What on Earth is a "Uniquely Religious Truth"?

Is "Religion" here based up "congregation," or "sangha" or "gathering?" Is it referring to the social construct/nomos?

The social construct/nomos can be referred to either a "mara/demon" or "christ consciousness/brahmavihara" (as well as by other names,) depending on whether the contents of the group consciousness is delusional (mara) or truthful (christ/brahmavihara.)

If this is the case, then the Kalama Sutta is a handy guide for discerning "religious truth."

Sunstone said:

Thread questions...

Are there really such things as truths that can only be demonstrated to be truths by uniquely religious means?​

If so, what are those means? On what grounds do they have epistemic validity?​

......
My opinion (if anyone happens to be interested)...

Seems to me when people speak of "uniquely religious truths", they are most often clueless as to how those truths can be established apart from what in the end boils down to some method that is indistinguishable from mere whim.

Again, I fail to see how uniquely religious truths are any more a real thing than uniquely male truths, or uniquely Tory truths, or uniquely scientific truths, or uniquely stray dog truths. Either a thing is true or it is not true. The statement, "There is snow on the ground", is either true or it is not true. That is, there is one and only one set of means, procedures, techniques, etc for establishing whether the statement is true or false. There are not multiple sets with one set being "secular" and another set being "religious" and a third set being "female" and a fourth set being "feral kittens". What works to establish truth and falsehood, works universally to establish truth and falsehood.
_______________________
"Truth" in the context of this OP is being defined according to a modified version of the Correspondence Theory. For those of you to whom it matters. Also, No Surrender to Deflationism! Death before Dishonor!


......
And now, in a futile effort to make it up to you for such a boring OP....

Click to expand...

The assertion that "either a thing is true or it is not true" is not true.

When it comes to connecting personal meaning to objective reality we need to recognize that reality is not rule based. Even objective reality, on its own, won't fully obey being neatly categorized into rational linguistic constructions.

Saying something like "There is snow on the ground" is such a small and inconsequential statement that it is highly misleading to use it as a stand in for all types of statements about truth. Once personal integrity and meaning as well as any sort of comprehensive rational understanding comes into the picture, mystery, logical incongruity naturally arises in all forms of knowledge. As such a thing is always both true and not true simultaneously.

What is simple, inconsequential can be seen as objective easily.

What is less so may be compensated for by the establishment of a standard of reference.

Beyond that and to the extent that a concept is potentially consequential to life or liberty or meaning it requires an understanding that transcends rationality.

Religious truth arises as a compensatory balance to merely practical, sensory truth. It is the perception of possibility that contextualizes what we take to be the actual.

@Aupmanyav and @LuisDantas , to keep this simple and manageable, suppose someone comes to the three of us saying that the statement, "The cat in my yard is god", is a uniquely religious truth.

Now when we ask them what makes that statement a "uniquely religious truth", they tell us something along the lines of it is a truth known to their religion, but not to science. Or perhaps they say, we must first accept their religion in order to know that the cat in their yard is god. Something like that.

Of course if someone were to say such things to us, we could ask what is the means, procedure, or technique by which it can be known that the cat in their yard is god. At that point we could -- given their bold claims -- expect them to produce a means, procedure, or technique for asserting the cat is god that both (1) works and (2) is unique to their religion (or at least, unique to religion in general).

Now, what I am saying in the OP is that they will not be able to do that. The nearest I can think of to something that might fit here, is for them to say "I know the cat is god by means of faith". But I would argue that faith does not work as a means of establishing the truth or falsity of something. Faith tells us what someone trusts is true, but it does not tell us what is true.

In short, I know of no reason for asserting there are uniquely religious truths.

I hope this helps.

Darkforbid said:

Your belief in blood magic I would of thought

Click to expand...

Hm...where did you discover I have a belief in blood magic?

Guitar's Cry said:

Hm...where did you discover I have a belief in blood magic?

Click to expand...

Your profile

Darkforbid said:

Your profile

Click to expand...

Interesting...specifically?

It depends on how we define religion, but I'd say imo, it's if that truth changes you and your life, for the better. Religion doesn't have to be confined to rituals, or cult-like behaviors. But, it could be symbolic of an objective truth that we have come to accept.

Sunstone said:

In short, I know of no reason for asserting there are uniquely religious truths.

Click to expand...

My view is that Brahman is nothing other than 'physical energy', and that is what science says we started with.

Sunstone said:

Thread questions...

Are there really such things as truths that can only be demonstrated to be truths by uniquely religious means?​

If so, what are those means? On what grounds do they have epistemic validity?​

......
My opinion (if anyone happens to be interested)...

Seems to me when people speak of "uniquely religious truths", they are most often clueless as to how those truths can be established apart from what in the end boils down to some method that is indistinguishable from mere whim.

Again, I fail to see how uniquely religious truths are any more a real thing than uniquely male truths, or uniquely Tory truths, or uniquely scientific truths, or uniquely stray dog truths. Either a thing is true or it is not true. The statement, "There is snow on the ground", is either true or it is not true. That is, there is one and only one set of means, procedures, techniques, etc for establishing whether the statement is true or false. There are not multiple sets with one set being "secular" and another set being "religious" and a third set being "female" and a fourth set being "feral kittens". What works to establish truth and falsehood, works universally to establish truth and falsehood.
_______________________
"Truth" in the context of this OP is being defined according to a modified version of the Correspondence Theory. For those of you to whom it matters. Also, No Surrender to Deflationism! Death before Dishonor!


