A question for fans of the god myth. (Earth, evolution)

[love]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

But, comes in as many varieties as there are perspectives. Truth is a shapeshifter: while it may have a single essense, its form is infinite and elastic.

But the truth always fits don't it freind?

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by Willamena

The world as you perceive plus the world as others perceive it is the world as we perceive it, still subjective. "The world" in general is the sum total of all that we, together, can know; objective. Our individual bits are just as true as the bigger picture --the only thing that changes is the size of the picture (from 12" to 48" bigscreen).

I think we're on exactly the same page here.

Except one tiny thing: anything other than my perspective is objective to me.
When I state that there are two truths, the objective and the subjective, the objective is the holistic: the sum total of existence. The subjective is the experience of the individual.

The sum total of experience represents one truth. Each individual experience represents another. This is, of course, simply catagorizing things are simply a part of the bigger whole, but that is our experience.

Originally Posted by Willamena

The truth aslo is not changed by the size of the picture. We each "take" a snapshot of the world and what's there is true (unless it's a deliberate lie), and if we like we can look at someone else's photo and add it to our photo and smile wisely. Sure, we can't claim their photo as ours, but we can give it an assessment of reasonable doubt.

The photos are not a separate world, they are simply one person's take on the world. "The objective world" is "the world as we perceive it" together.

Good analogy! How much can we truly experience another's picture? How closely do we see the world "together"?

Instead, we could say that we are the nuclei of the atoms of the photo, each giving it structure and substance, but never truly touching each other. Apart, but still necessary to the whole. The truths we learn from each other (through science and art) are the electrons: essential, specific to us, but not the overall truth.

But I think we're saying the same thing here.

Originally Posted by Willamena

We cannot know the unknowable --that's why it's unknowable. It is what is beyond our senses and our machines.

We can make it significant. We can assign meaning to it, give it a symbol and elevate that symbol to the level of a "thing" in our world. Then it very much counts ... but not as truth, only as truly a symbol (not as god, only as the image of God).

Ah, but even the unknowable - symbolic as it must be, since we interpret it as "unknowable" - is still truth. It is a part of reality: both subjective and holistic (objective). An idea, no matter how far-fetched, is still real as far as it goes. My dream of fighting space aliens with hot dogs that shoot mustard is real: it makes up a piece of my reality, has affected change, and acts as a stimuli. So the unknowable, as an idea that I find meaningful, is as true in my reality (as a piece of the holistic reality) as the fact that I have two feet.

Originally Posted by Willamena

I'll have to think on "our acceptance" as a part of "what is true;" that doesn't ring true for me at all. Truth is simply there: in the identity we give to things; in the symbols that stand in place of their meaning; and in our recounting of those symbols to the best of our ability.

I don't believe that anything has a "false" existence.

By acceptance, I meant that since it is experienced (received through outside stimuli), it is true. In fact, something we would call false is true as it exists. For instance, I could say that I am a purple monkey. But, I am not a purple monkey. What I said was false. This false idea is true as a false idea. (I don't quite remember why I had stated that false things exist as false things - it seems out of place ).

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by love

But the truth always fits don't it freind?

Of course, it's elastic!

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by LogDog

How do you feel your life on earth has been made more complete through your religious belief?

A big part of it is introducing and helping establish positives in others lives.

[Shadow Wolf]

Here's a graphic I posted recently that depicts the scientific process compared to that of the faithful. http://a4.vox.com/6a00c2251d306b604a00cd9713fbf44cd5-pi

My turn to ask a question.
By what do you mean "Ignore contradicting evidence?"
Also, not everyone "keeps the idea forever." If you would have asked me "What do I think of evolution" about six years ago, being the ultra-conservative Christian I was, I would have told you (and I did write this on a school paper when my freshman bio teacher asked us what we thought about it) "It's a lie created by Satan to trick the world into not following God." I think much differently know than I did then. Thier is even a thread going on right now about how people's religion and ideas have changed.

[Feathers in Hair]

Don't be silly, Luke! No religious person has ever changed their ideas!

Just as all atheists are painted with the same brush by some theists, some atheists feel the need to make assumptions and broad statements about all theists. In that sense, people of such a mentality fit the "Ignore contradicting evidence" category that the graph states. We could debate 'till we're exhausted, but I think all contraditory evidence to the idea that theists can be people equally worthy of respect and civility will be ignored.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by LogDog

How do you feel your life on earth has been made more complete through your religious belief?

What do you mean by "belief"? You seriously believe a person's experiential knowledge of, and relationship with, Ultimate Reality is mere belief?

Certainly the experience is thinner for some people than in others, and clearly conceptual interpretations vary as well the experiences themselves. What do you expect? We are finite creatures looking to the Infinite. For anyone to assume one's religion is mere belief is the epitome of supercilious arrogance. Does reality end where the skin begins?

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by LogDog

It is unless you have new evidence that substantiates your god hypothesis.

I haven't read through the entire thread but if somebody else has responded to this I am sorry.

I would suggest you have a strange idea of what makes something true. Does that mean that the earth was flat before anyone had evidence? or that relativity was not "true" before Einstein figured it out?

If something is true, it is true regardless of the amount of evidence we can provide. If it is false, it is false regardless of all the evidence in the world to the contrary.

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

What do you mean by "belief"? You seriously believe a person's experiential knowledge of, and relationship with, Ultimate Reality is mere belief?

Certainly the experience is thinner for some people than in others, and clearly conceptual interpretations vary as well the experiences themselves. What do you expect? We are finite creatures looking to the Infinite. For anyone to assume one's religion is mere belief is the epitome of supercilious arrogance. Does reality end where the skin begins?

Hahaha! Where did you get that smiley!

[Rolling_Stone]

Should I tell or keep it a secret all my own?

http://www.smileycentral.com/