Well, I'm suggesting that the existence of God is not a fact, as it cannot be falsified.
Karl Popper invented the word "fact"?
Well, no. I'm trying to find out what Raptor Eye means by a fact. Normally, this is based on observation, and there can be new observations, which contradict the old ones. I don't think you can do this with God. But this only matters if you think God's existence is a factual matter, and I assume most theists don't.
A fact according to my Oxford dictionary is 'a thing that is known to be true, to exist, or to have occurred: truth, reality.'
I can see that there are various online dictionaries which add qualifiers to this, including the one which speaks of being falsified, but afaiac a fact is what is the truth.
I accept that this is based on subjective rather than objective observation. I see that SD has now altered her challenge accordingly.
I think it's OK if you want to call subjective experiences facts. This is probably widely accepted, for example, it's a fact that I feel sad. It does open the door somewhat, thus it's a fact that I've been kidnapped by aliens. Pretty much anything is a fact then, unless otherwise stated, and we would start to distinguish objective facts, I suppose.
We believe (as in trust in, take as fact) abstract truths all the time. They are a different category to science.
If you don't believe me, those of you shut-ins who are inexplicably lucky enough to have a significant other, ask them whether they love you. And then ask them repeatedly to 'prove it', and see where that gets you.
I still see something distinct in the supernatural, in relation to the factual. I mean, that saying that a supernatural figure, say, Ahura Mazda, is a fact, seems odd to me. Obviously, you can say it to indicate that your experience of Ahura Mazda is so solid, as to seem veridical. I wonder if Raptor Eye would call that made-up.
I still see something distinct in the supernatural, in relation to the factual. I mean, that saying that a supernatural figure, say, Ahura Mazda, is a fact, seems odd to me. Obviously, you can say it to indicate that your experience of Ahura Mazda is so solid, as to seem veridical. I wonder if Raptor Eye would call that made-up.
Well this just says that there are competing claims. That doesn't say anything about whether individuals wholeheartedly believe that the thing is true nor if they have any objective evidence for it.
I still see something distinct in the supernatural, in relation to the factual. I mean, that saying that a supernatural figure, say, Ahura Mazda, is a fact, seems odd to me. Obviously, you can say it to indicate that your experience of Ahura Mazda is so solid, as to seem veridical. I wonder if Raptor Eye would call that made-up.
Well this just says that there are competing claims. That doesn't say anything about whether individuals wholeheartedly believe that the thing is true nor if they have any objective evidence for it.
I think there's a difference between saying that Australia is an island, and that Ahura Mazda has ravished my soul and transformed my life. Granted, they could both be said with equal conviction, but we couldn't really set out to check the latter in the same way as the former.
People ‘experience’ many things which are unbelievable - fairies, ghosts, you name it!
But it's interesting that you can say they're unbelievable. I find all supernatural claims ditto, in fact, I don't really understand what they mean. Ahura Mazda is a spirit, I think, er, what?
I think people ascribe the ‘supernatural’ label to things which seem outside themselves.
Think of an orgasm - it’s so ‘out of body’ that we’d think we were having a supernatural experience if we didn’t know what was happening (or if it happened out of the blue, no build up, no prior experience). Yet it’s all in our body and brain.
Similar can be said of the ‘supernatural’ I think. Amazing experiences - but are the really from outside ourselves or do they just feel like they are?
And then there’s God. I ascribe the deep peace I feel in the hardest times to God, but is it? I don’t know. I never will this side of death. But I generally ‘behave’ as if it is.
Nice post, Boogie. Well, I used to get into the numinous, and all that stuff, but of late, wherefore I know not, I have lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises ...
Oops, uncanny isn't it, how another voice speaks through us, just kidding.
“What a piece of work is a man! how
noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in
apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust?”
Well, I'm suggesting that the existence of God is not a fact, as it cannot be falsified.
Karl Popper invented the word "fact"?
Well, no. I'm trying to find out what Raptor Eye means by a fact. Normally, this is based on observation, and there can be new observations, which contradict the old ones. I don't think you can do this with God. But this only matters if you think God's existence is a factual matter, and I assume most theists don't.
If that is the case, I wonder why it is, then, that so many of them, particularly church leaders, are so often pronouncing on what God wants, is, does, cares about, etc.
I am not, however, phrasing that as a question here.
The way this software quotes hides them if they are embedded after a couple of layers and I've wondered if your software is reading the quoted sections too. If it is the case that it is not it is likely that your answers are more stilted as you are not hearing the full text that we are seeing.
