, a certain type of Truth, in order to navigate through life. It doesn't make any more sense for us to all need exactly the same truths as it would for us all to be exactly the same height, have exactly the same shade of hair and eye color, have exactly the same flexibility and musculature, etc. We have psychological differences, just as we have physical differences. Your Truth is not a threat to true human happiness. Indeed, it is the fulfillment of yours. Why would I fight you or your Truth?

But this is where we mean two different things using the same word. I mean an absolute truth; for instance, the world came about in an absolutely definite way, and not in many ways, each according to his beliefs., which is how I would interpret your use of the same word. Thus, truth is a thing that actually IS. It is not a preference or a psychological need, but the ultimate explanation for our purpose here on this planet. On that you evidently do NOT have room for what I claim to be True, for it IS the ultimate explanation for what actually IS. Why we are born, live and die. Our purpose, and the transcendent meaning of our lives - not one we invent for ourselves but what our lives would mean to anyone who could examine them objectively - if only they could. Thus, I see an eternal - transcendent meaning to your life, even if you do not, and it is not one of my invention, preference, or psychology but what IS. I'd say it was the general attitude toward absolute truth displayed here - one that denies it - that led former President Clinton to ask what the meaning of "is" is.

[Cambo]

I agree with both Fist and Rus. I wonder how many times that's been said on this forum...

I agree with Fist in the sense that there are many truths, and that each persons truth is necessary to them and in no way should come into conflict with anyone else's truth. This insight is often considered postmodernism's greatest contribution to philosophy. (that's my first pm reference of the week. I have a quota of three, because I believe that any more makes anyone sound like a tool. please slap me on the wrist if I violate this quota.)

I agree with Rus in that I believe there is a transcendent truth. I believe this transcendent truth is the only absolute truth, all others are relative. I might disagree with Rus, as he seems to believe transcendent truth can be expressed, whereas my conception of it is by definition ineffable. But Rus, I'm sure you are already aware that Fist is extremely unlikely to agree there is an absolute, transcendent truth, being an atheist and all (leper outcast unclean! just kidding Fist ). So if you're going to bother having a debate with him, to be effective you'll have to stick with the relative truths.

By the way, this convo seems to be veering more towards Fist's "Facts and Truth" thread...

[Fist and Faith]

So I hope you're not saying either of those things.

Of course not. You certainly have a talent for inferring more than I intend from analogies...

Well, you're the one who says there's a "proper" way to enjoy dessert. Doesn't that mean all other ways are improper? At least to one degree or other?

The trouble I have with this is the general attitude toward truth - that it is something of entertainment, and not worth fighting over. If it is TRUE, and the others mutually and exclusively contradict it, then they are actually false. If they thereby are a threat to true human happiness, then we should fight them tooth and nail. But here what I get is the supreme unimportance of what is seen as "true" - that it is an "opinion" and a subject for mild curiosity and entertainment at best.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else on this point. For me, our worldviews do not mutually and exclusively contradict each other. Yours makes perfect sense within mine. Some people desire, even require, certain kinds of answers, a certain type of Truth, in order to navigate through life. It doesn't make any more sense for us to all need exactly the same truths as it would for us all to be exactly the same height, have exactly the same shade of hair and eye color, have exactly the same flexibility and musculature, etc. We have psychological differences, just as we have physical differences. Your Truth is not a threat to true human happiness. Indeed, it is the fulfillment of yours. Why would I fight you or your Truth?

But this is where we mean two different things using the same word. I mean an absolute truth; for instance, the world came about in an absolutely definite way, and not in many ways, each according to his beliefs., which is how I would interpret your use of the same word. Thus, truth is a thing that actually IS. It is not a preference or a psychological need, but the ultimate explanation for our purpose here on this planet. On that you evidently do NOT have room for what I claim to be True, for it IS the ultimate explanation for what actually IS. Why we are born, live and die. Our purpose, and the transcendent meaning of our lives - not one we invent for ourselves but what our lives would mean to anyone who could examine them objectively - if only they could. Thus, I see an eternal - transcendent meaning to your life, even if you do not, and it is not one of my invention, preference, or psychology but what IS. I'd say it was the general attitude toward absolute truth displayed here - one that denies it - that led former President Clinton to ask what the meaning of "is" is.

