What a lot of people believe vs the truth - What's important to you?

[Aupmanyav]

Muhammed is dead and gone.
What matters the most?

As you said, Mohammad is gone. What matters most is the Muslim girls should be married after reaching puberty and be of good health (that they can bear children, noting that contraception is prohibited among them and coitus interruptus being a dicey way of contraception).

 

[firedragon]

Truth is the best logical conclusion, based the data you use. If your data set is not complete the best logical conclusion you draw, without all the data, may be appear true, but it can be unintentionally false.

Science, for example, is a work in progress. As new technology appears and new data is generated, the best conclusions; theories, may need to be revised, to include all the new data. Until that time, what may be seen as the truth, will be defended like dogma.

In the Jan 6 trials, not all the data is being presented. The data is being limited to that which benefits one political party over the other. However, if you assume this is all the possible data, you will draw the conclusions that the data is designed for you to draw.

In math, if you were ask to plot data points on a graph, everyone will draw the same basic curve, with the same data points. But as we add new data, the curve may change. One can us use limited data to lie but appear to tell the truth, by simply cherry picking the data that others need to use to draw their conclusions.

Here is an interesting thought experiment, I designed it several years ago, that shows how our perception of truth is dependent on the data we have.

Picture a large mural on a wall. Like in Photoshop, I mask off most of the mural; cover it up, and only allow a small window to see a small part of the mural. The goal is to infer the truth of the mural. from only windows of data.

In this small window to the mural, we can see the face of a young woman who appears to be in anguish. Based on that limited data we may conclude she is heart broken and sad at her state in life.

Next, I open the window wider and can I see she is wearing what appears to be old tattered gym clothes. This add new data to the first conclusion. We conclude she is poor and maybe homeless. This may be part of what is breaking her heart.

I open the window of data even more and notice she appears to be in a gymnasium, with other women in the background, who are in various stages of standing and stretching. Some are in nicer clothes. Now our conclusion is different. She is not homeless, but in a gym. She appears to be working out. Her shabby clothes, may mean she has just started joined and is starting to get into shape.

I open the window of data even more and now I notice this is not a gym floor, but she is on a stage. We can see now other women on the side who are dancing like ballerinas. Now we conclude she much be part of a dance troupe. We assume she may be at tryouts, since she appears straining under the pressure.

Finally, we open the window all the way open to get all the data. We notice this a major city music hall and there is a famous dance coach on stage, who is pushing our woman, who is at center stage. She is the prima ballerina, in her lucky work out clothes, trying too prefect a very difficult move.

From any of the limited windows of data, almost nobody would be able to accept the final truth of her status as a prima ballerina. Since there was not enough data to make that an easy conclusion compared to the unintentional half truth that better fits the limited data. People will often prefer the partial truth conclusions, until they can see all the data, which they may not have access to.

Brother, to understand some types of truth, someone does not have to see any mural or even look. Your thought experiment only is relevant to certain types of truth.

Anyway, according to your thought experiment, lets say there are a thousand people looking at the same mural, and you have only opened a little bit where only the lady's face is visible. Everyone sees only that part, and they have a particular truth painted in their mind, which is a subjective truth. But, you are speaking with someone and that someone knows that there could be an objective truth behind the covered area of the mural. There is more to it than is seen by a thousand people.

You tell that person that there is more to it, but that person tells you that the truth in that mural does not matter, but what matters is what people believe, and is not interested in looking at the mural fully revealed, what would you say to that person?

That's the question in the OP.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

As you said, Mohammad is gone. What matters most is the Muslim girls should be married after reaching puberty and be of good health (that they can bear children, noting that contraception is prohibited among them).

That's not the question of the OP, but thanks for your response. Appreciate the effort.

 

[Link]

I think for crimes and court cases, we can't expect certainty. If we always want certainty, instead of 99% certainty, almost no one would be convicted.

That said, I believe when researching religion, there is two type of "truth". There is the eternal truth and abstract religion and way to God.

Then there is historical events, and real time events, that those who are the way to God lived through.

Using abstract proofs often is a good way to know what happened in real events.

We need both to know truth. Because light of God and example of those who are his light, can't just be theory, but has to have real time application.

But to go to your OP. In my view, very people are not controlled by sorcery of Iblis and his forces, and hence, when coming to religion, are reckless in their approach. Almost as if truth is of very little importance. Rather, what suits the desires is what is almost always followed when saying "follow your heart" is the moto. The problem is the heart mixes both truth and falsehood. Attracted to beauty but ugliness as well.

