Cobblestones
Devoid of Ettiquette
None of which are "real" as you and I are...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Absence of Evidence = Evidence?
- Thread starter Cobblestones
- Start date
That's amusing, but anyway... a movie really is a movie, a book really is a book, a parable really is a parable...
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Neither can we fully recognize God. But that doesn't negate God's existence, just as it doesn't negate mother's existence.
Because it's God.
God is Alpha and Omege. Every created thing has its beginning, end, cause, and reason in God. God is the ultimate definition and the ultimate "why." Whatever is, is in God.
That's your argument -- that I can't know anything about God from my subjective experience? Squeeze me? Baking powder?
I don't see how you can make such an argument, since you're not in my head. As I've said many times before, we don't need Cottage's confirmation that our experiences are real and valid.
But:
Come again?
"but"
"Sooo..."
What people are saying is that they have had experiences of God. If you "can only go by what people say," then that ought to be good enough for you!
Now, it may be true that some folks don't understand the experiences they've had. Some folks aren't equipped to understand that some "mystical experiences" are hallucinatory, or self-made. But many folks do have a clear idea of their being and their boundaries. And when they experience something outside of that, many of them speak of those experiences in theological terms, using the myth-language that is familiar to them.
Cobblestones
Devoid of Ettiquette
It wasn't intended for amusement. Look, "Fox Fires" were a myth to explain the Northern Lights which is a visible phenomenon. We have myths about river gods and spirits of trees and all manner of physical things. No one would claim that you can only talk about northern lights, trees and rivers except via mythology.
This whole God argument that you can only talk about god by means of myths is ridiculous. Myths were devised to try to explain physical things that had not other explanation. But this discussion of god is mythology about an idea as opposed to mythology that tries to explain that which can be observed. It's insanity at its most fundamental level. Which is why to some it is "more real" than what the rest of us experience...
Maybe this will help explain:
Mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
God, as the maker and unmaker of things, is neither a thing nor not a thing that is made or unmade. The world is made and unmade of things.
How would you propose to talk about the idea of this neither-thing-nor-not-a-thing using words? The technique developed is to adopt images and reference God metaphorically, and this is done in myth.
Anti-thesisofreason
Explorer
I find very often that my personal experiences with the "spiritual realm" (when I have one of those "Ah Ha" moments of understanding) are very hard to articulate. It is very hard to find the right words to describe my experiences, what I felt, what I might have seen, or even what I thought. Even the words spiritual realm aren't quite a good fit for a description, but they make do even if they are a poor fit.
I also find that even though I may not fully understand my experiences there is an underlying gnosis that goes with them and I trust that a part of my un/conscious understands what the message conveys or what the "Ah Ha" means.
Because those personal experiences are so hard to put into words that others will understand and find convincing, is exactly why I feel it is important for a person with so many questions to go out and find out for themselves because that is the only way they will fully understand what we mean by personal experience as proof of anything. In other words, don't take my word for it.
I also find that even though I may not fully understand my experiences there is an underlying gnosis that goes with them and I trust that a part of my un/conscious understands what the message conveys or what the "Ah Ha" means.
Because those personal experiences are so hard to put into words that others will understand and find convincing, is exactly why I feel it is important for a person with so many questions to go out and find out for themselves because that is the only way they will fully understand what we mean by personal experience as proof of anything. In other words, don't take my word for it.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Forgive me, but thats exactly how it reads:
To blame Aristotle for believing a falsehood is unfair, unkind and inaccurate.]
Willamena:
I was saying in that sentence that it is (allegedly) a "falsehood" to you. Not me.
Cottage: Okay. So the sun revolves around the earth, then?
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
But had I argued to the contrary you would not have allowed that whatever I believe is true.]
Willamena:
My response would have been identical, though.
Cottage: Or course it would. But if trees grow with their leaves in the air and their roots underground is true, then the contrary position, which must be allowed if everything we believe is true, cannot therefore be the case. Both cannot be true at the same time. And it is a fact that trees dont grow with their roots in the air and their leaves underground, unless of course it can be shown otherwise?
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
What catch 22? The difference is simply that the first belief is justified. The second example isnt justified, although that in no way implies that the belief is false.]
Willamena:
Both are the same belief. The belief is justified --only the statement/perspective changes.
Cottage:
The facts are what makes a thing true, not the perspective. You believe that Barack Obama is the US President because Barack Obama is the US President. Someone might have the perspective that a tower seen in the distance is cylindrical in shape, when in fact it is square. Railway lines (railroad U.S.) appear to converge along their length when in fact they are parallel. The truth in these cases obtains regardless of perspective. A designer wouldnt build a railway with converging lines and then defend his actions with Well thats how I perceived it!
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
He surely would have, had he known it to be such. But he believed the universe to be earth-centric, and his belief was proved false and therefore untrue.]
Willamena:
It's not untrue, though. It's just perspective-dependent. Consider it to be 'lacking information' if you like. His model of the cosmos worked then, and it still does just as well today as it did then.