When I click on 'quote', the other quotes do show in the edit area an the voice will read them, and I do my best to remember them, but that's my problem and if I miss things, well, I'm sorry.
When theoretical physicists reasoned the existence of the Higgs Boson particle, did that make it a fact?
I'd say there is a great deal of difference between the Higs-Boson particle being said to be a fact and an assumed belief either in an existing god, or abelief, however strong, in a God/deity as a fact. The former adds information to what is known and may or may not prove to have an effect on how the universe has behaved since its beginning or not, and the latter has had a major influence on human behaviour whether that influence was benign or malign.
SusanDoris, there was something I was thinking of asking you yesterday. I wasn’t sure if it would be a daft question or if I’d missed something, so I hesitated, but in the light of the more recent comments, I will go ahead.
Given that no one here is claiming that they can prove God, or that faith is an objective fact, what exactly is it that you are wanting us to discuss and debate?
Thank you - and yes, that made me stop and think!! I don't think it is so much a matter of what it is I want you to debate; nor do I 'want' anything particular. I do not think to myself, 'Right, I want them to debate such-and-such,' I just look forward to opening the SofF then reading and joining in the topics and posts that I find interesting.
Because - and I may be misunderstanding you - it generally seems like you are continually asking us to discuss how our faith can be proven and what objective facts we have about God. And I’m not sure how we can discuss this, as we have continually been telling you (not just in this thread but in all the Purgatory threads too) that we can’t prove God or faith, that this is not what faith is about, that proof would contradict the entire concept of faith, etc.
I shall have to think further on this, but perhaps it is that I would find it interesting to read more about what consideration and time you give to the idea that you (you general of course) might be entirely mistaken in your beliefs. I say this from the point of view of having been a firm believer in a God/force/power definitely *out there* somewhere.
After that God-belief evaporated, I thought of my situation as a sort of Venn diagram, with all the thousands of faiths with a common centre of God/deity/something and me at the very outer edge of the Christian section, and then taking a step into the area outside (can't remember if that has a name!).
Thanks for answering, SusanDoris. I wonder, if you are wanting people to share about their doubts and the time and consideration they spent on wondering if they are wrong, whether this may be a topic for a different board than Purgatory, because people sharing personal experience is different from debate.
I think it's OK if you want to call subjective experiences facts. This is probably widely accepted, for example, it's a fact that I feel sad. It does open the door somewhat, thus it's a fact that I've been kidnapped by aliens. Pretty much anything is a fact then, unless otherwise stated, and we would start to distinguish objective facts, I suppose.
No. This is pretty much a stupid path to wander. Subjective experiences are not fact and we've no need to qualify the fucking word.
Objective fact, quetz? How can you know? We might be a computer simulation or the fever dream of an alien parakeet. Our entire universe could be contained in an atom of a gaseous emission inside that febrile budgie's nocturnal hallucinations. Then where are your precious "objective" facts, quetzalcoatl?
What is subjective is how we perceive what is factual. The whole debate here is whether one can use tools other than the scientific process to weigh and determine what is fact.
The whole idea that anyone can be objective with regard to reality is bogus. Science can only be objective if there is no subjective scientist getting in the way.
Well, objective is often defined as inter-subjective, meaning that my observations are checked by others. I see an unknown star in Alpha Centauri, but I don't start celebrating, but email my pals at the East Clapham observatory, and they check it. I think you are right in philosophical terms, we might be living inside a sparrows fart, but instrumentally, or in terms of utility, science is public knowledge. It works, after all, via shared observations and predictions. As to the nature of reality, dunno, don't care.
@Ohher
Apologies if this sounds dismissive, but I don't think you countered what I said in the slightest. The bits we don't know, aren't taken on faith, but taken as unknown.
As I've said numerous times before, it is a category error to compare science and religion.
You’re absolutely right – provided the comparison is on the basis of there being both an objective reality and a subjective one. That's precisely what makes this a category error.
My difficulty is that, personally – and I’m not necessarily committed to this view (it's just where I find myself at the moment) – I’m just not sure that “objective reality” is actually A Thing.
Well Ohher seems to be saying that for atheists and non-theists, knowledge about the physical universe has been settled, and we can sit back and say, job done. I claim a large straw man, in fact, a wicker man.
No, not saying that at all. Nor do I, er, believe that. Rather, I was suspecting that of SD when she was going on about discovering how safe it is to venture across my street on the basis of its having been done repeatedly before.
The belief "The future will resemble the past in sufficiently predictable and useful ways" (or something like it) is an axiom we all rely on, but it cannot be proven or even meaningfully defended. We need it to be true, so we assume it is. Crossing the street is just one example.