Well, yeah, there must be one specific way that the universe came to exist. I'm not saying there isn't. I'm saying I don't know what that way is. If I was 15 billion light-years away with a telescope, able to witness the Big Bang, I might possibly see something that would answer this type of question. Maybe the hand Krona saw in DC Comics. Heh.* But I'm not 15 billions years away with a telescope. And neither are you, so I'm not going to accept you as an eye-witness. And, not having any other reason to believe the God you believe in exists, I can't very well assume that God created the universe.

So I have what I have. I see what's around me; and I don't see what's not. And I see how people behave. I see patterns. I see an overall pattern.

And your pattern is a part of it. But there's no reason to try to convince you that your pattern is not the overall pattern. It satisfies your wants and needs. It answers your questions and fears. Why should I try to take that away from you? As long as I can keep you from forcing me to live by your pattern, all is well. Just because you want all to embrace your worldview does not mean I should want all to accept mine. Just because you get angry, or frustrated, or insulted, o whatever, that I won't embrace your worldview does not mean I get, or should feel the same when you don't embrace mine.

There's just nothing to fight about. Absolutely, you can present your reasons for believing as you do. As you've done here for a few years. I might ask for clarification. I might tell you why I think this or that reason is in error. But I'm not going to put effort into fighting for my worldview. I have no need or desire to do so. It may be a necessary part of your worldview, but it's not a necessary part of mine. I don't care if you think that's a weakness or flaw in me or my worldview.


*And if I was 15 billion light-years away with a telescope, and saw the Big Bang, but no hand, it would not prove that there wasn't a creator behind the event.

[rusmeister]

So I hope you're not saying either of those things.

Of course not. You certainly have a talent for inferring more than I intend from analogies...

Well, you're the one who says there's a "proper" way to enjoy dessert. Doesn't that mean all other ways are improper? At least to one degree or other?

I was speaking of use vs abuse. I WASN'T saying "There is one holy way to eat dessert and all others are heresy!"
AS a father, I'm sure in all of your liberality you don't say, "OK kids, finish up your chocolate cake so we can get to the peas and potatoes!" (Kids' eyes light up) "Peas and potatoes! Oh boy!"

Well, I can't speak for anyone else on this point. For me, our worldviews do not mutually and exclusively contradict each other. Yours makes perfect sense within mine. Some people desire, even require, certain kinds of answers, a certain type of Truth, in order to navigate through life. It doesn't make any more sense for us to all need exactly the same truths as it would for us all to be exactly the same height, have exactly the same shade of hair and eye color, have exactly the same flexibility and musculature, etc. We have psychological differences, just as we have physical differences. Your Truth is not a threat to true human happiness. Indeed, it is the fulfillment of yours. Why would I fight you or your Truth?

But this is where we mean two different things using the same word. I mean an absolute truth; for instance, the world came about in an absolutely definite way, and not in many ways, each according to his beliefs., which is how I would interpret your use of the same word. Thus, truth is a thing that actually IS. It is not a preference or a psychological need, but the ultimate explanation for our purpose here on this planet. On that you evidently do NOT have room for what I claim to be True, for it IS the ultimate explanation for what actually IS. Why we are born, live and die. Our purpose, and the transcendent meaning of our lives - not one we invent for ourselves but what our lives would mean to anyone who could examine them objectively - if only they could. Thus, I see an eternal - transcendent meaning to your life, even if you do not, and it is not one of my invention, preference, or psychology but what IS. I'd say it was the general attitude toward absolute truth displayed here - one that denies it - that led former President Clinton to ask what the meaning of "is" is.

Well, yeah, there must be one specific way that the universe came to exist. I'm not saying there isn't. I'm saying I don't know what that way is. If I was 15 billion light-years away with a telescope, able to witness the Big Bang, I might possibly see something that would answer this type of question. Maybe the hand Krona saw in DC Comics. Heh.* But I'm not 15 billions years away with a telescope. And neither are you, so I'm not going to accept you as an eye-witness. And, not having any other reason to believe the God you believe in exists, I can't very well assume that God created the universe.

So I have what I have. I see what's around me; and I don't see what's not. And I see how people behave. I see patterns. I see an overall pattern.

And your pattern is a part of it. But there's no reason to try to convince you that your pattern is not the overall pattern. It satisfies your wants and needs. It answers your questions and fears. Why should I try to take that away from you? As long as I can keep you from forcing me to live by your pattern, all is well. Just because you want all to embrace your worldview does not mean I should want all to accept mine. Just because you get angry, or frustrated, or insulted, o whatever, that I won't embrace your worldview does not mean I get, or should feel the same when you don't embrace mine.