Cottage:
Im sorry but you are completely misrepresenting Aristotle. The plain fact of the matter is that he earnestly believed he was describing the actual cosmos, not just a conceptual or theoretical model, and he argued vigorously and uncritically for his belief that the heavens rotate. His cosmological beliefs were as strong as his belief in the Gods and the connection between those beliefs, as well as his immense authority, helped to keep him unchallenged on the matter for more than 1800 years. Nevertheless, the statement: The sun revolves around the earth, can only be true or false. If The sun doesnt revolve round the earth is true, then The son revolves round the earth is false. And it so happens that The sun revolves round he earth is false. I accept it, you accept it and Aristotle himself would accept it, were he alive today.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Which they do, otherwise they wouldnt make the claim.]
Willamena:
Of course. That's evident ...to you.
Cottage:
And the truth of which is evident to you also! For wouldn't you agree that when people make claims it is because they wish others to hear their opinions and take notice of them?
[Quote:
Willamena:
Let me ask you this: if someone believes Elvis is dead, and another believes Elvis is alive, and they both believe something that is true... does that change the world? Would the world be any different if it were true that they both believe something true?
Cottage: The world would be chaotic. But actually its a nonsense statement because a thing cannot be both true and false.
Willamena: The question speaks to your basic, inherent model. We each have modeled the cosmos. From our first thoughts we've assembled its characteristics, its behaviors, its rules and its nature. And no two models are quite the same. Does the world change? Or does the question simply conflict with the model you've built?
Cottage: Im sorry but I really couldnt disagree more with such a relativistic view. It is the fact we can concur and share a common experience that allows us all to bump along together in this world as well as we do. Im certainly no dogmatic materialist, but to say whatever we believe is true relates only to a world sophistry and illusion.]
Willamena:
I didn't say "whatever we believe is true" i.e. alters the world. It's just your model that translates
it as such.
Cottage:
If anything, my model would be Everything we believe may be false, rather than your presumptuously sweeping statement: Everything we believe is true. But the shared reality is one of facts ordered by reason. For no matter how we perceive it, 5 multiplied by 7 will always be 35, a square will always have four equal sides, and if Barrack Obama is the US President then that is what he is; similarly, if Washington is in the District of Columbia then it is not in Virginia.
Originally Posted by cottage
Forgive me, but thats exactly how it reads:
To blame Aristotle for believing a falsehood is unfair, unkind and inaccurate.]
Willamena:
I was saying in that sentence that it is (allegedly) a "falsehood" to you. Not me.
Cottage: Okay. So the sun revolves around the earth, then?
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
But had I argued to the contrary you would not have allowed that whatever I believe is true.]
Willamena:
My response would have been identical, though.
Cottage: Or course it would. But if trees grow with their leaves in the air and their roots underground is true, then the contrary position, which must be allowed if everything we believe is true, cannot therefore be the case. Both cannot be true at the same time. And it is a fact that trees dont grow with their roots in the air and their leaves underground, unless of course it can be shown otherwise?
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
What catch 22? The difference is simply that the first belief is justified. The second example isnt justified, although that in no way implies that the belief is false.]
Willamena:
Both are the same belief. The belief is justified --only the statement/perspective changes.
Cottage:
The facts are what makes a thing true, not the perspective. You believe that Barack Obama is the US President because Barack Obama is the US President. Someone might have the perspective that a tower seen in the distance is cylindrical in shape, when in fact it is square. Railway lines (railroad U.S.) appear to converge along their length when in fact they are parallel. The truth in these cases obtains regardless of perspective. A designer wouldnt build a railway with converging lines and then defend his actions with Well thats how I perceived it!
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
He surely would have, had he known it to be such. But he believed the universe to be earth-centric, and his belief was proved false and therefore untrue.]
Willamena:
It's not untrue, though. It's just perspective-dependent. Consider it to be 'lacking information' if you like. His model of the cosmos worked then, and it still does just as well today as it did then.
Cottage:
Im sorry but you are completely misrepresenting Aristotle. The plain fact of the matter is that he earnestly believed he was describing the actual cosmos, not just a conceptual or theoretical model, and he argued vigorously and uncritically for his belief that the heavens rotate. His cosmological beliefs were as strong as his belief in the Gods and the connection between those beliefs, as well as his immense authority, helped to keep him unchallenged on the matter for more than 1800 years. Nevertheless, the statement: The sun revolves around the earth, can only be true or false. If The sun doesnt revolve round the earth is true, then The son revolves round the earth is false. And it so happens that The sun revolves round he earth is false. I accept it, you accept it and Aristotle himself would accept it, were he alive today.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Which they do, otherwise they wouldnt make the claim.]
Willamena:
Of course. That's evident ...to you.
Cottage:
And the truth of which is evident to you also! For wouldn't you agree that when people make claims it is because they wish others to hear their opinions and take notice of them?
[Quote:
Willamena:
Let me ask you this: if someone believes Elvis is dead, and another believes Elvis is alive, and they both believe something that is true... does that change the world? Would the world be any different if it were true that they both believe something true?
Cottage: The world would be chaotic. But actually its a nonsense statement because a thing cannot be both true and false.
Willamena: The question speaks to your basic, inherent model. We each have modeled the cosmos. From our first thoughts we've assembled its characteristics, its behaviors, its rules and its nature. And no two models are quite the same. Does the world change? Or does the question simply conflict with the model you've built?
Cottage: Im sorry but I really couldnt disagree more with such a relativistic view. It is the fact we can concur and share a common experience that allows us all to bump along together in this world as well as we do. Im certainly no dogmatic materialist, but to say whatever we believe is true relates only to a world sophistry and illusion.]
