Do religious people get it backwards?

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't understand what you mean....

What do you mean with all versions of truth?

All versions of truths are cognitive. You can point to say a dog based on certain set of assumptions. But you can't point to truth. Truth is a set of rule in your brain/mind.
All versions of truth, which claim to know what the world is independent, are based on cognitive beliefs taking for granted.

3. The definition of relativism

There is no general agreed upon definition of cognitive relativism. Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:

• “Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
• “The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
• “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
• “There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
• “There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)

...
Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
...
https://iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3

We are playing cognitive relativism, We believe in different versions of truth and you believe that yours is the correct one for all humans. It is not. We have different versions of truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I wouldn't agree with that. Because rationality is connected to reason and logic. And in order to be logic, I fail to see how you could do this purely by being subjective... how would you make a logic assessment, if you are simply guessing?

See above.

 

[Nimos]

Is there validity or credit given to those whose evidence is not based on objective support? Are there other reasons or evidences in which we can believe something and be rational about it without needing solely objective evidence to validate whether or not it should be believed?

Lets assume we are in an old house together at night. And suddenly we hear a glass in one of the other rooms fall to the ground and smash. Instantly I jump to the conclusion that it must have been a ghost, because we are the only ones in the house and was nowhere near the glass. Now would you agree that it is the only possible explanation for the glass breaking?

So is it rational of me to jump to such conclusion based on what we experienced?

 

[Nimos]

Is your question "CAN IT BE VERIFIED AS TRUE" or as you have stated in your OP "have they just got it backwards"?

What I was asking is whether or not, you believe the Quran to be true and then looking for evidence to support it. Or did you find evidence, which can be verified and therefore reached the conclusion that it was true?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lets assume we are in an old house together at night. And suddenly we hear a glass in one of the other rooms fall to the ground and smash. Instantly I jump to the conclusion that it must have been a ghost, because we are the only ones in the house and was nowhere near the glass. Now would you agree that it is the only possible explanation for the glass breaking?

So is it rational of me to jump to such conclusion based on what we experienced?

Could you try something else?

If I can make sense of me believing in God, can it then be rational for me and irrational for you?

How would you check that? How would you check that your version of rationality is the only one possible? How would you verify with evidence, that your thinking is correct and mine incorrect?

 

[Nimos]

All versions of truths are cognitive. You can point to say a dog based on certain set of assumptions. But you can't point to truth. Truth is a set of rule in your brain/mind.
All versions of truth, which claim to know what the world is independent, are based on cognitive beliefs taking for granted.

So is gravity true, and is there any good reason to believe that it is?

We are playing cognitive relativism, We believe in different versions of truth and you believe that yours is the correct one for all humans. It is not. We have different versions of truth.

We might convince ourselves that we know the truth. Like I might be convinced that ghosts are real and you are convinced that they aint. Does that tell us anything about what is actually true and is it therefore truth we are even talking about?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What I was asking is whether or not, you believe the Quran to be true and then looking for evidence to support it. Or did you find evidence, which can be verified and therefore reached the conclusion that it was true?

You have to show that your version of evidence, verification and rationality is the only one possible for the world. It is not, because other humans in fact think and feel differently than you. It is observable and with evidence and verification a fact and true, that I can believe in God and that I do so. It is a part of how this world works and natural and real. After all I am doing it now.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So is gravity true, and is there any good reason to believe that it is?
...

So gravity is all of the world and the world is gravity?

 

[firedragon]

What I was asking is whether or not, you believe the Quran to be true and then looking for evidence to support it. Or did you find evidence, which can be verified and therefore reached the conclusion that it was true?

Ah. You are asking me a personal question. See Nimos, my answer won't satisfy you.

The answer is "I found evidence which can be verified and therefore reached the conclusion that it was true" (though I have no clue what you mean by this word "true")

Now if you want to ask question like what I found, then debate on those matters, it's completely irrelevant to this thread so you can maybe open another thread for that discussion.

