Kevin's Watch

rusmeister wrote:The trouble with your offering this argument (especially regarding your last sentence) is that it assumes the primacy of the individual in determining truth, and strongly suggests that there IS no "the truth" - that truth is individual; whatever the individual perceives it to be. My response is that there is, and must be, definite truth regarding how we came to be, and on whether we have a transcendent purpose, and what that purpose, if any, is. We may argue about what that is, but for me to consider "the equal validity of all ideas" would be to deny this most basic and obvious truth. In short, somebody is right, and somebody is wrong - including the possibility of being completely right. People('s ideas) can be wrong to varying degrees, and contain varying degrees of that truth At the very least, even if everybody is wrong, the possibility of discovering what is right - what actually IS the truth, is not thereby excluded. But the one thing that cannot be is that everybody is (completely) right.

You may be right. I suppose there could be a way to argue that there is no, absolutely NO, absolute Truth. But neither of us holds that position. I believe there is one just as surely as you do.

The problem, of course, is that there's no way to objectively verify this Truth. That's why we using the word "Truth" instead of "fact". Facts are verifiable. Observable, testable, reproducable... "Truth" is not. Truth is merely what we believe the fact is, despite the fact that we can't verify it. Truth is this:

aliantha wrote:You can have a gut feeling, you can read a bunch of stuff that rings true for you, you can find a religious discipline that appeals to you, and you can made a personal decision to believe that what you have found is The Truth.

That's all any of us have to go on, no matter how we try to make it look like something else. Each of us claims to be using reason and common sense. But where these matters are concerned, it's only the reason and common sense that feels right to each of us. It's not the reason and common sense that teaches us that gravity behaves in a certain way, and that we need to do, and not do, certain things in order to remain alive and healthy. It's not the reason and common sense that tells us not to eat certain kinds of things, approach certain animals, or pick up certain objects. That kind of reason and common sense is verifiably, objectively sound. The reason and common sense that reveal the Truth to each of us is not. If it was, we wouldn't be having these conversations. We're not debating the strength of gravity or the likely result of falling off a 10-story building onto a cement sidewalk, after all.

So. You say this:

rusmeister wrote:The worldview that I have discovered, not invented, explains everything that I see around me, and far more completely than the view I previously held or those that I have considered.

And I say the same thing. My worldview explains everything I see around me. It does so MUCH better than your worldview does. It does so much better than ANY other view I've ever heard of.

rusmeister wrote:Could I find a different view that more completely explains that experience? Yes, there is a theoretical "could" that I can entertain, but the probability is so low as to be infinitesimally small. It would also have to explain everything - from the behavior of drivers (including myself) in traffic to the behavior of people at funerals, and it would have to do so more thoroughly than that which I have found.

Agreed. I can conceive of such a possibility. But I haven't run into such a view in 46 years, and I'm running out of places to look. But yes, mine explains the behavior of drivers, the behavior of people at funerals, and everything else yours does. No, neither of us has so much as noticed every single aspect of human behavior, much less considered how it is explained by our worldviews. But all the behaviors that we have considered fit into our views nicely. The fact that they don't appear reasonable to the other's view, that they don't feel right, is irrelevant. It doesn't prove or disprove anything in any verifiable way. Shaking my head at the illogic of your stance on so many things doesn't establish any facts.

Well, it seems as if I've already had my say here...

This may be part of what draws me to Paganism. It's not a religion that tries to explain everything that goes on in the world, or every nuance of human behavior. It doesn't pretend to have the Whole Truth. It happily leaves science to science and psychology to psychology.

I'm not a pagan (I don't think ), but I agree.

Come to the Dark Side, Fist! We have cookies!

Fist and Faith wrote:I suppose there could be a way to argue that there is no, absolutely NO, absolute Truth. But neither of us holds that position. I believe there is one just as surely as you do.

You can argue with me if you like. I don't think there is one great supreme Truth. I think there are lot's of little truths. But the Truth? The Truth is whatever we want it to be. Because it's our belief, our faith, that makes it True.

Even the stuff we're really sure about being true like gravity or the speed of light is currently only true according to what we know right now about the universe.

As long as we act as though what we believe is true, it might as well be. And nor does one "truth" mean that another thing is not "true."

--A

Damn right.

--A

Avatar wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:I suppose there could be a way to argue that there is no, absolutely NO, absolute Truth. But neither of us holds that position. I believe there is one just as surely as you do.

You can argue with me if you like. I don't think there is one great supreme Truth.

Well, the Truth I believe in in regards to the ongoing debate with rus is probably the same as you believe in. I've posted parts of it often enough.

Avatar wrote:The Truth is whatever we want it to be. Because it's our belief, our faith, that makes it True.

There ya go. But that's Truth right there. It's not a fact. We can't verify it any more than rus can prove that we're wrong, or verify his own Truth.

The Truth is that there's no single Truth like rus believes in. There's no creator with a plan for every infinitessimally small aspect of reality; who put a moral compass into all humans; who demands, wants, expects, or even hopes for certain things; who does anything; who gives our lives any meaning outside of the meaning we give ourselves; who gives us only one path that must be followed in order to attain salvation; etc etc etc. That is Truth. At least I believe it to be. Every moment of my life, and every fact I've ever been made aware of, points to this Truth.