Also, when it comes to Islam, it's pure hypocrisy. If we talk about any religion in way Islam is talked about in these forums, we would get banned.

 

[firedragon]

I think for crimes and court cases, we can't expect certainty. If we always want certainty, instead of 99% certainty, almost no one would be convicted.

The thread is not about certainty brotherman. It's about the principle. Should you strive to find the truth, or do you say "it doesnt matter. The only thing that matters is what people think!"?

That said, I believe when researching religion, there is two type of "truth". There is the eternal truth and abstract religion and way to God.

Then there is historical events, and real time events, that those who are the way to God lived through.

Using abstract proofs often is a good way to know what happened in real events.

We need both to know truth. Because light of God and example of those who are his light, can't just be theory, but has to have real time application.

But to go to your OP. In my view, very people are not controlled by sorcery of Iblis and his forces, and hence, when coming to religion, are reckless in their approach. Almost as if truth is of very little importance. Rather, what suits the desires is what is almost always followed when saying "follow your heart" is the moto. The problem is the heart mixes both truth and falsehood. Attracted to beauty but ugliness as well.

For the purpose of this thread, forget about God, Iblis, and religions. Think naturalism.

 

[Link]

The thread is not about certainty brotherman. It's about the principle. Should you strive to find the truth, or do you say "it doesnt matter. The only thing that matters is what people think!"?



For the purpose of this thread, forget about God, Iblis, and religions. Think naturalism.

Sorry, I'll clarify. What "majority" believe matters because history is passed by people historical narration. And we need to know what happened in history to know the lives of those who are the path to God.

That said, abstract truth (religion) doesn't rely on people, but is based on eternal logic, light, and reasoning. You can use that to often reject some of what is historically narrated by majority and also affirm some of it.

I didn't spell it out clearly. I hope it's clear now.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry, I'll clarify. What "majority" believe matters because history is passed by people historical narration. And we need to know what happened in history to know the lives of those who are the path to God.

That said, abstract truth (religion) doesn't rely on people, but is based on eternal logic, light, and reasoning. You can use that to often reject some of what is historically narrated by majority and also affirm some of it.

I didn't spell it out clearly. I hope it's clear now.

I didn't say "majority". And I didn't address narrated by the majority throughout history, but "today". It's about what people believe today (not necessarily majority, but if you wish it to be its fine), and a historical event, and information that may lead to truth.

Do you reject that information and say clearly that you don't care about any of that, and all that matters is what people think "today".

Hope you understand.

 

[Link]

I didn't say "majority". And I didn't address narrated by the majority throughout history, but "today". It's about what people believe today (not necessarily majority, but if you wish it to be its fine), and a historical event, and information that may lead to truth.

Do you reject that information and say clearly that you don't care about any of that, and all that matters is what people think "today".

Hope you understand.

Okay I understand. I would say it depends on one person's level of knowledge. There is a pre-Islam saying that Ahlulbayt (a) emphasized on "the people were once the cure, and now they've become the disease".

So majority people believe in unseen supernatural world. Even ones who deny Creator (like many Buddhists and their gods) - majority of humans believe in unseen world.

I can say everyone deluded with no proof or give them a chance. I would say purely not knowing, I should give majority a chance, and go with no smoke without fire approach (most probably)/

So you have minority who don't. I would give majority a chance of being most probably right if I didn't know and give them a chance to "teach me". Say I went to a neo-polytheistic type new age people and they showed me unseen world and reality exists. Even say they proved a Creator to me. I may stay here, or in time, I might learn they have flaws and a disease themselves.

So then may seek "Messengers or Prophets from God" if I reason that I should rely on God and proof from him. I may come to Islam, and then be confused by sects. Then I read in Quran that majority often are misguided and often it's very few on truth.

However, it would be wrong to not give majority a chance to prove their case. Since still popularity although not a guarantee to be on truth, still has odds in their favor then say some random cult. So I would give Sunnis a chance to prove their case. But I would also give Shiites a chance. But I would naturally give "majority" Shiites a chance over a minority to start with.

And if I come to Shiism, and then I find all sorts of problems, again, the saying is "the people were once the cure, and now they've become the disease", I might find a minority within.

This movement of were people are a cure and then become a disease, is actually, to me realistically how people are going to move to the truth.

It's when you are satisfied with a group or state of knowledge, not moving forward, that problems occur.

 

[firedragon]

Okay I understand. I would say it depends on one person's level of knowledge. There is a pre-Islam saying that Ahlulbayt (a) emphasized on "the people were once the cure, and now they've become the disease".