Willamena:
I didn't say "whatever we believe is true" i.e. alters the world. It's just your model that translates
it as such.
Cottage:
If anything, my model would be Everything we believe may be false, rather than your presumptuously sweeping statement: Everything we believe is true. But the shared reality is one of facts ordered by reason. For no matter how we perceive it, 5 multiplied by 7 will always be 35, a square will always have four equal sides, and if Barrack Obama is the US President then that is what he is; similarly, if Washington is in the District of Columbia then it is not in Virginia.
[Quote
The childs brain doesnt recognise any ontological or causal properties.]
Sojourner:
Neither can we fully recognize God. But that doesn't negate God's existence, just as it doesn't negate mother's existence.
Cottage:
I will say first, in keeping with the title of this thread, that absence of evidence isnt evidence, and possibility doesnt imply actuality; but if God is logically possible then our not being able to recognise God certainly doesnt negate his existence, and that has never been my argument. For example I use the Problem of Evil not to disprove Gods existence, which it cannot do, but to show that our understanding of a specific notion of God is demonstrably wrong or misplaced. The second point is, and Im sure youll agree, that we cannot know Gods existence as we know mothers existence, since God is not a corporeal being and thus no empirical comparisons can be made in that fashion.
[Quote:
Cottage: So now kindly explain how or why it is true or the truth? ]
Sojourner:
Because it's God.
God is Alpha and Omege. Every created thing has its beginning, end, cause, and reason in God. God is the ultimate definition and the ultimate "why." Whatever is, is in God.
Cottage:
Straight off we see there is no truth, only question-begging circularity, special pleading and inferences from this world to a supposed other world. If it is said every existent thing has a cause, the statement has the appearance of truth (providing we accept that principle that one thing is the cause of another). And that being the case God is also in want of a cause, since the concept of God being the first cause doesnt escape the qualifying everything. But to say as you do here tat every created thing has a beginning, end and cause, assumes the world was created and then declares tautologically that the assumed creation needs a creator! This isnt truth; it is metaphysical speculation. You need to establish that cause is necessary and that the world was created and then, and only then, can you introduce the notion of a creator. And even if you manage to do that you still have to demonstrate that the creator is God.
[Quote:
but that you dont know anything about God from your subjective experiences. In other words, I question the nature, but not the existence, of so-called revealed knowledge. More on this down the page.]
Sojourner:
That's your argument -- that I can't know anything about God from my subjective experience? Squeeze me? Baking powder?
I don't see how you can make such an argument, since you're not in my head. As I've said many times before, we don't need Cottage's confirmation that our experiences are real and valid.
Cottage:
Not quite correct. Im saying you dont know what you claim to know in your subjective experience, not that you cant know. And I say that as a conclusion, not as some kind of proven fact. My view, as I think you might be aware now, is that particular people have a prior inclination or disposition towards mystical beliefs. But I must always open to the possibility that Im wrong in this.
No, you dont need my confirmation that your experiences are real. But you speak as if youre a victim who is being unfairly and inappropriately cross-examined by a heartless inquisitor. Ill remind you, if I may, that youre arguing for what you believe on these forums and Im doing likewise. All very fair, I think!
Sojourner:
What people are saying is that they have had experiences of God. If you "can only go by what people say," then that ought to be good enough for you!
Cottage
No, Im afraid it isnt good enough for me. Some people say the Devil has communicated with them, and some people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Clearly, people can say anything. For centuries those claiming special knowledge preached mysticism to us as if it were true of something. People have suffered for daring to question mystical beliefs. If we dont take on trust what politicians say to us, I certainly dont see why we should quietly accept statements about the supernatural. As human beings it is right and necessary that we question and examine all profound and fantastic propositions, and especially so where they may directly or indirectly affect our lives.
Sojourner:
Now, it may be true that some folks don't understand the experiences they've had. Some folks aren't equipped to understand that some "mystical experiences" are hallucinatory, or self-made. But many folks do have a clear idea of their being and their boundaries. And when they experience something outside of that, many of them speak of those experiences in theological terms, using the myth-language that is familiar to them.
Cottage
Im bemused that you say: Some folks aren't equipped to understand that some "mystical experiences" are hallucinatory, or self-made. And Im extremely interested to know the means by which you qualify that statement. For when one is hallucinating how does one know that it is or isnt a hallucination?
As finite, error-prone, contingent creatures, we all have a clear idea of what we are. But what, precisely, is an experience outside of that, which requires a theological explanation as opposed to a physiological one? A prior mystical belief would answer that, I suspect. But I may be wrong, of course. So why not give some examples of these mystical experiences and well see how they measure up and compare with our-world experience?
The childs brain doesnt recognise any ontological or causal properties.]
Sojourner:
Neither can we fully recognize God. But that doesn't negate God's existence, just as it doesn't negate mother's existence.
Cottage:
I will say first, in keeping with the title of this thread, that absence of evidence isnt evidence, and possibility doesnt imply actuality; but if God is logically possible then our not being able to recognise God certainly doesnt negate his existence, and that has never been my argument. For example I use the Problem of Evil not to disprove Gods existence, which it cannot do, but to show that our understanding of a specific notion of God is demonstrably wrong or misplaced. The second point is, and Im sure youll agree, that we cannot know Gods existence as we know mothers existence, since God is not a corporeal being and thus no empirical comparisons can be made in that fashion.
