• 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!

Freedom from the illusion of knowing, and having safe ground to stand on

Jim

Nets of Wonder
NOTE: This is not posted in a debate forum, and it is not about science and religion, or about objective reality or truth. It’s about a question that came to me while I was thinking about some ways that I think I see people misrepresenting and misusing research reports and religious scriptures.

One of the ways that I see people validating and excusing their prejudices, delusions, animosities and hostilities is with what they think they know from science or from religious scriptures, some safe ground that they think they’re standing on. Just now I was wondering what ground I think I’m standing on, and it might be that I don’t have any illusion any more of knowing anything or having any safe ground to stand on. Then I was wondering, where does my assurance or confidence come from, to do anything that I’m doing?

Is there anyone else here who doesn’t feel any need to know anything or to have any safe ground to stand on? If so, where do you think your assurance or confidence comes from, to do what you do? Maybe, could it just be a natural consequence of freedom from the illusion of knowing and of having safe ground to stand on?
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
Witty-Quotes-43897-statusmind.com.jpg


Apart from that, I know that some things must be true, given some basic assumptions that have never been violated.
E.g.: if the assumptions of an orderly, real and knowable universe are true, scientific theories are the best explanations of reality.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I asked a friend this question and she said that maybe it’s because without any illusion of knowing anything or having any safe ground to stand on, I have no fear of being wrong. I’ve already faced that fear and embraced that possibility.
 

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
Is there anyone else here who doesn’t feel any need to know anything or to have any safe ground to stand on? If so, where do you think your assurance or confidence comes from, to do what you do? Maybe, could it just be a natural consequence of freedom from the illusion of knowing and of having safe ground to stand on?

Not so much assurance as pragmatic acceptance.
I am agnostic regarding the possibility of ‘knowing’, in the spiritual sense.
Life happens.
There is no safe ground. I think that has to be accepted if one is to experience freedom.
Understanding the nature of reality is both impossible and unnecessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
We do have knowledge otherwise we would not be able to function. The problem usually is that many do not know the extent of their knowledge or the possible extent of their knowledge and perhaps opt for explanations that seem reasonable to them, rather than just accepting this fact. It's often so nice to have a convenient explanation for all things that might trouble one.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Witty-Quotes-43897-statusmind.com.jpg


Apart from that, I know that some things must be true, given some basic assumptions that have never been violated.
E.g.: if the assumptions of an orderly, real and knowable universe are true, scientific theories are the best explanations of reality.
I suppose one should really say they are the best explanations of what we observe of nature - and then that we use the working assumption that these observations reflect an objective physical reality.

(Jim seems here to be offering another variation on his overarching theme of trying to promote a false equivalence between science and religion. It looks to me as if it is his insistence on this false equivalence that generates the "prejudices, animosities and hostilities" that he encounters.;) )
 
Last edited:

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Jim seems here to be offering another variation on his overarching theme of trying to promote a false equivalence between science and religion.
False. I am not promoting any equivalence between science and religion. Also, my overarching theme is not about science and religion at all.
 
Last edited:

Jim

Nets of Wonder
We do have knowledge otherwise we would not be able to function. The problem usually is that many do not know the extent of their knowledge or the possible extent of their knowledge and perhaps opt for explanations that seem reasonable to them, rather than just accepting this fact. It's often so nice to have a convenient explanation for all things that might trouble one.
That isn’t what I mean by people thinking that they know. I mean people thinking that they can’t be wrong about something that they’re saying.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
.. it might be that I don’t have any illusion any more of knowing anything or having any safe ground to stand on. Then I was wondering, where does my assurance or confidence come from, to do anything that I’m doing?
I think the ground where you stand is the shakiest. Believing in an Allah and his sent manifestation with no proof for either. You have illusions and illusions and hardly anything else. :)
 

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
False. I am not promoting any equivalence between science and religion.

I thought it could be about political beliefs, relationships, sense of purpose....whatever.

That isn’t what I mean by people thinking that they know. I mean people thinking that they can’t be wrong about something that they’re saying.

They’re just idiots. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I thought it could be about political beliefs, relationships, sense of purpose....whatever.
I’ve posted sometimes about some identical ways in which people misrepresent and misuse research reports and religious scriptures.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
I suppose one should really say they are the best explanations of what we observe of nature - and then that we use the working assumption that these observations reflect an objective physical reality.
That is all in the word "knowable". If there is no reality or if we can't perceive reality, we can't know. Now, there are problems with our perception but we assume that we can overcome them, for example through repeated, independent observations.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
One of the ways that I see people excusing their prejudices, animosities and hostilities is with what they think they know from science or from religious scriptures, some safe ground that they think they’re standing on. Just now I was wondering what ground I think I’m standing on, and it might be that I don’t have any illusion any more of knowing anything or having any safe ground to stand on. Then I was wondering, where does my assurance or confidence come from, to do anything that I’m doing?

Is there anyone else here who doesn’t feel any need to know anything or to have any safe ground to stand on? If so, where do you think your assurance or confidence comes from, to do what you do? Maybe, could it just be a natural consequence of freedom from the illusion of knowing and of having safe ground to stand on?

It is the religious who think they "know" things.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I’ve posted sometimes about some identical way in which people misrepresent and misuse research reports and religious scriptures.

Plz cite an example of anyone (here) but a religionist
misrepresenting a research report.

Talk of people unknown and not present is of no interest.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
That is all in the word "knowable". If there is no reality or if we can't perceive reality, we can't know. Now, there are problems with our perception but we assume that we can overcome them, for example through repeated, independent observations.
The illusion of knowing that I’m talking about is people thinking that they can’t be wrong about something that they’re saying.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Plz cite an example of anyone (here) but a religionist
misrepresenting a research report.

Talk of people unknown and not present is of no interest.
Your merciless roasting is usually more entertaining than that. Are you okay? I hope you haven’t caught that virus that’s going around.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Your merciless roasting is usually more entertaining than that. Are you okay? I hope you haven’t caught that virus that’s going around.

You tend to post laughable things, but not real
funny, as such.

Now, your example of this "misuse"? None?
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Plz cite an example of anyone (here) but a religionist misrepresenting a research report.
I’ll respond to that seriously. Let’s say that it is only religionists who do that. That wouldn’t invalidate what I’m saying about misrepresenting them in the same ways that they misrepresent religious scriptures: imagining them saying what they want them to say, to validate their prejudices and delusions.
 
Last edited:
Top