Of course, it's not Truth to rus. Every moment of his life, and every fact he's been made aware of, points to his Truth.

Because, as ali said, truth is a gut feeling; a sense of something ringing true for you; something appealing to you.

Avatar wrote:Even the stuff we're really sure about being true like gravity or the speed of light is currently only true according to what we know right now about the universe.

Those things aren't truths. Their facts. The strength of gravity and the speed of light have always measured a specific thing. Granted, that could change right now (although nothing seems different... ), but they are the facts up until now.

Avatar wrote:As long as we act as though what we believe is true, it might as well be.

Not sure about this one. You can believe gravity is 1/10 its strength, and act accordingly.

Avatar wrote:And nor does one "truth" mean that another thing is not "true."

Now that's certainly true!

Fist and Faith wrote: There ya go. But that's Truth right there. It's not a fact. We can't verify it any more than rus can prove that we're wrong, or verify his own Truth.

The Truth is that there's no single Truth like rus believes in. There's no creator with a plan for every infinitessimally small aspect of reality; who put a moral compass into all humans; who demands, wants, expects, or even hopes for certain things; who does anything; who gives our lives any meaning outside of the meaning we give ourselves; who gives us only one path that must be followed in order to attain salvation; etc etc etc. That is Truth. At least I believe it to be. Every moment of my life, and every fact I've ever been made aware of, points to this Truth.

Of course, it's not Truth to rus. Every moment of his life, and every fact he's been made aware of, points to his Truth.

Amen.

Avatar wrote:As long as we act as though what we believe is true, it might as well be.

Not sure about this one. You can believe gravity is 1/10 its strength, and act accordingly.

Haha, ok, I'll probably give you that one. Although I might point to the difference between thinking you believe something, and really believing it. What would have happened if the guy in Illusions had just turned and followed Don without thinking when he turned into that wall?

Anyway, I was talking about moral/spiritual beliefs.

--A

Fist and Faith wrote:

Avatar wrote:Even the stuff we're really sure about being true like gravity or the speed of light is currently only true according to what we know right now about the universe.

Those things aren't truths. Their facts. The strength of gravity and the speed of light have always measured a specific thing. Granted, that could change right now (although nothing seems different... ), but they are the facts up until now.

Avatar wrote:As long as we act as though what we believe is true, it might as well be.

Not sure about this one. You can believe gravity is 1/10 its strength, and act accordingly.

Avatar wrote:And nor does one "truth" mean that another thing is not "true."

Now that's certainly true!

Interestingly enough, even gravity and the speed of light, much like morality, supposedly absolute, break down under extreme circumstances. For morality, we experience those breakdowns often...for gravity and speed of light...don't think anyone has direct experience of those [or could be alive in the conditions where it occurs], but it happens.
And the Romans ruined truth in western civilization: the Greek notion of truth [with some exceptions] was that knowing any particular truth hid/made unknowable other things that were also true. [speculate this is part/root of SRD's statement "Knowledge precludes knowledge"]

Avatar wrote:Anyway, I was talking about moral/spiritual beliefs.

Hey, you're the one dragged gravity and c into this!

Vraith wrote:Interestingly enough, even gravity and the speed of light, much like morality, supposedly absolute, break down under extreme circumstances. For morality, we experience those breakdowns often...for gravity and speed of light...don't think anyone has direct experience of those [or could be alive in the conditions where it occurs], but it happens.

That's true. But even then, they do so in predictable, verifiable, reproducable - factual - ways.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Avatar wrote:Anyway, I was talking about moral/spiritual beliefs.

Hey, you're the one dragged gravity and c into this!

Vraith wrote:Interestingly enough, even gravity and the speed of light, much like morality, supposedly absolute, break down under extreme circumstances. For morality, we experience those breakdowns often...for gravity and speed of light...don't think anyone has direct experience of those [or could be alive in the conditions where it occurs], but it happens.

That's true. But even then, they do so in predictable, verifiable, reproducable - factual - ways.

Well, we know something about some conditions under which they will break down...I'm not sure we know much about the results after it happens...those may be less predictable.
It's common now to separate "fact" from "truth" and for a number of very good, and probably necessary, reasons. But the factness of facts is more contextual/statistical, and less absolute than many suppose.
Though the factness of even the most speculative of facts in science is more demonstrable than the truthness of any religious truth I've ever heard.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Avatar wrote:Anyway, I was talking about moral/spiritual beliefs.

Hey, you're the one dragged gravity and c into this!

In a previous and not necessarily related point.

--A

Semantics! Everybody see that??

This topic reminds me of a line from "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade."

Archeology is the search for fact- not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.

Always loved that line...

Great line! And my point.

I think this part of the same thread I got this thread's inspiration from (Which is In case we haven't beaten the abortion horse to death yet) is on topic here:

rusmeister wrote:

aliantha wrote:Oh, I understand exactly what you're saying, rus. What I'm saying is that because you believe as you do, you cannot possibly respect Indians as much as you think you do.