[Quote:
Cottage: So now kindly explain how or why it is true or the truth? ]
Sojourner:
Because it's God.
God is Alpha and Omege. Every created thing has its beginning, end, cause, and reason in God. God is the ultimate definition and the ultimate "why." Whatever is, is in God.
Cottage:
Straight off we see there is no truth, only question-begging circularity, special pleading and inferences from this world to a supposed other world. If it is said every existent thing has a cause, the statement has the appearance of truth (providing we accept that principle that one thing is the cause of another). And that being the case God is also in want of a cause, since the concept of God being the first cause doesnt escape the qualifying everything. But to say as you do here tat every created thing has a beginning, end and cause, assumes the world was created and then declares tautologically that the assumed creation needs a creator! This isnt truth; it is metaphysical speculation. You need to establish that cause is necessary and that the world was created and then, and only then, can you introduce the notion of a creator. And even if you manage to do that you still have to demonstrate that the creator is God.
[Quote:
but that you dont know anything about God from your subjective experiences. In other words, I question the nature, but not the existence, of so-called revealed knowledge. More on this down the page.]
Sojourner:
That's your argument -- that I can't know anything about God from my subjective experience? Squeeze me? Baking powder?
I don't see how you can make such an argument, since you're not in my head. As I've said many times before, we don't need Cottage's confirmation that our experiences are real and valid.
Cottage:
Not quite correct. Im saying you dont know what you claim to know in your subjective experience, not that you cant know. And I say that as a conclusion, not as some kind of proven fact. My view, as I think you might be aware now, is that particular people have a prior inclination or disposition towards mystical beliefs. But I must always open to the possibility that Im wrong in this.
No, you dont need my confirmation that your experiences are real. But you speak as if youre a victim who is being unfairly and inappropriately cross-examined by a heartless inquisitor. Ill remind you, if I may, that youre arguing for what you believe on these forums and Im doing likewise. All very fair, I think!
Sojourner:
What people are saying is that they have had experiences of God. If you "can only go by what people say," then that ought to be good enough for you!
Cottage
No, Im afraid it isnt good enough for me. Some people say the Devil has communicated with them, and some people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Clearly, people can say anything. For centuries those claiming special knowledge preached mysticism to us as if it were true of something. People have suffered for daring to question mystical beliefs. If we dont take on trust what politicians say to us, I certainly dont see why we should quietly accept statements about the supernatural. As human beings it is right and necessary that we question and examine all profound and fantastic propositions, and especially so where they may directly or indirectly affect our lives.
Sojourner:
Now, it may be true that some folks don't understand the experiences they've had. Some folks aren't equipped to understand that some "mystical experiences" are hallucinatory, or self-made. But many folks do have a clear idea of their being and their boundaries. And when they experience something outside of that, many of them speak of those experiences in theological terms, using the myth-language that is familiar to them.
Cottage
Im bemused that you say: Some folks aren't equipped to understand that some "mystical experiences" are hallucinatory, or self-made. And Im extremely interested to know the means by which you qualify that statement. For when one is hallucinating how does one know that it is or isnt a hallucination?
As finite, error-prone, contingent creatures, we all have a clear idea of what we are. But what, precisely, is an experience outside of that, which requires a theological explanation as opposed to a physiological one? A prior mystical belief would answer that, I suspect. But I may be wrong, of course. So why not give some examples of these mystical experiences and well see how they measure up and compare with our-world experience?
Here again this is that assumption that nobody else has had life-changing, momentous or even peculiar experiences. This go forth and discover for yourself instruction is a tad patronising while not saying anything of substance. You are of course perfectly entitled to interpret experiences as mystical or religious, if that is how you to choose to see them. But what is this understanding of spiritual truths that you admit you don't understand, if not just a longing or need for a spiritual world to exist?
Last edited:
Cobblestones
Devoid of Ettiquette
If it is neither-thing-nor-not-a-thing then how can you know that it is/isn't and by what means can it be known/not known? Seems that it is beyond our ability to know or even to discuss so how is mythology any different from any other form of explanation? Indeed, if it cannot be known then why discuss it at all. Seems like a waste of effort to me. There is far too much that can be known that ought to occupy our discussions...
I'm a morning person. I don't get up to see the earth rotate. I get up to see the sun rise.
Yes, to each of us something is either true or false. Yes, if one person makes a claim of belief that contradicts another's claim of belief then a contradiction exists. Regardless, we believe in things because they are true. And, for us, they are true when, and in that manner that, we know they are true.
Yes, I can claim one person's claim to agree with the truth as I know it, and another person's claim to disagree with the truth as I know it. This apparent concurrence speaks to a certainty in nature.
I think you have that backwards. The way I see it, truth lends a fact its concreteness --a fact is a bit of information that is "a fact" because it's true, not the other way around.
Perception and perspective is not the same thing. You cite an example of perception (the tower) and one of perspective (the railroads lines). Perception speaks to comprehension and awareness, perspective speaks to relationship and order. If one person believes something, and another person believes something else, they are both believing something because for them it is true. For each of them, the other's claim may appear "false," diminished like the railroad lines into a figurative distance of "doesn't conform to my ideas," or they may recognize the manner in which it is belief and put that in relation to the bigger picture. Much depends on the inherent paradigm of the cosmos.
