1. 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Science, religion and the truth

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by mikkel_the_dane, Mar 17, 2020.

  1. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    2,913
    Ratings:
    +570
    Facts are as irrelevant as opinion simply because they are the product of interpretation and interpretation is a product of belief.

    But underlying every fact and All physical evidence is reality and truth. While "facts" are irrelevant to science except to the degree they can lead to hypothesis or experiment design they can form the basis of models and guide observation. Usually "facts" point square at reality and its processes. They can lead to accurate modelling if they are interpreted correctly.

    I agree with you in essence except I believe this problem of seeing everything in terms of "facts" is not limited to scientific thinking. It is pervasive and results from each person attempting to be logical and having no tie to reality but only to our beliefs. We each pick and choose our facts just as we pick and choose beliefs just as we pick and choose what to wear each morning. If we could see through beliefs we'd all be naked.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,134
    Ratings:
    +573
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    What is reality? What is subjective or objective? What is truth or false?

    Here is a very interesting and relevant video content to the OP
     
  3. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    11,775
    Ratings:
    +3,200
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    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 | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

    Part 2:
    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.

    What reality and all those words mean are in a sense limited both for relative and absolute.

    Some times when we do this, we are not talking about reality as such, we are talking about how we think about reality.

    Regards
    Mikkel
     
  4. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,134
    Ratings:
    +573
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Yes, "theories of reality and cognition" all have to be exemplified somehow before we can begin to get any kind of common agreement. Theorists who just discuss theories are really of no use in this sense.

    This is why I take studies of Comparative Religion and Comparative Mythology (and even modern Cosmology) as my approaches for examples of human common cognition in general. These topics are all reality to me and I´m having no troubles in comparing these topics with each other and observe similarities or differences between ancient and modern science.

    I know :) All this is just reality too me and it makes no common sense before it is taken as a collective reality. Which is just what Comparative Religion and Mythology is all about - much more in these compared to a collective understanding in Modern Cosmology.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
Loading...