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

[Audie]

Everyone. That's a key thing to realize. It's the default mode of the mind. And it's not even easy to get around, though people imagine that they do. Psychologists take a lot of involved effort to try to eliminate biases/influences/interfering factors from their experiments, and it's not at all easy to do. They work at it, feel they did good, present their results, and soon, a year or 5 later, another group has zeroed in on another aspect of influence happening in that setting, and tries a new version with that particular one removed. And then usually, it's rinse-repeat. It's not that they don't make progress. They make excellent progress.

Basically, the picture is that the human mind just sees what it is ready to see. The effort, the good thing, is to try to find new things, that are not expected. That's another part of how I got to the attitude I lay out above in post 48.

Researchers of course try to eliminate bias.
It is a highest value, and stark necessity in scuence.

And of course, betimes, errors may be found by
originator or others later.

Earlier i coomented on the theist approach to
objectivity, illustrsted with a yec -scientist who
precisely identifies his intellectual dishonesty.

Correct me if I am wrong but the assumed and
unevidenced existence of the supernatural is
a given for any religion, and while not all evidence*
is necessarily taken to support it, none contrary
to will bevaccepted.

* eg the girl I was walking with who picked up
a leaf and said it was a sign from god symbolizing the
trinity

 

[halbhh]

Correct me if I am wrong but the assumed and
unevidenced existence of the supernatural is
a given for any religion, and while not all evidence*
is necessarily taken to support it, none contrary
to will bevaccepted.

For me, that would be the opposite of my attitude.

I reluctantly accepted, very slowly, that despite repeated testing I could not find any testable thing christ said to fail. And I tried a lot of tests, and a lot of different times and places and conditions. Eventually I had to admit that my original view was just wrong.

I had initially expected that Jesus would be just a wise man in certain ways, but idealistic, and mistaken on many things.

It would be only a matter of testing to pin down with certainty what things were mistaken, because you only need a couple of instances of counter evidence to shoot down a hypothesis/theory/proposition.

Unlike proving a hypothesis/theory, which is never finished, disproving can happen pretty fast and conclusively.

But I could not find any instance of the 4 central propositions about how to interact with other humans to ever give a bad result, but instead it was great results every time, to my considerable surprise, and to be honest, discomfort.

That made me begin to test his instructions that were about seeking God, since he'd been so wise about how to live with other people.

So, for me, any evidence to the contrary would have been immediately what I expected, and was looking for, and trying to find, and would have instantly held as centrally important and decisive.

It would have helped reach the conclusion I expected: right about some things, wrong about others.

I could have added him to my bookshelf with Lao Tzu, Emerson, Plato, James, May, Jung (and quite a few more). And been content.

The Bible would have fit nicely on the shelf of "already done" (smugly) next to Plato's The Symposium.

I would have been very content with that.

 

[Jim]

I suppose s lot of us see what we look for.

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying, only I think that they do that with research reports even more than they do with religious scriptures, and sometimes what they look for most of all is validation for their prejudices and delusions.

 

[Audie]

For me, that would be the opposite of my attitude.

I reluctantly accepted, very slowly, that despite repeated testing I could not find any testable thing christ said to fail. And I tried a lot of tests, and a lot of different times and places and conditions. Eventually I had to admit that my original view was just wrong.

I had initially expected that Jesus would be just a wise man in certain ways, but idealistic, and mistaken on many things.

It would be only a matter of testing to pin down with certainty what things were mistaken, because you only need a couple of instances of counter evidence to shoot down a hypothesis/theory/proposition.

Unlike proving a hypothesis/theory, which is never finished, disproving can happen pretty fast and conclusively.

But I could not find any instance of the 4 central propositions about how to interact with other humans to ever give a bad result, but instead it was great results every time, to my considerable surprise, and to be honest, discomfort.

That made me begin to test his instructions that were about seeking God, since he'd been so wise about how to live with other people.

So, for me, any evidence to the contrary would have been immediately what I expected, and was looking for, and trying to find, and would have instantly held as centrally important and decisive.

It would have helped reach the conclusion I expected: right about some things, wrong about others.

I could have added him to my bookshelf with Lao Tzu, Emerson, Plato, James, May, Jung (and quite a few more). And been content.

The Bible would have fit nicely on the shelf of "already done" (smugly) next to Plato's The Symposium.

I would have been very content with that.

I would be more impressed with "Jesus"
if any of the attributed wisdom had been
a unique insight. Reciting folk wisdom such
as found world wide does not strike me as a show
of the supernatural.

There is zero ecidence of anything supernatural
here there or anywhere.

It has to be assumed.