I'm not going to butt heads over the idea that a cosmology (of the "actual cosmos") models the cosmos (it does, to this day, and it is theoretical). I will take with a grain of salt the claim that he had to argue very vigorously that the heavens rotate --no doubt there were few who disputed it.
What I am saying is that the view that the earth and planets revolve around the sun could not have arisen until there was sufficient information with which to paint that picture. Until that information was known, the geocentric model was the best picture of the cosmos because it was based on the available relevant information --just as the heliocentric model was, and today's models are, and tomorrow's models will be, all based on the best available relevant information.
It's only when the truth is known that we can build our models based on it. The fact is that Aristotle's geocentric model still works today, as it did for those 1800 years, because it was built on information that is still available today. We simply have more information today, and so have built better models.
No. But then I talk to myself all the time.
And yet, you seem very certain about the actuality of these facts, despite believing in them. And we do believe facts --if we don't, aren't we in trouble?
Believe it or not, I didn't say "Everything we believe is true." You introduced that to the thread as an interpretation of what I'd said (the point I just made). In fact, it's almost the opposite of what I'd said, which is "We believe in things because they are true."
Last edited:
Mostly, by knowing through being, rather than knowing by thinking about a thing.
It's no form of explanation, at all. It's purpose is not explain.
The purpose of mythology is not to explain, although it's interpreted that way by many. Once one knows through being, no explanation is necessary. Myth is a story that emulates the story you are.
Last edited:
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Okay. So the sun revolves around the earth, then?]
Willamena:
I'm a morning person. I don't get up to see the earth revolve. I get up to see the sun rise.
Cottage:
But if you are saying it is a falsehood to me, but not to you, it means you are saying the sun revolves around the earth is true.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
But if trees grow with their leaves in the air and their roots underground is true, then the contrary position, which must be allowed if everything we believe is true, cannot therefore be the case. Both cannot be true at the same time. And it is a fact that trees dont grow with their roots in the air and their leaves underground, unless of course it can be shown otherwise?]
Willamena:
Yes, to each of us something is either true or false. Yes, if one person makes a claim of belief that contradicts another's claim of belief then a contradiction exists. Regardless, we believe in things because they are true. And, for us, they are true when, and in that manner that, we know they are true.
Yes, I can claim one person's claim to agree with the truth as I know it, and another person's claim to disagree with the truth as I know it. This apparent concurrence speaks to a certainty in nature.
Cottage:
We seem not to be talking about truth anymore but only a relative or subjective understanding of the term. But to be honest Im not exactly sure what it is you are saying. An explanation with some examples would be very helpful. Ill give you my full response by return.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
The facts are what make a thing true, not the perspective. You believe that Barack Obama is the US President because Barack Obama is the US President. Someone might have the perspective that a tower seen in the distance is cylindrical in shape, when in fact it is square. Railway lines (railroad U.S.) appear to converge along their length when in fact they are parallel. The truth in these cases obtains regardless of perspective. A designer wouldnt build a railway with converging lines and then defend his actions with Well thats how I perceived it!]
Willamena:
I think you have that backwards. The way I see it, truth lends a fact its concreteness --a fact is a bit of information that is "a fact" because it's true, not the other way around.
Cottage:
This is just splitting hairs. A thing is taken to be true because it is factual, and a fact is taken to be something true. I cant see what your point is. Barack Obama is the President, a square tower isnt round, and parallel lines do not converge regardless of individual perception.
Willamena:
Perception and perspective is not the same thing. You cite an example of perception (the tower) and one of perspective (the railroads lines). Perception speaks to comprehension and awareness, perspective speaks to relationship and order. If one person believes something, and another person believes something else, they are both believing something because for them it is true. For each of them, the other's claim may appear "false," diminished like the railroad lines into a figurative distance of "doesn't conform to my ideas," or they may recognize the manner in which it is belief and put that in relation to the bigger picture. Much depends on the inherent paradigm of the cosmos.
Cottage:
Any perspective is also dependent upon perception. A person seeing railway lines, or indeed any two parallel lines for the first time would not know for certain that they were in fact equidistant without measuring them. (And as someone who has perception difficulties let me assure you it has everything to do with relationship, sequence and order). That last sentence: the inherent paradigm of the cosmos!
Did you mean: the way world is or appears to be and the way we interpret it?
Originally Posted by cottage
Okay. So the sun revolves around the earth, then?]
Willamena:
I'm a morning person. I don't get up to see the earth revolve. I get up to see the sun rise.
Cottage:
But if you are saying it is a falsehood to me, but not to you, it means you are saying the sun revolves around the earth is true.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
But if trees grow with their leaves in the air and their roots underground is true, then the contrary position, which must be allowed if everything we believe is true, cannot therefore be the case. Both cannot be true at the same time. And it is a fact that trees dont grow with their roots in the air and their leaves underground, unless of course it can be shown otherwise?]
Willamena:
Yes, to each of us something is either true or false. Yes, if one person makes a claim of belief that contradicts another's claim of belief then a contradiction exists. Regardless, we believe in things because they are true. And, for us, they are true when, and in that manner that, we know they are true.
Yes, I can claim one person's claim to agree with the truth as I know it, and another person's claim to disagree with the truth as I know it. This apparent concurrence speaks to a certainty in nature.