......
And now, in a futile effort to make it up to you for such a boring OP....

Click to expand...

When you lack a specific religion to guide you on your path, you end up trapped in nonsense. Case in point, I heard someone talk about feral kittens in the same breath as religion.

I would venture to say that there is no truth unique to religion. In fact, this is what I'd insist just ten years ago. However, increasingly I've realized that philosophy, logic, and real science are the domain of religion. After participation in a flat Earth thread and noticing that despite the people there supposed to be good at science, they couldn't explain to me how Earth rotates 66k mph and none of us feel it, or how a rounded shape can even hold water, or how space travel is possible (easy if the Earth doesn't move and is a flat shape, but we'd need flying saucers (because of circular aerodynamics) and the ability to match the speed of Earth's orbit to keep from being flung into a crash landing or hit by the Earth), I noticed just how little connection to real reason these ppl have.

Sunstone said:

Thread questions...

Are there really such things as truths that can only be demonstrated to be truths by uniquely religious means?​

If so, what are those means? On what grounds do they have epistemic validity?​

......
My opinion (if anyone happens to be interested)...

Seems to me when people speak of "uniquely religious truths", they are most often clueless as to how those truths can be established apart from what in the end boils down to some method that is indistinguishable from mere whim.

Again, I fail to see how uniquely religious truths are any more a real thing than uniquely male truths, or uniquely Tory truths, or uniquely scientific truths, or uniquely stray dog truths. Either a thing is true or it is not true. The statement, "There is snow on the ground", is either true or it is not true. That is, there is one and only one set of means, procedures, techniques, etc for establishing whether the statement is true or false. There are not multiple sets with one set being "secular" and another set being "religious" and a third set being "female" and a fourth set being "feral kittens". What works to establish truth and falsehood, works universally to establish truth and falsehood.
_______________________
"Truth" in the context of this OP is being defined according to a modified version of the Correspondence Theory. For those of you to whom it matters. Also, No Surrender to Deflationism! Death before Dishonor!


......
And now, in a futile effort to make it up to you for such a boring OP....

Click to expand...

Does anyone in fact speak of "uniquely religious truths"? Or is this a speculative exercise in what such a concept might mean, if it were to be used?

exchemist said:

Does anyone in fact speak of "uniquely religious truths"? Or is this a speculative exercise in what such a concept might mean, if it were to be used?

Click to expand...

Have you never heard anyone go on about their being privy to some truth -- such as that god exists -- by virtue of their faith in god? It happens on this very forum. And that's just one example.

Sunstone said:

Have you never heard anyone go on about their being privy to some truth -- such as that god exists -- by virtue of their faith in god? It happens on this very forum. And that's just one example.

Click to expand...

Oh I see. Well yes, Christianity does speak of "truths", though I have never come across anyone referring to them as "uniquely religious". But now I think I understand what you mean.

I must say the use of the term in this sort of context always makes me wince. When something is described as a "truth", I always suspect it must be questionable, on the "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" principle. It is rather like the "People's" "Democratic" republic of somewhere - if they need to assert it, you can almost guarantee it will be neither of these things.

The "truths" of Christianity seem to me to be always propositions or assertions to do with the faith, all of them far from being demonstrably "true" in any objective way.

I tend rather to shy away from claiming "truth", unless in mathematical or logical results or for demonstrable empirical facts. I am used to working with models of physical reality that are at best only "true" in a provisional sense. I take religious ideas in much the same spirit (no pun intended).

Due to the fact truth is universal and eternal, you can only prove the archetype of it, while you have to witness yourself the instances of it.

The Quran proves there is always a family of the reminder and that even if Mohamad and his family were not the last instance of that, there would be one so much so that the Quran proves beyond doubt that Mohammad and his followers by this logic, would have to seek it.

This way, it remains a guidance no matter what. It proves for example there is a Guide and Witness to our inner states and deeds in all times. Whether Mohamad was that Guide needs more work, but it proves that.

It proves the Twelve successors, but to know who is who, and that Mohammad is true, it takes reasoning to know:

(1) No other structure makes sense but this one (rope of God - book/revelation to humans from God and a family of that reminder)
(2) All religions have demolished God's plan with respect to this structure except "this and that" instance.
(3) Mohamad and his family and Quran fulfilling this structure and are the authority to hold on to.

This how I came back to Islam actually.

sealchan said:

The assertion that "either a thing is true or it is not true" is not true.

When it comes to connecting personal meaning to objective reality we need to recognize that reality is not rule based. Even objective reality, on its own, won't fully obey being neatly categorized into rational linguistic constructions.

Saying something like "There is snow on the ground" is such a small and inconsequential statement that it is highly misleading to use it as a stand in for all types of statements about truth. Once personal integrity and meaning as well as any sort of comprehensive rational understanding comes into the picture, mystery, logical incongruity naturally arises in all forms of knowledge. As such a thing is always both true and not true simultaneously.