There's just nothing to fight about. Absolutely, you can present your reasons for believing as you do. As you've done here for a few years. I might ask for clarification. I might tell you why I think this or that reason is in error. But I'm not going to put effort into fighting for my worldview. I have no need or desire to do so. It may be a necessary part of your worldview, but it's not a necessary part of mine. I don't care if you think that's a weakness or flaw in me or my worldview.


*And if I was 15 billion light-years away with a telescope, and saw the Big Bang, but no hand, it would not prove that there wasn't a creator behind the event.

Precisely. Truth is a fish to be thrown away. It doesn't matter. It's not important. Only things that are important are worth fighting for.

And yet you DO fight, because there really IS no room in your worldview for mine and "my pattern" can in no wise fit into yours. Yours WILL nullify mine (or why else do you speak out against mine?) and mine will nullify yours. "There can be only one."

So. The important thing then, the thing you will fight over, is that there is no (transcendent) truth and truth does not matter. It does not matter whether pornography is good or bad, whether the people are simply "sex workers" :barf: or are prostituting and defiling their bodies and making something sacred into something profane without knowing what they are doing - it doesn't matter. All is quaint opinions that arouse mild curiosity for a minute, but has no real import. Not even worth talking about, really.

[rusmeister]

So I hope you're not saying either of those things.

Of course not. You certainly have a talent for inferring more than I intend from analogies...

Well, you're the one who says there's a "proper" way to enjoy dessert. Doesn't that mean all other ways are improper? At least to one degree or other?

I was speaking of use vs abuse. I WASN'T saying "There is one holy way to eat dessert and all others are heresy!"
AS a father, I'm sure in all of your liberality you don't say, "OK kids, finish up your chocolate cake so we can get to the peas and potatoes!" (Kids' eyes light up) "Peas and potatoes! Oh boy!"

Well, I can't speak for anyone else on this point. For me, our worldviews do not mutually and exclusively contradict each other. Yours makes perfect sense within mine. Some people desire, even require, certain kinds of answers, a certain type of Truth, in order to navigate through life. It doesn't make any more sense for us to all need exactly the same truths as it would for us all to be exactly the same height, have exactly the same shade of hair and eye color, have exactly the same flexibility and musculature, etc. We have psychological differences, just as we have physical differences. Your Truth is not a threat to true human happiness. Indeed, it is the fulfillment of yours. Why would I fight you or your Truth?

But this is where we mean two different things using the same word. I mean an absolute truth; for instance, the world came about in an absolutely definite way, and not in many ways, each according to his beliefs., which is how I would interpret your use of the same word. Thus, truth is a thing that actually IS. It is not a preference or a psychological need, but the ultimate explanation for our purpose here on this planet. On that you evidently do NOT have room for what I claim to be True, for it IS the ultimate explanation for what actually IS. Why we are born, live and die. Our purpose, and the transcendent meaning of our lives - not one we invent for ourselves but what our lives would mean to anyone who could examine them objectively - if only they could. Thus, I see an eternal - transcendent meaning to your life, even if you do not, and it is not one of my invention, preference, or psychology but what IS. I'd say it was the general attitude toward absolute truth displayed here - one that denies it - that led former President Clinton to ask what the meaning of "is" is.

Well, yeah, there must be one specific way that the universe came to exist. I'm not saying there isn't. I'm saying I don't know what that way is. If I was 15 billion light-years away with a telescope, able to witness the Big Bang, I might possibly see something that would answer this type of question. Maybe the hand Krona saw in DC Comics. Heh.* But I'm not 15 billions years away with a telescope. And neither are you, so I'm not going to accept you as an eye-witness. And, not having any other reason to believe the God you believe in exists, I can't very well assume that God created the universe.

So I have what I have. I see what's around me; and I don't see what's not. And I see how people behave. I see patterns. I see an overall pattern.

And your pattern is a part of it. But there's no reason to try to convince you that your pattern is not the overall pattern. It satisfies your wants and needs. It answers your questions and fears. Why should I try to take that away from you? As long as I can keep you from forcing me to live by your pattern, all is well. Just because you want all to embrace your worldview does not mean I should want all to accept mine. Just because you get angry, or frustrated, or insulted, o whatever, that I won't embrace your worldview does not mean I get, or should feel the same when you don't embrace mine.