Mm. Just because we all perceive things in a certain way doesn't mean that there lies the truth, unfortunately. There are systematic biases that we can't even perceive - so we don't even know how much we are being deceived.
My difficulty is that, personally – and I’m not necessarily committed to this view (it's just where I find myself at the moment) – I’m just not sure that “objective reality” is actually A Thing.
Here is a test of how much a person believes in objective reality. They can walk perpendicular to the edge of a vertical drop of a hundred feet or more. The strength of their belief is directly proportional to their willingness to continue walking past the edge. Assuming a non-suicidal person, of course.
Philosophy rarely contests gravity, and never wins on the rare occasions it tries.
Simply objecting to pandering to Raptor Eye's delusional use of the word.
Yes, sure, I was bending over backwards to accommodate. I'm not sure about subjective facts, after all, I seem to be a fact. But it's so easy to conflate philosophical stuff with instrumental stuff, e.g., observations.
There was a young Man who averred
He could fly in the air like a bird.
Watched by thousands of people,
He leapt from the steeple:
His tombstone tells when this occurred.
My difficulty is that, personally – and I’m not necessarily committed to this view (it's just where I find myself at the moment) – I’m just not sure that “objective reality” is actually A Thing.
Here is a test of how much a person believes in objective reality. They can walk perpendicular to the edge of a vertical drop of a hundred feet or more. The strength of their belief is directly proportional to their willingness to continue walking past the edge. Assuming a non-suicidal person, of course.
Philosophy rarely contests gravity, and never wins on the rare occasions it tries.
Bloody Hell.This is where the longer editing time allows one to get into trouble. I orginially wrote: The strength of their belief is inversely proportional
Which is correct. In correcting other errors, I looked at that and incorrectly corrected it.
My difficulty is that, personally – and I’m not necessarily committed to this view (it's just where I find myself at the moment) – I’m just not sure that “objective reality” is actually A Thing.
Here is a test of how much a person believes in objective reality. They can walk perpendicular to the edge of a vertical drop of a hundred feet or more. The strength of their belief is directly proportional to their willingness to continue walking past the edge. Assuming a non-suicidal person, of course.
Philosophy rarely contests gravity, and never wins on the rare occasions it tries.
That's like the famous Dr Johnson objection to Berkeley, kicking a stone. Actually, it doesn't refute Berkeley, who didn't deny that things exist, but argued that that they are made up of mind. Well ...
My difficulty is that, personally – and I’m not necessarily committed to this view (it's just where I find myself at the moment) – I’m just not sure that “objective reality” is actually A Thing.
Here is a test of how much a person believes in objective reality. They can walk perpendicular to the edge of a vertical drop of a hundred feet or more. The strength of their belief is directly proportional to their willingness to continue walking past the edge. Assuming a non-suicidal person, of course.
Philosophy rarely contests gravity, and never wins on the rare occasions it tries.
Bloody Hell.This is where the longer editing time allows one to get into trouble. I orginially wrote: The strength of their belief is inversely proportional
Which is correct. In correcting other errors, I looked at that and incorrectly corrected it.
But I read it correctly, as you had inadvertently written it correctly, but incorrectly!
I think.
Where's me pills?
There must, surely, be a sentient God/god somewhere, laughing his/her/its celestial head off at our Anticks here in this Vale of Tears.
Thanks for answering, SusanDoris. I wonder, if you are wanting people to share about their doubts and the time and consideration they spent on wondering if they are wrong, whether this may be a topic for a different board than Purgatory, because people sharing personal experience is different from debate.
No, I don't think it is so much sharing personal experiences, as it is the interpretation of such experiences that defines them and the said experiences. It is more like a question of whether beliefs in Bod are strong or not, or whether they acknowledge or not that there is zero objective evidence, I wonder how many can say that they have really considered non-belief and belief impersonally, impartially, disinterestedly, etc.
The formation of a suitable question will need a bit of thinking! I have a few ideas, but it can't be done in a hurry.
What is subjective is how we perceive what is factual. The whole debate here is whether one can use tools other than the scientific process to weigh and determine what is fact.
The whole idea that anyone can be objective with regard to reality is bogus. Science can only be objective if there is no subjective scientist getting in the way.
Yes, true enough! But it is the local and world-wide effects that actual facts and apparent religious facts have which makes an enormous difference.
My difficulty is that, personally – and I’m not necessarily committed to this view (it's just where I find myself at the moment) – I’m just not sure that “objective reality” is actually A Thing.