Well, Ali, in the sense of "respect" that you are gunning for - respecting their beliefs as something to seriously consider as the truth, or of equal value to the truth, no I do not respect traditional Indian beliefs except to the extent that they presage Christianity. I hope that is clear. I am under no illusion that I respect those beliefs in that sense. It seems clear to me that you and Vraith are talking about respecting their beliefs as valuable and true. I think there IS a great deal of truth in paganism, and so do respect their beliefs inasmuch as they contain that - and not beyond that. We'd have to dissect what exactly should be worthy of respect - of what exactly the word "respect" means, if you still feel there is disagreement there.

If you are familiar with the story of Lewis's conversations with Tolkien that led to his conversion, and the idea of Christianity as the true Myth, you can understand how a Christian could respect pagan beliefs as something which holds a reflection of the Truth. The quote from FC is an example of one facet of that.

I can respect all beliefs equally, and as much as my own. Perhaps that's because my Truth is that each individual's beliefs are that individual's way of satisfying her/his psyche's needs. (Again, psyche being the sum of a person's desires, fears, requirements, etc. "The mental or psychological structure of a person.") If your beliefs give you what you need to feel whole, or centered, or grounded, or whatever term we want to use, then I believe they are absolutely equal to the beliefs of anyone else who gets the same thing from them.

And these quotes, which I've posted a couple times before, are all in that line of thinking...

<I>Wakan-Tanka</I> taught each tribe to believe in ways that work best for them. It depended on where they lived, and the way they thought about spiritual things. ...... Once, I went to a Native American conference in Minneapolis. While I was there I visited with a medicine man from a Washington tribe. He lived two thousand miles from my country. But his God had taught his ancestors that He is the source of all power. This man was also taught that everything has a spirit. Even the rocks and plants have a spirit. And he said that many white people don't know how to see this because they have no connection with the spirit forces of Grandmother Earth. All of these are things I have been taught also. -- Fools Crow

The heritage, the philosophies, the message that came from God through Nature to the Indian people, these are the same as what Jesus Christ means to Christians. God came through Jesus Christ and his disciples to the people just as He came through His agents in Nature to the Indian people. The latter is called paganism... Yet there is no difference. It is the same God. - Allan Wolf Leg

What I am committed to is taking the Bible seriously. Not as a basic text on physical science, biology or even history, but as the faithful attempt by many authors to tell the story of God's relationship to people. It tells me a great deal about who God is, and in the process I learn about who I am as well. -- Matthew (A guy I used to email with a lot)

From the earliest times, Hinduism has proclaimed one God while accommodating worship of him (or her, for to millions God is the Divine Mother) in many different names. "Truth is one," says a famous verse of the Rig Veda; "men call it by various names." A monastic devotee might find that Shiva embodies the austere detachment he seeks; a devotee who wants to live "in the world," partaking of its innocent pleasures but devoted to service of his fellow creatures, might find in Krishna the perfect incarnation of his ideals. In every case, this clothing of the Infinite in human form serves to focus a devotee's love and to provide an inspiring ideal. But whatever form is worshipped, it is only an aspect of the same one God. -- Easwaran/Bhagavad Gita

The Upanishads are not systematic philosophy; they are more like ecstatic slide shows of mystical experience - vivid, disjointed, stamped with the power of direct personal encounter with the divine. If they seem to embrace contradictions, that is because they do not try to smooth over the seams of these experiences. They simply set down what the rishis saw, viewing the ultimate reality from different levels of spiritual awareness, like snapshots of the same object from different angles: now seeing God as utterly transcendent, for example, now seeing God as immanent as well. These differences are not important, and the Upanishads agree on their central ideas: ... -- Easwaran/Upanishads

For twelve years, under the guidance of various gurus, he submitted himself to spiritual practices of assorted religious systems, including Christianity and Islam. Each direction led him to illumination, so that he could declare on the basis of personal experience that the followers of all religions alike could realize the ultimate reality if their surrender to God was sufficiently intense. -- Ramakrishna's entry in <U>The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion</U>

You and I are on the same page, Fist. There are many roads to the Divine.

The quote about Ramakrishna's life makes me think that maybe what he found was a tradition of (small-e) ecstasy within each of the religions he sampled. A neurologist or -- er, what do they call people who study the brain? I forget -- anyway, such a scientist might say that ecstatic experience is centered in a specific region of the brain, and anybody can learn to tap into it.

I'm not saying such experiences are *not* a route to the Divine. You could argue that there must be a reason that ability is hardwired into us, and it doesn't seem to be too useful for anything else....

Reminds me of an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The Changelings were worshiped by another race, the Vorta. The Changelings had genetically engineered the Vorta in various ways, including programming them to think the Changelings are their gods. Odo, one of the show's main characters, was a good Changeling. (He lived most of his life away from the others, not knowing anything about them, or his own nature.)

Odo: Has it ever occurred to you that the reason you believe the Founders are gods is because that's what they want you to believe? That they built it into your genetic code?

Weyoun 6: Of course they did. That's what gods do. After all, why be a god if there's no one to worship you?