There's just nothing to fight about. Absolutely, you can present your reasons for believing as you do. As you've done here for a few years. I might ask for clarification. I might tell you why I think this or that reason is in error. But I'm not going to put effort into fighting for my worldview. I have no need or desire to do so. It may be a necessary part of your worldview, but it's not a necessary part of mine. I don't care if you think that's a weakness or flaw in me or my worldview.


*And if I was 15 billion light-years away with a telescope, and saw the Big Bang, but no hand, it would not prove that there wasn't a creator behind the event.

Precisely. Truth is a fish to be thrown away. It doesn't matter. It's not important. Only things that are important are worth fighting for.

And yet you DO fight, because there really IS no room in your worldview for mine and "my pattern" can in no wise fit into yours. Yours WILL nullify mine (or why else do you speak out against mine?) and mine will nullify yours. There IS truth and it matters, or there isn't and it doesn't. "There can be only one." The two ideas cannot "peacefully coexist" in applied philosophy.

So. The important thing then, the thing you will fight over, is that there is no (transcendent) truth and truth does not matter. It does not matter whether pornography is good or bad, whether the people are simply "sex workers" :barf: or are prostituting and defiling their bodies and making something sacred into something profane without knowing what they are doing - it doesn't matter. All is quaint opinions that arouse mild curiosity for a minute, but has no real import. Not even worth talking about, really.

[Avatar]

I believe there is a transcendent truth. I believe this transcendent truth is the only absolute truth, all others are relative.

And I believe that all truths are subjective, relative, contextual or perceptual.

(Seperating truth from fact here...obviously it's "true" that 2+2=4 but but I prefer to refer to that sort of truth as a fact.)

--A

[Fist and Faith]

I don't speak out against your worldview. I speak out against you trying to force me to live by your worldview. Your worldview is very big on telling people what they can't do. If you want to live like that, denying various things I don't think are a problem, you are free to do so. Live by your beliefs. Celebrate your beliefs and your life, which you believe is better because you live by those beliefs. It brings you happiness, and it doesn't hurt anybody. I'm happy you found what you need. Many people in this life do not.

Not sure why you are upset that I won't live by those same beliefs. I may or may not ever find reason to believe in any creator. If I do, I may or may not find reason to believe that creator is best represented by any particular religious system. However, I can pretty much guarantee I'll never embrace your beliefs. So you can either continue to feel like this for as long as I'm alive, or you can figure out a way to not be upset about it. Do I have to admit I'm wrong about your faith before you can be happy? Because it isn't going to happen.

[rusmeister]

I agree with both Fist and Rus. I wonder how many times that's been said on this forum...

I agree with Fist in the sense that there are many truths, and that each persons truth is necessary to them and in no way should come into conflict with anyone else's truth. This insight is often considered postmodernism's greatest contribution to philosophy. (that's my first pm reference of the week. I have a quota of three, because I believe that any more makes anyone sound like a tool. please slap me on the wrist if I violate this quota.)

I agree with Rus in that I believe there is a transcendent truth. I believe this transcendent truth is the only absolute truth, all others are relative. I might disagree with Rus, as he seems to believe transcendent truth can be expressed, whereas my conception of it is by definition ineffable. But Rus, I'm sure you are already aware that Fist is extremely unlikely to agree there is an absolute, transcendent truth, being an atheist and all (leper outcast unclean! just kidding Fist ). So if you're going to bother having a debate with him, to be effective you'll have to stick with the relative truths.

By the way, this convo seems to be veering more towards Fist's "Facts and Truth" thread...

Thanks, Cambo.
But two mutually exclusive propositions, as I said to Fist, MUST come into conflict - if people think at all. That's why postmodernism fails. As a false proposition, it reveals its great failure. It's not "paradox". It's flat-out self contradiction. You can construct elaborate systems of philosophy - but if a central tenet is logically false - self-contradictory - then it is a false philosophy. The very name, like its predecessor, modernism, reveals its ultimate non-sense to anyone who understands what the word "modern" really means - that "what is NOW", as a relative concept, is ultimately meaningless. Every time is modern to itself. ("But Father - this is the 14th century!") So a philosophy that declares "What is NOW!" might as well say, "What is fashionable at the moment!". And a philosophy that says, "We are SO 'advanced' that we are even AFTER now!" What is needed is transmodernism.

