What on Earth is a "Uniquely Religious Truth"?

[Link]

Well said Sealchan.

 

[Link]

God is only perceived through out limitations, we are veiled. No one doesn't see Him, no one truly sees Him. Every beauty, every pleasure, every greatness, is found in him, but no one possess all the treasures of God. We have some treasures, some sustenance from him, not even Mohamad has all the treasures of God in a limited form, but rather, he has some treasures like all of us have some treasures.

We can only see truth from a limited perspective, from our own understanding of meaning and our own level of love, and love assesses all things, but our love is not the level of God's love which is absolute vision of all things in himself.

What has to be seen beyond doubt is that no matter what meaning a person has, and what limit they have, and what love they have and what value they have, it's all Eternal as it stems from the Eternal source and is created in truth from his light/vision.

 

[sealchan]

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.

I had noted several months ago in a thread that anyone with a religious affiliation has at least one appeal to some sort of faith-based or miraculous reality and that they tend to view that as literally true. Otherwise they might not consider themselves to be religious. I called this the "anchor" of faith as it tries to anchor the purely spiritual belief into the practical and actual reality.

In this scientific age we seem to be overwhelmed by the idea that all truth is objective and subjectivity is a lie. This makes the anchor of faith an absolute necessity in the minds of those who see a value of faith in their lives but are also enamored of the spell of the scientific.

I see in Hinduism a very healthy distancing from literalism in the customized approach that is allowed for individuals as far as how they worship and what they believe. I believe either you or someone else mentioned that it is possible even to be an atheist and Hindu. For such people I wonder if they have any supernatural beliefs at all or how they might characterize their appreciation of their faith without claiming to any degree of literality behind their acceptance of the supernatural.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe either you or someone else mentioned that it is possible even to be an atheist and Hindu. For such people I wonder if they have any supernatural beliefs at all or how they might characterize their appreciation of their faith without claiming to any degree of literality behind their acceptance of the supernatural.

Yeah, I am one of those people. Atheist and Hindu. I do not have any supernatural beliefs. Of course, there is one thing for which we/science do not have answers till now. All things have a cause. So, what is the cause of existence of Brahman? It appears that for Brahman (or what one would term as 'what exits'), there is a state in which it does not exist. Of course, nothing would exist at such a time.

 

[sealchan]

Yeah, I am one of those people. Atheist and Hindu. I do not have any supernatural beliefs. Of course, there is one thing for which we/science do not have answers till now. All things have a cause. So, what is the cause of existence of Brahman? It appears that for Brahman (or what one would term as 'what exits'), there is a state in which it does not exist. Of course, nothing would exist at such a time.

I think that this mystery can be translated out of the problem of First Cause (translated, not solved) if we use the metaphor of the Moebius strip whose opposite sides, in a Yin-Yang (Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate) sort of way, are actually both opposites AND one and the same thing. Existence and non-existence then are merely two aspects of reality observed from two different perspectives within the "expanse" of our language imagined as a space. Traversing, in a comprehensive way, through the space of our linguistic understanding reveals that opposites are fundamentally united in this rationally paradoxical way. Whether it is our mind or the cosmos which is a "Moebius strip" is, perhaps, indeterminable itself.

The mystery then becomes one with the nature of all conscious experience as apparently consisting of complimentary opposite qualities forming into various composed aggregates of qualities. The brain can easily be seen as the physical system which supports this work. The "problem" of First Cause then becomes a widespread "feature" of how our brain "re-presents" the reality that the sense organs and other brain structures model.

Now i can't say that this is a superior way of looking at the mystery that surrounds us. Holding up the puzzle of First Cause versus the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate are two approaches to exploring beyond the boundaries of what science can explain. I might be able to argue that the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate has a deeper interface with science in that it describes an endless variety of scientific concepts whereas the First Cause approach is focused on a single, specific event. But such discriminations are likely less important than the use and value of each approach depending on the needs and interests of the individual.

 

[Audie]

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

If you like poetical reinvention of what words
might mean, then you do.

You do not tho get to invent what science is and
does. Among other things one might mention
in this connection, science does not do "truth".

Nothing you say about science can be taken
seriously if you dont get this basic concept.

 

[sealchan]

If you like poetical reinvention of what words
might mean, then you do.

You do not tho get to invent what science is and
does. Among other things one might mention
in this connection, science does not do "truth".

Nothing you say about science can be taken
seriously if you dont get this basic concept.

You are a realist it seems. You prefer actuality over possibility. You also seem to prefer truth as consistent definition of words over truth as consistent application of values and meaning. I am not saying you do not appreciate possibility or morality. What I want to say is that when push comes to shove you will stand for logic over values and actuality over possibility. Would you agree?

If science doesn't do 'truth' then what does? I would hate to argue with someone about the nature of truth if they are an extreme relativist...

 

[Audie]

You are a realist it seems. You prefer actuality over possibility. You also seem to prefer truth as consistent definition of words over truth as consistent application of values and meaning. I am not saying you do not appreciate possibility or morality. What I want to say is that when push comes to shove you will stand for logic over values and actuality over possibility. Would you agree?

If science doesn't do 'truth' then what does? I would hate to argue with someone about the nature of truth if they are an extreme relativist...

I take it that you did not know, or
know why science does not do truth.

And, that you still think it does, or tries to.

Oh, and no, I do not agree.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think that this mystery can be translated out of the problem of First Cause (translated, not solved) if we use the metaphor of the Moebius strip whose opposite sides, in a Yin-Yang (Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate) sort of way, are actually both opposites AND one and the same thing.

Yeah, I think that is the final mystery. Hopefully, science will reach there in one of these days.

 

[Willamena]

What on Earth is a "Uniquely Religious Truth"?

I suspect that it's not on Earth at all.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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....

Hmm...I can't add much here, but do you mind me asking your opinion on something at least somewhat along these lines?
How would you see the 'truth' of transubstantiation? Only via a religious view is it true, I would say, but there are those who certainly see it as true for that reason.
I'm not quite a materialist, but I'm close enough that I just basically reject that truth. You generally have more nuance than me in your views and opinions on these sort of things though...