Cottage:
We seem not to be talking about truth anymore but only a relative or subjective understanding of the term. But to be honest Im not exactly sure what it is you are saying. An explanation with some examples would be very helpful. Ill give you my full response by return.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
The facts are what make a thing true, not the perspective. You believe that Barack Obama is the US President because Barack Obama is the US President. Someone might have the perspective that a tower seen in the distance is cylindrical in shape, when in fact it is square. Railway lines (railroad U.S.) appear to converge along their length when in fact they are parallel. The truth in these cases obtains regardless of perspective. A designer wouldnt build a railway with converging lines and then defend his actions with Well thats how I perceived it!]
Willamena:
I think you have that backwards. The way I see it, truth lends a fact its concreteness --a fact is a bit of information that is "a fact" because it's true, not the other way around.
Cottage:
This is just splitting hairs. A thing is taken to be true because it is factual, and a fact is taken to be something true. I cant see what your point is. Barack Obama is the President, a square tower isnt round, and parallel lines do not converge regardless of individual perception.
Willamena:
Perception and perspective is not the same thing. You cite an example of perception (the tower) and one of perspective (the railroads lines). Perception speaks to comprehension and awareness, perspective speaks to relationship and order. If one person believes something, and another person believes something else, they are both believing something because for them it is true. For each of them, the other's claim may appear "false," diminished like the railroad lines into a figurative distance of "doesn't conform to my ideas," or they may recognize the manner in which it is belief and put that in relation to the bigger picture. Much depends on the inherent paradigm of the cosmos.
Cottage:
Any perspective is also dependent upon perception. A person seeing railway lines, or indeed any two parallel lines for the first time would not know for certain that they were in fact equidistant without measuring them. (And as someone who has perception difficulties let me assure you it has everything to do with relationship, sequence and order). That last sentence: the inherent paradigm of the cosmos!
Did you mean: the way world is or appears to be and the way we interpret it? Willamena:
I'm not going to butt heads over the idea that a cosmology (of the "actual cosmos") models the cosmos (it does, to this day, and it is theoretical). I will take with a grain of salt the claim that he had to argue very vigorously that the heavens rotate --no doubt there were few who disputed it.
Cottage:
Aristotle didnt have to argue very vigorously. His beliefs were widely accepted and adopted, and their being consistent with the views of the Church helps to explain why it was nearly two centuries before they were thrown out. No doubt there were other minds with different views, but given the era in which they lived I daresay they respected the orthodoxy for thoroughly understandable reasons. Bertrand Russell (History of Western Philosophy) commented thus: his authority had become almost as unquestioned as the Church, and in science, as well as philosophy, had become a serious obstacle to progress.
Willamena:
What I am saying is that the view that the earth and planets revolve around the sun could not have arisen until there was sufficient information with which to paint that picture. Until that information was known, the geocentric model was the best picture of the cosmos because it was based on the available relevant information --just as the heliocentric model was, and today's models are, and tomorrow's models will be, all based on the best available relevant information.
It's only when the truth is known that we can build our models based on it. The fact is that Aristotle's geocentric model still works today, as it did for those 1800 years, because it was built on information that is still available today. We simply have more information today, and so have built better models.
Cottage
I'm a great fan of Aristotle and many of his ideas were born out of philosophy rather than physics. He believed that the stars and planets were eternal, rather than being subject to the change and decay to which every other thing in the visible world is subject, and he believed that objects werent moved by the forces of other objects but contained within them natural movement. That, as I understand it, is the basis upon which his complete cosmological beliefs were formed. What follows from this false premise makes perfect logical sense and his conclusions would no doubt be true had the premise on which it was founded been true. But it wasnt true and is proved false. Nobody is dismissing Aristotles beliefs as worthless or without historical interest or value, but you cant expect to make a case for truth on the back of something that is untrue.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
And the truth of which is evident to you also! For wouldn't you agree that when people make claims it is because they wish others to hear their opinions and take notice of them?]
Willamena:
No. But then I talk to myself all the time.
Cottage:
Dont we all! But I was making a serious point, that white supremacists have particular beliefs that they wish to be heard and would like to become common currency. If we believe things because they are true is true, then the supremacists beliefs are true, as was Hitlers Final solution and every other belief that the world would be better served if particular elements within it were disenfranchised, banished or murdered.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
If anything, my model would be Everything we believe may be false, rather than your presumptuously sweeping statement: Everything we believe is true. But the shared reality is one of facts ordered by reason. For no matter how we perceive it, 5 multiplied by 7 will always be 35, a square will always have four equal sides, and if Barrack Obama is the US President then that is what he is; similarly, if Washington is in the District of Columbia then it is not in Virginia.]
Willamena:
And yet, you seem very certain about the actuality of these facts, despite believing in them. And we do believe facts --if we don't, aren't we in trouble?
Cottage:
Yes, to both.If Barack Obama is the US president then that is what he is; if Washington is in DC then its not in Virginia, and 5 x 7 will always be 35. But Barack Obama, Washington, Virginia, and 5, 7 and 35 do not have to exist.
Willamena:
Believe it or not, I didn't say "Everything we believe is true." You introduced that to the thread as an interpretation of what I'd said (the point I just made). In fact, it's almost the opposite of what I'd said, which is "We believe in things because they are true."