I almost agree on transcendent truth - I don't think we have any way of knowing it purely on our own steam. But I do believe that extra-natural revelation of aspects of that transcendent truth that we CAN understand is NOT impossible - it requires a dogma to think that it is - and therefore is possible. If it is possible, then that which is revealed is, of course, not ineffable - although completely grasping all of it (what is not revealed) in our current - Fallen and mortal - state certainly is.

(I would use sensible words like "nonsense" (as one word), "supernatural" "repent", and "heresy" but think that people are so loaded down with pre-conceived notions that they will only understand my ideas in the light of those pre-conceived notions - which is how they do understand a fair amount of what the Faith I accept teaches. The pre-conceived notions have to be broken through. (I did dare to use the word "dogma", because the pre-conceived assumption - that dogma is unreasonable in the negative sense - rightly deserves to be applied there. )

[rusmeister]

I don't speak out against your worldview. I speak out against you trying to force me to live by your worldview. Your worldview is very big on telling people what they can't do. If you want to live like that, denying various things I don't think are a problem, you are free to do so. Live by your beliefs. Celebrate your beliefs and your life, which you believe is better because you live by those beliefs. It brings you happiness, and it doesn't hurt anybody. I'm happy you found what you need. Many people in this life do not.

Not sure why you are upset that I won't live by those same beliefs. I may or may not ever find reason to believe in any creator. If I do, I may or may not find reason to believe that creator is best represented by any particular religious system. However, I can pretty much guarantee I'll never embrace your beliefs. So you can either continue to feel like this for as long as I'm alive, or you can figure out a way to not be upset about it. Do I have to admit I'm wrong about your faith before you can be happy? Because it isn't going to happen.

There are two different things here, Fist.
When you speak about "me forcing you to do anything" I take it you refer to my political opinions. Those are largely not themselves the teachings of the Church - I see them as logical political stands to take on the basis of my worldview, but they are NOT the Faith, generally speaking. The only political issue I have seen the Orthodox Church actively participate in publicly is abortion - but in general, the Orthodox Christian is free to take political stands that can have a good deal of variance, so long as they do not definitively contradict Church teaching.
So when I was speaking in the Tank, I was talking about 'what I would do if I were king".
The Faith itself is something else. God's Kingdom is NOT of this world, and no kingdom in this world will be lasting or perfect. So it speaks of the Kingdom of God, and nobody is forced to do anything there. You do it freely, or it means nothing. So accepting or rejecting the Faith has nothing to do with politics and forcing. The things that members of the Church accept that they SHOULDN'T do - as opposed to "can't do" are voluntarily accepted with the explanations of WHY offered freely to anyone who wants to know. Those things are not merely 'requisites' for 'membership' - they are guidelines on how to live well and safely. Moderns love to speak about "safe sex" and would admonish anyone who complained about restrictions being put on what one can do with a partner in bed and how. If you can understand how secular teachings that urge discrimination among sexual partners and the wisdom of using condoms, etc (as these things are understood by most in our time), then what is so difficult about Church teachings for "safe living" that say "you ought to do this, and mustn't do that"?
From that standpoint, not seeing a problem with certain things can be like an aborigine seeing no problem in sleeping with every member of the tribe, or a 17th century gentleman seeing no problem with smoking. The civilized or modern man would see dangers that the aborigine or 17th century gentleman do not. Is one of them right, or does it simply not matter who is right? Should law ever be used to prevent or enforce certain behaviors that people may disagree on? (Note: last question IS rhetorical)
So a civil response would be up to individuals, believers or not. But the Faith invites freely and forces no one.


As to emotions - what does my being 'upset' or 'happy' have to do with what is true?

Oh, and by the way - Happy Thanksgiving!

[Cambo]

I believe there is a transcendent truth. I believe this transcendent truth is the only absolute truth, all others are relative.

And I believe that all truths are subjective, relative, contextual or perceptual.

(Seperating truth from fact here...obviously it's "true" that 2+2=4 but but I prefer to refer to that sort of truth as a fact.)

--A

By "or" do you mean that some truths can be one or more but not the others? Because if so, I agree. Transcendental truth is absolutely not objective, it is a subjective, perceptual experience. It is, as I said, ineffable, it can be experienced but not explained, so can't be objective as "objective" implies something we can both point to and agree upon what we see.