What is simple, inconsequential can be seen as objective easily.

What is less so may be compensated for by the establishment of a standard of reference.

Beyond that and to the extent that a concept is potentially consequential to life or liberty or meaning it requires an understanding that transcends rationality.

Religious truth arises as a compensatory balance to merely practical, sensory truth. It is the perception of possibility that contextualizes what we take to be the actual.

Click to expand...

That smacks of obscurantism.
Could you just give a example of a religious truth?

Samantha Rinne said:

After participation in a flat Earth thread and noticing that despite the people there supposed to be good at science, they couldn't explain to me how Earth rotates 66k mph and none of us feel it, or how a rounded shape can even hold water, or how space travel is possible (easy if the Earth doesn't move and is a flat shape, but we'd need flying saucers (because of circular aerodynamics) and the ability to match the speed of Earth's orbit to keep from being flung into a crash landing or hit by the Earth), I noticed just how little connection to real reason these ppl have.

Click to expand...

Plz take into account that they also would not be
able to explain integral calculus to you.

Audie said:

That smacks of obscurantism.
Could you just give a example of a religious truth?

Click to expand...

Inserting a Creator God into the mystery of the origins of the Universe

Believing in karma and reincarnation or any other system of an afterlife

Believing in our individual existence as a soul or a consciousness with free will

This obscuratism is allowed in my book when rationality is perplexed. As I hope you know, I am not a science-denier so the level at which my spiritual truths begin must meet an at least decent standard of scientific knowledge.

sealchan said:

Inserting a Creator God into the mystery of the origins of the Universe

Believing in karma and reincarnation or any other system of an afterlife

Believing in our individual existence as a soul or a consciousness with free will

This obscuratism is allowed in my book when rationality is perplexed. As I hope you know, I am not a science-denier so the level at which my spiritual truths begin must meet an at least decent standard of scientific knowledge.

Click to expand...

Some other word besides "truth" is needed, then,
because the things you mention seem to have nothing
to do with truth.

Obscurantism is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known.

Why would you want to engage in that, and how do you
expect others to have any respect for the practice?

sealchan said:

Inserting a Creator God into the mystery of the origins of the Universe.
Believing in karma and reincarnation or any other system of an afterlife.
Believing in our individual existence as a soul or a consciousness with free will.

Click to expand...

In Hinduism, it is individual's choice to believe or not believe in any or all of these. I do not believe in any of them, except 'karma' of this life, i.e., most of the time, we will confront the results of our action - legally, socially or psychologically.

Sunstone said:

Thread questions...

Are there really such things as truths that can only be demonstrated to be truths by uniquely religious means?​

If so, what are those means? On what grounds do they have epistemic validity?​

......
My opinion (if anyone happens to be interested)...

Seems to me when people speak of "uniquely religious truths", they are most often clueless as to how those truths can be established apart from what in the end boils down to some method that is indistinguishable from mere whim.

Again, I fail to see how uniquely religious truths are any more a real thing than uniquely male truths, or uniquely Tory truths, or uniquely scientific truths, or uniquely stray dog truths. Either a thing is true or it is not true. The statement, "There is snow on the ground", is either true or it is not true. That is, there is one and only one set of means, procedures, techniques, etc for establishing whether the statement is true or false. There are not multiple sets with one set being "secular" and another set being "religious" and a third set being "female" and a fourth set being "feral kittens". What works to establish truth and falsehood, works universally to establish truth and falsehood.
_______________________
"Truth" in the context of this OP is being defined according to a modified version of the Correspondence Theory. For those of you to whom it matters. Also, No Surrender to Deflationism! Death before Dishonor!


......
And now, in a futile effort to make it up to you for such a boring OP....

Click to expand...

how about....?

there MUST be Someone Greater than me

Audie said:

Some other word besides "truth" is needed, then,
because the things you mention seem to have nothing
to do with truth.

Obscurantism is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known.

Why would you want to engage in that, and how do you
expect others to have any respect for the practice?

Click to expand...

Your approach seems to only acknowledge that truth arises from what is actual and separate from one's own needs and understandings. That is very similar to how some extreme literalist Christians see the truth of the Bible. "Not of man's thinking, but God's," they might say. "Not of my thinking, but of science's," says some extreme atheists perhaps. Those sorts of people should only read textbooks unless they fall victim to the perverse pleasures of fiction and other forms of fantasy. Sometimes they excuse their vice with the magic word "entertainment" but fail to explain why so much money keeps pouring into the entertainment industry.

What I am saying is that unavoidably our psyches require that we find meaning. Truth, of a scientific nature, very often isn't available in many situations to provide us with that meaning. Where it is absent I say it is very useful to imagine truths that serve to give us the meaning we need. This imagining need not be a self-deluded literalistic belief but rather should be a thought-provoking, inspired exploration of possibility through any number of artistic mediums. It should start where our current science ends. It should be regularly altered, approached from many different and conflicting views

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty" John Keats

“We don’t need television, as long as we have our … imagination,” Spongebob Squarepants