Or, of course, concocted from the
most useless "evidence" such as served
to give us the galaxy of spirits, gnomes,
elves, daemons, sptites, gods that people
past and present hold to be real.

 

[halbhh]

I would be more impressed with "Jesus"
if any of the attributed wisdom had been
a unique insight. Reciting folk wisdom such
as found world wide does not strike me as a show
of the supernatural.

There is zero ecidence of anything supernatural
here there or anywhere.

It has to be assumed.

Or, of course, concocted from the
most useless "evidence" such as served
to give us the galaxy of spirits, gnomes,
elves, daemons, sptites, gods that people
past and present hold to be real.

To find the unique things He said, simply read all He is recorded as saying in the accounts, which are not that long, and can all 4 be read in a handful of hours, though one could spend much longer understanding it all, of course, like the Tao. I've the feeling it's not going to be...best for me to simply isolate some quotes of of their full context for you.

It's valuable to become aware that you'd learn little to nothing of what He said past a few famous things from the average preacher. He simply goes over most heads of average preachers, it seems, on so many things. Partly because they have the serious error of imagining they already know what He said.

That's such a profound handicap, to think one already knows everything. It accounts for why they do so poorly conveying much that He said.

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

In order to function, we all have to make some assumptions about reality.

 

[Audie]

To find the unique things He said, simply read all He is recorded as saying in the accounts, which are not that long, and can all 4 be read in a handful of hours, though one could spend much longer understanding it all, of course, like the Tao. I've the feeling it's not going to be...best for me to simply isolate some quotes of of their full context for you.

It's valuable to become aware that you'd learn little to nothing of what He said past a few famous things from the average preacher. He simply goes over most heads of average preachers, it seems, on so many things. Partly because they have the serious error of imagining they already know what He said.

That's such a profound handicap, to think one already knows everything. It accounts for why they do so poorly conveying much that He said.

Yes, "knowing" that "god" actually exists, and that
one lucked into the right god and the correct subset
of interpretation re that god is a most terrible
handicap, and very injurious both to the individual
and society.

I trust you are not one such and dont suggest that
I think I "know everything".

Dont assume I have not read the bible and every word Jesus
uttered ( supposedly said).

If there is some special unique godly wisdom there,
it sure is not apparent. It has all the features of
folk wisdom, codified and attributed to a law-giver.
( common enough, as any with a bit of
cultural anthropology well knows)

So are tales of magical cures.

If you cannot or will not identfy anything
distinguishing about "Jesus teachings / wisdom",
fine, we can leave it here.

I dont think anyone can do it- it is like my
request that a creationist provide one fact
contrary to theory of evolution. It is not
a fair question as there is no such fact.

ETA I decided to check...nobody know how
many of Jesus' words are in the bible.
1026? 2024? 82% of what is attributed are
not his- recorded verbatim decades later not
credible-

 

[halbhh]

Yes, "knowing" that "god" actually exists, and that
one lucked into the right god and the correct subset
of interpretation re that god is a most terrible
handicap, and very injurious both to the individual
and society.

I trust you are not one such and dont oresent that
I think I "know everything".

Dont assume I have not read the bible and every word
uttered ( supposedly said).

If there is some special unique godly wisdom there,
it sure is not appsrent. It has all the features of
folk wisdom, codified and attributed to a law-giver.
( common enough, as any who know a bit of
cultural anthropology well know)

So are tales of magical cures.

If you cannot or will not identfy anything
distinguishing about "Jesus teachings / wisdom",
fine, we can leave it here.

I dont think anyone can do it- it is like my
request that a creationist provide one fact
contrary to theory of evolution. It is not
a fair question as there is no such fact.

"Truths" about how to live simply are whatever is the best possible way to live among competing ways. Yes?

So, that should suggest to us that these truths, dependent only on human nature alone (that constant set of general human attributes we all share in common, from our genome) could easily be likely to be discovered over and over, found the world over, in most any time and place/culture, at least some of them, and over time quite a few.

Right?

It's a mistake though to imagine this means that there cannot be a teacher that is wiser and better at conveying those truths about how to live. Someone able to give them in a more complete and perfect form, in each instance of a particular thing, such as 'forgiveness' for instance. It would be very handicapping to feel one cannot learn from good teachers.

So, I read Christ, just like Lao Tzu or Emerson or Jung, etc., in order to learn. For gain.

Ideally, you want to divorce prejudices from the past, people you knew with various errors and wrongs, and just learn what you can for your own gain -- that's my view.

I merely present this as a better way to gain things rapidly.

One of the things about Lao Tzu or even moreso Christ though -- if you think you already know it all, then you very likely have let something like impatience or emotions about people cloud your perception. He's just deeper than we get on the first or 2nd reading.