So majority people believe in unseen supernatural world. Even ones who deny Creator (like many Buddhists and their gods) - majority of humans believe in unseen world.

I can say everyone deluded with no proof or give them a chance. I would say purely not knowing, I should give majority a chance, and go with no smoke without fire approach (most probably)/

So you have minority who don't. I would give majority a chance of being most probably right if I didn't know and give them a chance to "teach me". Say I went to a neo-polytheistic type new age people and they showed me unseen world and reality exists. Even say they proved a Creator to me. I may stay here, or in time, I might learn they have flaws and a disease themselves.

So then may seek "Messengers or Prophets from God" if I reason that I should rely on God and proof from him. I may come to Islam, and then be confused by sects. Then I read in Quran that majority often are misguided and often it's very few on truth.

However, it would be wrong to not give majority a chance to prove their case. Since still popularity although not a guarantee to be on truth, still has odds in their favor then say some random cult. So I would give Sunnis a chance to prove their case. But I would also give Shiites a chance. But I would naturally give "majority" Shiites a chance over a minority to start with.

And if I come to Shiism, and then I find all sorts of problems, again, the saying is "the people were once the cure, and now they've become the disease", I might find a minority within.

This movement of were people are a cure and then become a disease, is actually, to me realistically how people are going to move to the truth.

It's when you are satisfied with a group or state of knowledge, not moving forward, that problems occur.

Okay. Let's say someone is trying to provide some information. Prior to analysing what he says says, ignoring what he says, or even preempitively shutting down what he says, how could you decide he is "educated or ignorant"?

The OP is about the principle.

Hope you understand.

 

[Link]

Okay. Let's say someone is trying to provide some information. Prior to analysing what he says says, ignoring what he says, or even preempitively shutting down what he says, how could you decide he is "educated or ignorant"?

The OP is about the principle.

Hope you understand.

Salam

Brother, it depends on what you know at that point and what you see is most probably true. Knowledge is of degrees. If I was a teenager, not knowing spirituality, I might be impressed if someone does something like the Samiri did with the cow (metal thing). I might then learn a thing from him purely because he displayed such mystic knowledge and power.

If I don't know hadiths, I might be impressed by scholars eloquently talking about them since they researched then more then me.

But the key is to not rely on fallible minds but use them to your benefit, and move ahead with the slogan "the people were once the cure, and now they've become the disease".

I hope you understand. Messengers were mocked as strangers and fools, but eventually, they succeed when they get more helpers, and gain popularity. If not enough helpers and truth and it';s people is sought to be destroyed, the majority get's destroyed that are trying to do that.

But the strange truth that they original came with and the majority didn't accept often get's forgotten mostly and people emphasize on outward rituals they came with which was supposed to lead to the truth the majority now deny.

This approach is realistically how ignorance is to be solved.

 

[firedragon]

Brother, it depends on what you know at that point and what you see is most probably true.

How would you know if you never listened to the other person?

 

[Link]

How would you know if you never listened to the other person?

I'm saying to listen but with the slogan.

 

[firedragon]

As for 'shaping society,' you make it sound almost 'scientifically' possible to shape the world, and many have tried.

Just out of curiosity, where did I mention about "shaping society"?
And where did I mention science or anything being scientifically possible at all?

 

[firedragon]

I'm saying to listen but with the slogan.

If anyone listens with the aim to dismiss it, that's a cognitive bias. Nothing more, nothing less. That could be one of the reasons some people don't listen at all but dismiss what ever is said with no intake whatsoever. Then say "it doesn't matter, what matters is what people think".

That's the whole point.

 

[Link]

If anyone listens with the aim to dismiss it, that's a cognitive bias. Nothing more, nothing less. That could be one of the reasons some people don't listen at all but dismiss what ever is said with no intake whatsoever. Then say "it doesn't matter, what matters is what people think".

That's the whole point.

You are correct, but, if people go with the slogan, it will be fine. They take truth from anyone and reject their falsehood eventually.

 

[firedragon]

You are correct, but, if people go with the slogan, it will be fine. They take truth from anyone and reject their falsehood eventually.

Hopefully.

 

[Link]

Hopefully.

Something that makes the transition a trial and eases the path or makes it hard depending on our choice. Fearing God and opposing desires leads to mental clarity. Not fearing God and following desires, leads to confusion and ignorance.

You are asking people to be objective to facts but the whole set up is a trial. Only God can guide to the truth and no one else can.