 

[Nimos]

If I can make sense of me believing in God, can it then be rational for me and irrational for you?

Sure you can convince yourself that God is real. However im not convinced that I would call it to be rational to do so, because that would require you to be logical about it as well. But I don't see how you would logically reach the conclusion that God is real?

How would you check that? How would you check that your version of rationality is the only one possible? How would you verify with evidence, that your thinking is correct and mine incorrect?

You could do that through the lack of evidence, if you came to me and said, "Ghosts are real, I know it." then I would ask you to present evidence for them. And since you couldn't, I would say that my position of not believing in ghosts are more rational than yours.

 

[Nimos]

You have to show that your version of evidence, verification and rationality is the only one possible for the world. It is not, because other humans in fact think and feel differently than you. It is observable and with evidence and verification a fact and true, that I can believe in God and that I do so. It is a part of how this world works and natural and real. After all I am doing it now.

I don't see how that is relevant for what I wrote, I asked a question. I didn't make a statement. So let me quote it here again:

What I was asking is whether or not, you believe the Quran to be true and then looking for evidence to support it. Or did you find evidence, which can be verified and therefore reached the conclusion that it was true?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...But I don't see how you would logically reach the conclusion that God is real?
...

Okay, I can either believe in God or not. I can't at the same time and in the same sense believe and not believe. How does it tell me with logic alone if I should believe or not believe?
BTW what is real?

 

[Nimos]

So gravity is all of the world and the world is gravity?

What?

No, is gravity real and do you perceive it as being a truth that it exist, or do you disagree with it?

You wrote this:
We are playing cognitive relativism, We believe in different versions of truth and you believe that yours is the correct one for all humans. It is not. We have different versions of truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't see how that is relevant for what I wrote, I asked a question. I didn't make a statement. So let me quote it here again:

What I was asking is whether or not, you believe the Quran to be true and then looking for evidence to support it. Or did you find evidence, which can be verified and therefore reached the conclusion that it was true?

I don't accept your subjective version of evidence relevant for me.

 

[Nimos]

The answer is "I found evidence which can be verified and therefore reached the conclusion that it was true" (though I have no clue what you mean by this word "true")

How did you get by these evidence and how did you verify them?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What?

No, is gravity real and do you perceive it as being a truth that it exist, or do you disagree with it?

You wrote this:
We are playing cognitive relativism, We believe in different versions of truth and you believe that yours is the correct one for all humans. It is not. We have different versions of truth.

I don't believe in real like you do. I do truth as pragmatic. My beliefs appear to work for me and it seems to work for me to believe in gravity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How did you get by these evidence and how did you verify them?

As long as you show no willingness to consider other forms of truth than your own, we won't get any further.
Start with coherence, pragmatic and deflationary theories of truth. I use all 3 depending on what is going on. I also use in a limited sense correspondence, but only in a limited sense.
Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Logic is something else, though.

 

[Nimos]

Okay, I can either believe in God or not. I can't at the same time and in the same sense believe and not believe. How does it tell me with logic alone if I should believe or not believe?
BTW what is real?

What I mean is, lets assume you believe in God of the bible. So here we have a book talking about God, you believe it. But how did you verify that what is written in the book is true, which then made you jump to the conclusion that this belief is sound?

We can only determine what is most likely true by relying on evidence, and the better we are at verifying these.

 

[Nimos]

I don't believe in real like you do. I do truth as pragmatic. My beliefs appear to work for me and it seems to work for me to believe in gravity.

But in that case we have no common ground to even start discussing anything. Because if we can even remotely agree on what defines reality or anything else for that matter, then its rather pointless as we would be constantly talk past each other using different definitions.

 

[Nimos]

As long as you show no willingness to consider other forms of truth than your own, we won't get any further.

Present all the forms of truth you talk about and what methods you use to verify these as being truth? Just so I know what you are talking about and so we have a common understanding.