The Religion Debate Thread

[rklenseth]

Is objectivity possible or at least the idealized version being discussed in this post?

yes, there is objective truth. it's impossible to know beyond the input you recieve, but it still exists. by very merit of the fact that something exists (which i'll call the universe) it must have properties. these are truth.

rkl: you make a number of assumptions
1. other people exist.
2. they are fundamentally the same as you.
3. they're different take on life is due to fundamental differences in the universe they percieve, not in their perspective of it.

now even if these were all true, it would simply mean that people experience different universes. each one would still have its own objective truths.

you define truth as people's perception, which is of course never objective. but that's not what truth is. absolute truth is the opposite, it's what holds independent of the individual's interpretation.

And who is to define absolute or objective truth? And what does one base this absolute and objective truth on? Their observation and then their interpretation of that observation?

You also claim that there is absolute and objective truth and you are basing that truth on what? Your belief or because someone else said it exists? Isn't that in itself an unobjective perception?

Who said the universe had properties? A couple scientists who are basing their truth on the interpretations of their observations? Some would look into those supposed properties and claim they see God and come up with a thousand good reasons just like the the scientists would to support their claims. Who is objective? Perhaps to you the scientists that use a method that you believe in but to others they would believe otherwise. But just because they don't support your belief that makes them unobjective, correct? But I'm sure some would claim likewise of you. So which truth is absolute? Which interpretation is absolute? Which observation is absolute? Perhaps they all are absolute; perhaps they all are objective. Does that make someone anymore wrong than other?

So properties are truth but what makes something a property?

Perhaps other people don't exist. Perhaps you don't exist and are only a figment of my imagination. Or maybe I don't exist and I am a figment of your imagination. Perhaps you are only the figment of someone else's imagination and when they don't believe anymore that you are real then you simply disappear.

But isn't all fact based on perception? Isn't all truth based on perception? During World War II, we Americans believed ourselves to be the good guys. Our truth was the right truth, the absolute truth. But that does that mean that NAZI Germany or Imperial Japan believe that they weren't the good guys? That their truth wasn't the right truth, the absolute truth? Is their perception of the world anymore wrong than ours? Now before you answer that question think about where that answer will be coming from. (note to everyone: Yes, I believe NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan were wrong and still are wrong but that is just my objective, unbiased, and absolute truth. )

So you are telling me that whatever the person doesn't believe is the independent, objective, and absolute truth of the universe. But when I start believing in that doesn't not then make what I once believed the independent, objective, and absolute truth of the universe? So whatever is opposite of the individual's interpretation is the absolute truth? But by saying that aren't you claiming that you are wrong because your individual interpretation is opposite of the absolute truth? So anyone that claims objective and absolute truth is wrong.

But aren't you basing your interpretation on your observation of someone else's interpretation based on their observation etc..... So does your argument prove my argument? Or does it not?

[kroner]

everything you saidsupports the fact that you can't know the truth. but absolute objective truth still exists by merit of the fact that universe exists. they are inseperable. they are also independent of our knowledge of them. i'm not talking about scientific laws or religious beliefs or ideologies or anything like that. those are all interpretations and generalizations formed by people. i'm talking about truth in its most basic form, raw data, which describes the specific state in which things are, whatever that maybe, whatever those things maybe, whatever the rules are. i don't know any of these things, but the information must exist because i experience the effects of it.

[west]

Existentialism says that just because kroner thinks he's typing on the computer and thinks people are responding don't make it so.

Quantum theory suggests that the universe might not exist at all when it's not being observed. The universe (or so I assume) is a strange and wonderful place. Or at least I am deceived into believing that I think that.

[Der Zauberer]

Perhaps the universe does not exist . . .

But it does not matter, for there must be absolute truth.

Another way of looking at it is considering the word "is."
We have all used it a lot; if there were not absolute truth, then we would be absolutely wrong in using it. Which might be okay for general discussion that doesn't depend on their being an absolute truth or not. But it does not work for this discussion.