Transcendental truth is not contextual or relative, though, which is what separates it in my mind from every other truth.

[Fist and Faith]

But two mutually exclusive propositions, as I said to Fist, MUST come into conflict - if people think at all. That's why postmodernism fails. As a false proposition, it reveals its great failure. It's not "paradox". It's flat-out self contradiction. You can construct elaborate systems of philosophy - but if a central tenet is logically false - self-contradictory - then it is a false philosophy. The very name, like its predecessor, modernism, reveals its ultimate non-sense to anyone who understands what the word "modern" really means - that "what is NOW", as a relative concept, is ultimately meaningless. Every time is modern to itself. ("But Father - this is the 14th century!") So a philosophy that declares "What is NOW!" might as well say, "What is fashionable at the moment!". And a philosophy that says, "We are SO 'advanced' that we are even AFTER now!" What is needed is transmodernism.

Your position that no philosophical idea that is new cannot be true is false.

[rusmeister]

That is not my position. That's just what you've interpreted it to be.

I'll also say on the quick that I assume when you say "science", you mean "the natural sciences". In which case I already object, for there are sciences that are not limited to the natural world which also deal in facts. And even theology deals in facts. It really depends on what you believe to be a fact.

I say that it is a fact that Christ is risen from the dead. It is not an opinion, or a quaint idea, but an actual fact that I accept on authority. We accept an awful lot of what we believe to be facts on the basis of authority, without having actually arrived at those facts (or 'facts') completely on our own steam.

Of course, I think this has everything to do with pornography, and any other subject under the sun, and is not irrelevant to them.

I'll add that the podcast series by Hopko ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko (first in the series on Darwin posted Jan 10, 2010) that I have been listening to just tears apart the idea of conflict between science and religion, and begins by pointing out that what is nearly always meant is natural science vs Christian theology - and then that it is actually the multiplicity of Christian theologies. I think he's right, and all language speaking of "science vs religion" (as such) is wrong out of the gate. It casts understandings wrongly from the get-go, like "Are strawberries better than iron?" It's no use even talking as long as that's how the question is framed.

[Vraith]

But two mutually exclusive propositions, as I said to Fist, MUST come into conflict - if people think at all. That's why postmodernism fails. As a false proposition, it reveals its great failure. It's not "paradox". It's flat-out self contradiction. You can construct elaborate systems of philosophy - but if a central tenet is logically false - self-contradictory - then it is a false philosophy. The very name, like its predecessor, modernism, reveals its ultimate non-sense to anyone who understands what the word "modern" really means - that "what is NOW", as a relative concept, is ultimately meaningless. Every time is modern to itself. ("But Father - this is the 14th century!") So a philosophy that declares "What is NOW!" might as well say, "What is fashionable at the moment!". And a philosophy that says, "We are SO 'advanced' that we are even AFTER now!" What is needed is transmodernism.

Your position that no philosophical idea that is new cannot be true is false.

True.
Rus, you surely know that "modernism" isn't being, or intended to be used literally in that way...anymore than I literally mean it when I say some women are hot. In fact the term applied to the movement came as the movement was losing influence. [although some say that's not so...that post-modernism is just the continued evolution of modernism] when the term came into use, the movement already wasn't "now" anymore. [at least not the "fashionable" now.]
Additional meanings/definitions for a word don't eliminate other definitions. For instance, anyone reading English translations of German philosophers, in and about Kant's time especially, will constantly run across the word "Immediate." It almost never means the common definitions [right now, nearby, first after, etc.] Almost always it is a lesser-known, but more etymologically "true" or "factual" definition: not mediated.

But, what I'm interested in: is it the definition conflict you see that is the central tenet of postmodernism that is logically false? If it's something else, I'd like to know which particular tenet it is. . Finding fact OR truth from demonstrably false propositions is a twisty business.

[aliantha]

Here we reach the crux of the matter.

It really depends on what you believe to be a fact.

Totally agree.

I say that it is a fact that Christ is risen from the dead.

I say that it is not a fact. So do Av and Fist and numerous others here at the Watch. So do Hindus. So do Muslims. Those of the Baha'i faith disagree that it is a fact. As do atheists. As do Pagans. And I could keep going.

But everybody agrees that 2+2=4. *That* is a fact. "Christ rose from the dead" is a tenet of your religion.