But that's not something we have to worry about. I just read to learn. It works.

 

[Audie]

In order to function, we all have to make some assumptions about reality.

Right!
But what we take as given, and why is kinda significant.

Supernatural is an awful big unevidenced assumption.

 

[Audie]

"Truths" about how to live simply are whatever is the best possible way to live among competing ways. Yes?

So, that should suggest to us that these truths, dependent only on human nature alone (that constant set of general human attributes we all share in common, from our genome) could easily be likely to be discovered over and over, found the world over, in most any time and place/culture, at least some of them, and over time quite a few.

Right?

It's a mistake though to imagine this means that there cannot be a teacher that is wiser and better at conveying those truths about how to live. Someone able to give them in a more complete and perfect form, in each instance of a particular thing, such as 'forgiveness' for instance. It would be very handicapping to feel one cannot learn from good teachers.

So, I read Christ, just like Lao Tzu or Emerson or Jung, etc., in order to learn. For gain.

Ideally, you want to divorce prejudices from the past, people you knew with various errors and wrongs, and just learn what you can for your own gain -- that's my view.

I merely present this as a better way to gain things rapidly.

One of the things about Lao Tzu or even moreso Christ though -- if you think you already know it all, then you very likely have let something like impatience or emotions about people cloud your perception. He's just deeper than we get on the first or 2nd reading.

But that's not something we have to worry about. I just read to learn. It works.

Again, skip the nonsense about me assuming i know everything,
which might be applied with more truth and less calumny
to yourself!

In the event, if Jesus actually succeeded in rephrasing
a lot of folk wisdom to improved wording, that is terrif,
but not super deep, still less suprrnatural. None of it
translates well to Chinese btw so...

Anyway, you have not shown me anything he supposedly
said that seems like more than rrphrasing the golden
rule, so unless you can, lets drop it.

 

[Milton Platt]

Right!
But what we take as given, and why is kinda significant.

Supernatural is an awful big unevidenced assumption.

Yes, I don't include supernatural as a part of our reality. I find no reason to believe it is or ever was.

 

[Milton Platt]

For me, that would be the opposite of my attitude.

I reluctantly accepted, very slowly, that despite repeated testing I could not find any testable thing christ said to fail. And I tried a lot of tests, and a lot of different times and places and conditions. Eventually I had to admit that my original view was just wrong.

I had initially expected that Jesus would be just a wise man in certain ways, but idealistic, and mistaken on many things.

It would be only a matter of testing to pin down with certainty what things were mistaken, because you only need a couple of instances of counter evidence to shoot down a hypothesis/theory/proposition.

Unlike proving a hypothesis/theory, which is never finished, disproving can happen pretty fast and conclusively.

But I could not find any instance of the 4 central propositions about how to interact with other humans to ever give a bad result, but instead it was great results every time, to my considerable surprise, and to be honest, discomfort.

That made me begin to test his instructions that were about seeking God, since he'd been so wise about how to live with other people.

So, for me, any evidence to the contrary would have been immediately what I expected, and was looking for, and trying to find, and would have instantly held as centrally important and decisive.

It would have helped reach the conclusion I expected: right about some things, wrong about others.

I could have added him to my bookshelf with Lao Tzu, Emerson, Plato, James, May, Jung (and quite a few more). And been content.

The Bible would have fit nicely on the shelf of "already done" (smugly) next to Plato's The Symposium.

I would have been very content with that.

Much of what the Bible claims Jesus said were simple evident truths and many had already been stated by others in other cultures before him. Some of what he said are ruinous if followed. Telling a slave to be content to be a slave and to obey his master even if it is a cruel master? Instead of condemning slavery? Give no thought to tomorrow??? Incredibly stupid thing to do.

 

[halbhh]

might be applied with more truth and less calumny
to yourself!

I apply it almost every day. It's a kind of ongoing practice. I'm sorry if it seemed I was singling you out! I think this is what everyone has to do, not just Stanley or Jane or Ralph, but 100% of us. Sorry if that came across as only for you somehow. Instead, I was simply trying to discuss with you. Tomorrow it will be someone else. But I think it's helpful to be better at making it clear I'm talking about universal things we all need, not just some of us.

In the event, if Jesus actually succeeded in rephrasing
a lot of folk wisdom to improved wording, that is terrif,
but not super deep,

Both. Both simple, obvious things, and deeper things.

Anyway, you have not shown me anything he supposedly
said that seems like more than rrphrasing the golden
rule, so unless you can, lets drop it.