Fear God and soften one heart, the insights and knowledge become clear. Don't, and even the clearest of all books and clearest in signs and proofs (Quran) becomes unclear and dark and can't guide such a person.

This is why I mentioned Iblis and dark magic. To see truth is impossible without holding on to light, softening one heart, and humbling oneself to fear God.

Light of God will not ignite in a soul unless by God's permission and God doesn't change a condition of people till they change themselves.

I know you want it more of a naturalistic discussion.

The hadiths also become understood through light and practice, and light opening doors of other light and that opening other doors.

It's an easy trial, because, all God wants of us is to choose the harvest of the next world and believe in him, and he will guide us.

But this is "too hard" for polytheistic hearts and souls.

 

[Qwin]

Just out of curiosity, where did I mention about "shaping society"?
And where did I mention science or anything being scientifically possible at all?

Where did you mention shaping society... Did you want the line number of where you mentioned it in your post, maybe... You said: "It's true in a way that what really matters is what a lot of people believe. That is going to shape society. "

Did you notice how I purposely marked 'scientifically.' Maybe you want that line number too. That was in the same post, the one with which you began this thread. The marks around it, generally mean something like, my italics. I wonder if this will descend into into a discussion the likes of falsified and un-falsified... (where does falsified etc come into... honestly dudes, I cba.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It's true that history can pose dilemma. And historical truths/historical facts are the weakest type of facts in the whole spectrum of facts. Anyway, I think another post in this thread is more appropriate. This one - #14

By the way, absolute certainty or "Possibilities" is a false dichotomy brother. Historians don't really work on any of these. They work on probabilities. What is more probable? But some tools can be "absolutely certain". For example, if someone does a C14 dating of an artefact, they could absolutely certain of a certain data range. Lets say there is a Bible manuscript dated to the 1st century as an example, and they have other corroborating evidence that an event mentioned in the manuscript took place in the first century, and the character called "Jesus" existed in the first century according to other sources as well, then one could be at least certain that the manuscript is date to 200 years this way or that way. Not the event's, but the dating. I have given a very very wide spectrum of years just to avoid an attack of "what absolutism".

There are some things that someone could be absolutely certain of. You were born. That's an absolute certainty. You had a great, great, great grandfather. That's an absolute certainty.

You cannot generalise everything to everything. Everything cannot be generalised.

"Probability" means uncertainty. It means, there is a possibility of false conclusion or error. This is the problem with completely relying on historical methods.

But I suggest let's consider "certainty" about Religious truth, meaning is it possibly to become absolutely certain about God and the true Religion truly?

Let's play the game backward. Suppose there is a God who is All-knowing, all-powerful, who wants people to be guided to the right path. Is it logical to think, that this God failed to provide a way to people that they become absolutly certain in their belief, and in their finding the right path?
If you say, yes, then how can He be called All-knowing, all-powerful? If you say, No, then why the certainty cannot be seen in people's belief?
For example, if a Christian thinks he found the true path in the Bible, there is no way through historical method, one can say this Book is reliable or true stories about Jesus. If a Muslim thinks he found truth through the Quran, there is no way, to even prove this Quran were really revelations of a God, or even truly all the verses that came from the mouth of Muhammad, or that Muhammad cut the moon in half. Then there is no certainty in truth of such religious beliefs. Does it mean God failed to provide a provable way of knowing the truth?

From what you seem to say, is, you say, let's go with high probability. Whatever history is more probable, let's believe in it. But, does it make sense to you, God leaves people to choose their right way, based on probabilities?

 

[firedragon]

You are asking people to be objective to facts

No.

Only God can guide to the truth and no one else can.

Fear God and soften one heart, the insights and knowledge become clear. Don't, and even the clearest of all books and clearest in signs and proofs (Quran) becomes unclear and dark and can't guide such a person.

This is why I mentioned Iblis and dark magic. To see truth is impossible without holding on to light, softening one heart, and humbling oneself to fear God.

Light of God will not ignite in a soul unless by God's permission and God doesn't change a condition of people till they change themselves.

I know you want it more of a naturalistic discussion.

The hadiths also become understood through light and practice, and light opening doors of other light and that opening other doors.

It's an easy trial, because, all God wants of us is to choose the harvest of the next world and believe in him, and he will guide us.

But this is "too hard" for polytheistic hearts and souls.

Sorry brotherman. I am not going into a theological debate about God, magic and Iblis etc.

Cheers. Thanks for engaging.