Cottage:
So you did, forgive me. And yet if that is supposed to be a general principle, and from everything youve said so far that surely seems to be your position, then I see no difference. We believe things either because they are true, ie justified: Barack Obama is the US President; or we believe things because we think they are true, but which happen to be false: Washington is in Virginia, (or my misquoting you above); or we believe things are true that are not justified: The US president will live to be ninety three years of age.
I'm not going to butt heads over the idea that a cosmology (of the "actual cosmos") models the cosmos (it does, to this day, and it is theoretical). I will take with a grain of salt the claim that he had to argue very vigorously that the heavens rotate --no doubt there were few who disputed it.
Cottage:
Aristotle didnt have to argue very vigorously. His beliefs were widely accepted and adopted, and their being consistent with the views of the Church helps to explain why it was nearly two centuries before they were thrown out. No doubt there were other minds with different views, but given the era in which they lived I daresay they respected the orthodoxy for thoroughly understandable reasons. Bertrand Russell (History of Western Philosophy) commented thus: his authority had become almost as unquestioned as the Church, and in science, as well as philosophy, had become a serious obstacle to progress.
Willamena:
What I am saying is that the view that the earth and planets revolve around the sun could not have arisen until there was sufficient information with which to paint that picture. Until that information was known, the geocentric model was the best picture of the cosmos because it was based on the available relevant information --just as the heliocentric model was, and today's models are, and tomorrow's models will be, all based on the best available relevant information.
It's only when the truth is known that we can build our models based on it. The fact is that Aristotle's geocentric model still works today, as it did for those 1800 years, because it was built on information that is still available today. We simply have more information today, and so have built better models.
Cottage
I'm a great fan of Aristotle and many of his ideas were born out of philosophy rather than physics. He believed that the stars and planets were eternal, rather than being subject to the change and decay to which every other thing in the visible world is subject, and he believed that objects werent moved by the forces of other objects but contained within them natural movement. That, as I understand it, is the basis upon which his complete cosmological beliefs were formed. What follows from this false premise makes perfect logical sense and his conclusions would no doubt be true had the premise on which it was founded been true. But it wasnt true and is proved false. Nobody is dismissing Aristotles beliefs as worthless or without historical interest or value, but you cant expect to make a case for truth on the back of something that is untrue.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
And the truth of which is evident to you also! For wouldn't you agree that when people make claims it is because they wish others to hear their opinions and take notice of them?]
Willamena:
No. But then I talk to myself all the time.
Cottage:
Dont we all! But I was making a serious point, that white supremacists have particular beliefs that they wish to be heard and would like to become common currency. If we believe things because they are true is true, then the supremacists beliefs are true, as was Hitlers Final solution and every other belief that the world would be better served if particular elements within it were disenfranchised, banished or murdered.
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
If anything, my model would be Everything we believe may be false, rather than your presumptuously sweeping statement: Everything we believe is true. But the shared reality is one of facts ordered by reason. For no matter how we perceive it, 5 multiplied by 7 will always be 35, a square will always have four equal sides, and if Barrack Obama is the US President then that is what he is; similarly, if Washington is in the District of Columbia then it is not in Virginia.]
Willamena:
And yet, you seem very certain about the actuality of these facts, despite believing in them. And we do believe facts --if we don't, aren't we in trouble?
Cottage:
Yes, to both.If Barack Obama is the US president then that is what he is; if Washington is in DC then its not in Virginia, and 5 x 7 will always be 35. But Barack Obama, Washington, Virginia, and 5, 7 and 35 do not have to exist.
Willamena:
Believe it or not, I didn't say "Everything we believe is true." You introduced that to the thread as an interpretation of what I'd said (the point I just made). In fact, it's almost the opposite of what I'd said, which is "We believe in things because they are true."
Cottage:
So you did, forgive me. And yet if that is supposed to be a general principle, and from everything youve said so far that surely seems to be your position, then I see no difference. We believe things either because they are true, ie justified: Barack Obama is the US President; or we believe things because we think they are true, but which happen to be false: Washington is in Virginia, (or my misquoting you above); or we believe things are true that are not justified: The US president will live to be ninety three years of age.
You pulled up, as an example of "false", a bit of information that is false to you and of which you are assured is false to a majority of others. In order for your point to be valid, though, there would have to be (in actuality) at least one person who believes that. Can you say that there is? I doubt it, partly because, to you, this bit of information is "false". Bottom line, it's not justified that it's an example of something we'd believe in that is false.
Is there anything you can think of yourself --anything at all --that you think is true and believe in right now, but is false?
[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
...or we believe things because we think they are true, but which happen to be false: Washington is in Virginia, (or my misquoting you above); or we believe things are true that are not justified: The US president will live to be ninety three years of age.]
Willamena:
You pulled up, as an example of "false", a bit of information that is false to you and of which you are assured is false to a majority of others. In order for your point to be valid, though, there would have to be (in actuality) at least one person who believes that. Can you say that there is? I doubt it, partly because, to you, this bit of information is "false". Bottom line, it's not justified that it's an example of something we'd believe in that is false.