Ok. I'm hoping you got a hint there is more, but I definitely don't think I can convey that more to you right now though. My experience is I only learned the more, the deeper, when I listened. (when I was the one who took that total listening attitude) Never from some other person.

 

[halbhh]

Some of what he said are ruinous if followed.

That's an interesting hypothesis.

I've followed everything He said now that I can find, but instead of being ruined, my life has been going very well, and good additionally in whole new ways I never even imagined when younger also.

So, somehow you got a wrong idea, or I misunderstood something He said. From experience, I kinda know now, at this point, after decades, it's the former.

 

[Milton Platt]

That's an interesting hypothesis.

I've followed everything He said now that I can find, but instead of being ruined, my life has been going very well, and good additionally in whole new ways I never even imagined when younger also.

So, somehow you got a wrong idea, or I misunderstood something He said. From experience, I kinda know now, at this point, after decades, it's the former.

Mathew 6:34 "Give no thought for the morrow........." do you completely not plan for your future? A ruinous idea.

 

[halbhh]

Mathew 6:34 "Give no thought for the morrow........." do you completely not plan for your future? A ruinous idea.

Yes, but mind you, you won't know just precisely what that says unless you read that whole passage fully with real listening, to get the way he meant it, and for some aspects, it won't be fully understood in those some other aspects unless one reads with faith. So, there are several things, and different levels, in passages of his words, typically. Here for this sentence, the full passage isn't only verses 25-34, but instead verses 19-34, and also with it as a given one is doing as instructed in verses 9-13 also. So....in general, you won't understand isolated verses, and not even if some preacher preached on it. Not enough. Instead, it requires a full reading, with a real listening, and that's not what most have done yet that have done some reading. But here's a helpful hint (to anyone really curious) -- it definitely is not saying you shouldn't ever plan for tomorrow. (and one learns that pretty fast even from the less than full reading of only the shorter passage)

 

[Jim]

Everyone. That's a key thing to realize. It's the default mode of the mind. And it's not even easy to get around, though people imagine that they do. Psychologists take a lot of involved effort to try to eliminate biases/influences/interfering factors from their experiments, and it's not at all easy to do. They work at it, feel they did good, present their results, and soon, a year or 5 later, another group has zeroed in on another aspect of influence happening in that setting, and tries a new version with that particular one removed. And then usually, it's rinse-repeat. It's not that they don't make progress. They make excellent progress.

Basically, the picture is that the human mind just sees what it is ready to see. The effort, the good thing, is to try to find new things, that are not expected. That's another part of how I got to the attitude I lay out above in post 48.

One way that I try to free myself from any prejudices and delusions that I might have without being aware of them is by trying to see truth and value in ideas and interests contrary to mine.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. since I mostly view them as all the same (products of the human mind) and with as many deficits as in having any benefits. Mostly I don't see any benefits, and I can live with doubt quite comfortably apparently.

This is because you have not come across Eastern religions. Of course, one can live without Gods (I do). The benefit is clear vision.

One way that I try to free myself from any prejudices and delusions that I might have without being aware of them is by trying to see truth and value in ideas and interests contrary to mine.

The question is - Why should you start with a wrong belief? - that there is a One God and that he has sent prophets / sons / messengers / manifestastions / mahdis with new and newer messages. You start with a wrong premise and then try to correct it. All your problems are because you made a false start.

I’m not talking about everything that people call “knowledge.” I’m talking about people having views and beliefs that aren’t open to question, or thinking that they have some safe ground to stand on in their opposition to some views or beliefs of others.

My safe ground is science and my beliefs are always open to question. It is only the Abrahamics who have no evidence but even then are not open to question.

We can be sure we exist, applying cogito ergo sum, but all else is the result of perception, ..

You are a chemist. You know that even that is not correct. What you term as your 'self' is just a collection of molecules, and that in turn is just energy.

False.

Jim has nothing to do with science. What he has to do is only with "Kitab-e-Iqan" or "Al-Kitab Al-Aqdas" written around 1850 by an Iranian who knew nothing of science even of his age.

 

[Jim]

The question is - Why should you start with a wrong belief? - that there is a One God and that he has sent prophets / sons / messengers / manifestastions / mahdis with new and newer messages. You start with a wrong premise and then try to correct it. All your problems are because you made a false start.

My God, and His appearances and offspring in human form, are not beliefs or premises. They are purely metaphorical.

“If it works, do it.” “Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.” “Try it, try it, you will see. You may like it in a tree!”

 

[Jim]

The question is - Why should you start with a wrong belief? - that there is a One God and that he has sent prophets / sons / messengers / manifestastions / mahdis with new and newer messages.

Do you not see how much contempt you are displaying for most of the world’s Hindus?