Jayne you said, "And the only absolute truth in this 'verse is that there isn't any absolute truth. Even though it may sound contradicting it isn't. Think about it for a moment. "
Yeah I'm pretty sure it's condradicting. The very fact that you said "it isn't contradicting" is another statement of what would be absolute truth. And if you say, "No it's not," then, you'll be making another statement suggesting the existence of an absolute truth.

Even the agnostic approach won't work: "I don't know whether there is an absolute truth or not." You are saying that you don't know something, which is an absolute description of your mind: that it is not made up. You cannot make a declaritave statement without asserting the existence of an absolute truth.
Well, I can't think of any at least.

In short, the very discussion of the possiblity or impossibility of Truth suggests the existence of a Truth. The only way to say there is no absolute Truth is to say nothing at all.

[David]

Let me phrase my question differently, because the spirit within which I wrote it is not being taken: Is meaningful true objectivity available to us, beyond the basic assumptions required to understand the question of objectivity.

Something must be assumed in order to even pose the question. Yes, objective truth may be out there, but is it available to the community of humanity in terms of public discussion in any meaningful way beyond basic assumptions in order for the discussion of objectivity to take place.

[Meh]

@Sammi - There defintely is religion. Religion is merely a routine that people follow. What you mean to say is there is no "higher power" or whatever. I won't address that. I belive in one. You don't. That's good enough for me. Just don't let the shortcomings of religion interfere with faith/ Religion isn't faith. It is something that makes people comortable.

@David - To gain objectivity of that scale we would have to transend or something. For the time being I can only be onjective as is humanly possible. So my answer is no. That level of objectivity is not possible for us.

@Der Zauberer - The word "is" represents human pride, the limitation of language, and lazy speech and typing. This will make it easy for others to understand where I'm coming from. If 2 = 2 then 2 is 2. True? No. False. The 2 on the left is NOT the 2 on the right. They are similar but since they exist seperately they are not each other. Most of the time "is" at best means equals. Most of the time it merely means ~ (equivelant). Saying "Sammi has the equivelant of a nice day" is too many words (besides being inaccruate most of the time). In programming there is a difference between = (points to the exact same thing) and == (equals). I think I got that right. Oh well Sho will correct me. Comprehension of realty is only possible via programming concepts.

@All - The preception of order is a limitation of perception. Embrace the choas. You came from it, you part of it, you will return to it.

[west]

'is' is our imposition of humanity, which craves structure and finiteness, on an uncertain and possibly immaterial universe.

even replacing it with 'seems' would betray our humanity, because that implies, 'seems to me'.



heh...this thread is like "philosophical discussion for dummies"

>>no offence to anyone--i include myself in with 'dummies'

[The Hunter]

You know what I like about philosophy? It generally changes nothing.

I don't really care if schreuders cat is alive or not. Or if he ever existed. Or whether is "is" the absolute truth, cuz the price of a pack of cig's "is" 3.80 Euro's, That may not be true in a philosophical way, but it's an absolute truth according to my wallet.

[Snake_byte]

I'm atheist. and thats all I have to say on the matter.

[west]

You know what I like about philosophy? It generally changes nothing.

I don't really care if schreuders cat is alive or not. Or if he ever existed. Or whether is "is" the absolute truth, cuz the price of a pack of cig's "is" 3.80 Euro's, That may not be true in a philosophical way, but it's an absolute truth according to my wallet.

Schrödinger's cat.

Schrödinger was a quantum physicist, not a philosopher, though they're similar.

[Chrissy]

I'm atheist. and thats all I have to say on the matter.

Totally I broach this subject with respect, and your answer, before you even give it, but what do you believe created the first kernel of life? The very first, very first, whether it be human or plant, but what do you believe created this masterpiece?

Chrissy

[The Hunter]

Exactly what I think after using the toilet. "Damn, did I create that masterpiece"? Marvelous.


@West. SChroedinger, K then.
But did they put the "quantum" before the physicist in his time?

[west]

jugulum, while we're at it...

not jugulem.

and i'm not sure 'bout the quantum part.

[The Hunter]

Damn, you nitpicker.
But UR right. :S

[David]

Science grew out of what was known as natural Philosophy. Science is Philosophy. It is a philosophical outlook on how to order and understand the world.