Cottage:
No, all it means is that there would have to be at least one person who believes something true but which happens to be false. I am that person. I believed that you said Everything we believe is true. But you did not. So my belief was false. I also once believed that Greenland was green (a primary school teacher put me right), and that the population of Hungary was in a state of perpetual starvation (I discovered the truth to that one all on my own when my spelling improved).
Willamena: Is there anything you can think of yourself --anything at all --that you think is true and believe in right now, but is false?
Cottage:
An absurd question, which bears no relation to the argument.
Originally Posted by cottage
...or we believe things because we think they are true, but which happen to be false: Washington is in Virginia, (or my misquoting you above); or we believe things are true that are not justified: The US president will live to be ninety three years of age.]
Willamena:
You pulled up, as an example of "false", a bit of information that is false to you and of which you are assured is false to a majority of others. In order for your point to be valid, though, there would have to be (in actuality) at least one person who believes that. Can you say that there is? I doubt it, partly because, to you, this bit of information is "false". Bottom line, it's not justified that it's an example of something we'd believe in that is false.
Cottage:
No, all it means is that there would have to be at least one person who believes something true but which happens to be false. I am that person. I believed that you said Everything we believe is true. But you did not. So my belief was false. I also once believed that Greenland was green (a primary school teacher put me right), and that the population of Hungary was in a state of perpetual starvation (I discovered the truth to that one all on my own when my spelling improved).
Willamena: Is there anything you can think of yourself --anything at all --that you think is true and believe in right now, but is false?
Cottage:
An absurd question, which bears no relation to the argument.
There! Now we have a good example to work from. While you believed it, you didn't know it was false, and when you knew it was false you no longer believed it. Right? Now it's false and you will not believe it, and you can extrapolate that bit of information back into the past to say, with all honesty, that it was always false. But until that moment, it sat in your memory as something true. You believed it, if you did, because, to you, it was true.
The point here is that until we can say it's false, until we know it's false, until we have that bit of information at our disposal, we cannot make the claim that it is false. If we believe it, it's because of its truth not its falsehood. So even a "false" thing, while holding false, does hold truth. It holds them both, in our knowledge of it, and like a sea-saw one end or the other floats up, and the other down.
Yeah. Only to my argument, not the real argument.
[Originally Posted by cottage
No, all it means is that there would have to be at least one person who believes something true but which happens to be false. I am that person. I believed that you said Everything we believe is true. But you did not. So my belief was false.]
Willamena:
There! Now we have a good example to work from. While you believed it, you didn't know it was false, and when you knew it was false you no longer believed it. Right? Now it's false and you will not believe it, and you can extrapolate that bit of information back into the past to say, with all honesty, that it was always false. But until that moment, it sat in your memory as something true. You believed it, if you did, because, to you, it was true.
The point here is that until we can say it's false, until we know it's false, until we have that bit of information at our disposal, we cannot make the claim that it is false. If we believe it, it's because of its truth not its falsehood. So even a "false" thing, while holding false, does hold truth. It holds them both, in our knowledge of it, and like a sea-saw one end or the other floats up, and the other down.
Cottage:
Its extremely simple. Your argument is that we believe things because they are true. Now I believed that you said: Everything we believe is true because that was my understanding at the time. I was wrong. Therefore my understanding, and my belief were both false. We believe things because we believe they are true, or we believe them because they are true. But it wasnt true, ergo everything we believe is true was, in this case, false.
No, all it means is that there would have to be at least one person who believes something true but which happens to be false. I am that person. I believed that you said Everything we believe is true. But you did not. So my belief was false.]
Willamena:
There! Now we have a good example to work from. While you believed it, you didn't know it was false, and when you knew it was false you no longer believed it. Right? Now it's false and you will not believe it, and you can extrapolate that bit of information back into the past to say, with all honesty, that it was always false. But until that moment, it sat in your memory as something true. You believed it, if you did, because, to you, it was true.
The point here is that until we can say it's false, until we know it's false, until we have that bit of information at our disposal, we cannot make the claim that it is false. If we believe it, it's because of its truth not its falsehood. So even a "false" thing, while holding false, does hold truth. It holds them both, in our knowledge of it, and like a sea-saw one end or the other floats up, and the other down.
Cottage:
Its extremely simple. Your argument is that we believe things because they are true. Now I believed that you said: Everything we believe is true because that was my understanding at the time. I was wrong. Therefore my understanding, and my belief were both false. We believe things because we believe they are true, or we believe them because they are true. But it wasnt true, ergo everything we believe is true was, in this case, false.
It is simple, I agree. To add the extra dimension of "believing we believe they are true" cascades into an infinite recession of "believing we believe". It's simpler than that. There is just belief.
You now believe that your prior belief was false, because it's now true that it was false. Your belief is placed in something true. Did you believe in something true before you knew it was false? :yes:
We believe now, because now is when truth and falsehood exist. Now is when everything exists.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
My mother-in-law believes people get colds from walking around in bare feet on cold floors, not because they became infected with a cold causing virus.
She believes this because she believes it is true, not because it is true. This is evidenced by the fact that sufficient evidence exists to say that it is proven that viruses cause colds. There is a substantial and meaningful difference between saying believes because it is true, and believes because one believes it is true.
She believes this because she believes it is true, not because it is true. This is evidenced by the fact that sufficient evidence exists to say that it is proven that viruses cause colds. There is a substantial and meaningful difference between saying believes because it is true, and believes because one believes it is true.