Jim
Nets of Wonder
I was serious about your roasting not being as entertaining as it is sometimes, and wondering if you aren’t feeling well.You tend to post laughable things, but not real
funny, as such.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I was serious about your roasting not being as entertaining as it is sometimes, and wondering if you aren’t feeling well.You tend to post laughable things, but not real
funny, as such.
I was serious about your roasting not being as entertaining as it is sometimes, and wondering if you aren’t feeling well.
Yes, I know that kind of person. *cough*Theists*cough*The illusion of knowing that I’m talking about is people thinking that they can’t be wrong about something that they’re saying.
to you, too.If you just find it "entertaining" to have it pointed out
when you are full of it, I guess I will put you on ig
so I wont bother with you.
I was serious asking if you are just blathering or have
something real to say.
Sorry, I was forgetting, it isn’t only for entertainment. Sometimes you really do help me see some errors in my ways, things that I’m saying or doing wrong. Sorry.If you just find it "entertaining" to have it pointed out
when you are full of it, ...
Exactly. I have been challenged on this forum as to why we imagine that even the results of corroborated observation are truly objective - and it is a valid point. After all, we all share a human perspective at the very least, which may in some way limit or bias our perception of nature.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.
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.
Exactly. I have been challenged on this forum as to why we imagine that even the results of corroborated observation are truly objective - and it is a valid point. After all, we all share a human perspective at the very least, which may in some way limit or bias our perception of nature.
I have also come across the extreme relativist view that there is no objective physical reality, since nobody can get inside somebody else's skull, i.e. all is a matter of individual perception. But I think that to do science one has to believe there is an objective physical reality "out there" to model. The predictive success of science seems to me to bear that out.
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?
Take care, Jim. It is a double edged sword.The illusion of knowing that I’m talking about is people thinking that they can’t be wrong about something that they’re saying.
Yeah, there is an objective reality of energy/space and fundamental forces, as we know today.But I think that to do science one has to believe there is an objective physical reality "out there" to model.
Caught me red-handed.Take care, Jim. It is a double edged sword.
What I’m saying is not about everything that people call “knowledge.” This is not about whether there is such a thing as objective reality or truth. What I mean by what people think they know is thinking that they can’t be wrong about something that they’re saying.My "knowledge" is experiential. What has worked for me many time, continues to work for me successfully. What doesn't work also becomes part of your knowledge. I tend to feel my knowledge of what doesn't work is often more important than what does. That why I can avoid the consequences of actions/choices that don't work.
I try to be open to ideas that may work better but also but also know of things that others think to try but for myself have already found out they don't work.
Sometimes people listen to me, sometimes they don't. Often people have to find out for themselves what does/doesn't work so I don't stand in their way.
There's no such thing as safe ground.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?
You can't generalise from Young Earth Creationism to the whole of religion, obviously.I think it is worth noting that a highest value in science is to
try to be objective, and procedures including peer review are
there to help push it that way.
Like any ideal, it cannot be fully realized but in science one
is supposed to at least try his best.
Religion requires doing the opposite.
Intellectual dishonesty is embraced as a
prime virtue.
This quote from a noted yec scientist sums it up-
, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. [
My confidence comes from logic. There are things that have to be true, like "there is no married bachelor". That is ground I can stand on.My question was for people who don’t have any views or beliefs that aren’t open to doubt or question, who don’t see any safe ground to stand on, and aren’t trying to find any. My question was, where do you think your confidence comes from, to do what you do? One possible answer that I see for me is that I’m not afraid of being wrong. I’ve faced and embraced the possibility that anything I think could be wrong.
My question was for people who don’t have any views or beliefs that aren’t open to doubt or question, who don’t see any safe ground to stand on, and aren’t trying to find any. My question was, where do you think your confidence comes from, to do what you do? One possible answer that I see for me is that I’m not afraid of being wrong. I’ve faced and embraced the possibility that anything I think could be wrong.
My question is for people who don’t have any views or beliefs that aren’t open to doubt or question, who don’t see any safe ground to stand on, and aren’t trying to find any. My question was, where do you think your confidence comes from, to do what you do? One possible answer that I see for me is that I’m not afraid of being wrong. I’ve faced and embraced the possibility that anything I think could be wrong.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.
What I’m saying is not about everything that people call “knowledge.” This is not about whether there is such a thing as objective reality or truth. What I mean by what people think they know is thinking that they can’t be wrong about something that they’re saying.