Here is a test of how much a person believes in objective reality. They can walk perpendicular to the edge of a vertical drop of a hundred feet or more. The strength of their belief is directly proportional to their willingness to continue walking past the edge. Assuming a non-suicidal person, of course.
Philosophy rarely contests gravity, and never wins on the rare occasions it tries.
Even the corrected version of this isn't much help when we're up against the possibility that individual perceptions for "perpendicular" may be faulty, individual perceptions of personal muscular control and coordination may differ or be under- or over-estimated, individual perceptions of distance to edges, and individual and possibly faulty perceptions of depth -- and that's before considering individual differences in risk-taking behavior.
Frankly, if the universe were software, humanity would be its primary bug.
Thanks for answering, SusanDoris. I wonder, if you are wanting people to share about their doubts and the time and consideration they spent on wondering if they are wrong, whether this may be a topic for a different board than Purgatory, because people sharing personal experience is different from debate.
No, I don't think it is so much sharing personal experiences, as it is the interpretation of such experiences that defines them and the said experiences. It is more like a question of whether beliefs in Bod are strong or not, or whether they acknowledge or not that there is zero objective evidence, I wonder how many can say that they have really considered non-belief and belief impersonally, impartially, disinterestedly, etc.
The formation of a suitable question will need a bit of thinking! I have a few ideas, but it can't be done in a hurry.
Okay. I'll be interested in what you come up with. Am I correct in understanding that it's still people's personal experiences you want, and their interpretation of their personal experiences, rather than more generalised speculation? Not so much personal experience of, say, their prayer and church attendance, but their personal experience of considering non-belief, the questions they personally have asked themselves about their experiences, how objective they personally have been? I would still consider this personal experience - experience of thought process and questioning - as it will differ from person to person.
Even the corrected version of this isn't much help when we're up against the possibility that individual perceptions for "perpendicular" may be faulty, individual perceptions of personal muscular control and coordination may differ or be under- or over-estimated, individual perceptions of distance to edges, and individual and possibly faulty perceptions of depth -- and that's before considering individual differences in risk-taking behavior.
Fuck it. I was going to leave this, but I cannot. This is exactly why this discussion is so difficult when it should not be.
My analogy was simple and clear and highlights the disconnect between philosophy and what we truly believe. That a person with faulty hardware or software might fail the test, regardless of their belief, is completely irrelevant to the point. Stepping over a cliff isn't risk-talking behaviour, it would be either suicidal or delusional. But your conditions and qualifications do mirror the positions faith defenders take when they seek to equate faith in science with theism.
If you believe; believe. If your believe requires proof, you do not have faith. Downgrading science does not upgrade religion. They are different things.
It may be, someday, that science does reconcile with god(s) or enlightenment. But that isn't where they began, it isn't where we are heading and they remain separate.
Even the corrected version of this isn't much help when we're up against the possibility that individual perceptions for "perpendicular" may be faulty, individual perceptions of personal muscular control and coordination may differ or be under- or over-estimated, individual perceptions of distance to edges, and individual and possibly faulty perceptions of depth -- and that's before considering individual differences in risk-taking behavior.
Fuck it. I was going to leave this, but I cannot. This is exactly why this discussion is so difficult when it should not be.
My analogy was simple and clear and highlights the disconnect between philosophy and what we truly believe. That a person with faulty hardware or software might fail the test, regardless of their belief, is completely irrelevant to the point. Stepping over a cliff isn't risk-talking behaviour, it would be either suicidal or delusional. But your conditions and qualifications do mirror the positions faith defenders take when they seek to equate faith in science with theism.
If you believe; believe. If your believe requires proof, you do not have faith. Downgrading science does not upgrade religion. They are different things.
It may be, someday, that science does reconcile with god(s) or enlightenment. But that isn't where they began, it isn't where we are heading and they remain separate.
I really like that post, particularly the bit about down-grading science not upgrading religion.
However in this case it appears to be that you're saying "I know God is real because God is real"
Not really.
He is saying that the deity exists because he (Raptor Eye) has experience him (God).
There are of course a range of reasons why he (Raptor Eye) could be wrong, but I'm not sure this statement is much different to stating that one has "met" anyone.
I could say that I know a specific person exists because I've met them. You could counter that there are no records of any such person, nobody has ever heard of them, nobody else has ever said that they met them and so on.
But then (perhaps) it turns out that they're a person with another name. Or something.
An eyewitness account to the existence of a person might not be overwhelming evidence, but it is also not no evidence at all.
When theoretical physicists reasoned the existence of the Higgs Boson particle, did that make it a fact?
I think most would probably say no.
When various experiments produced results consistent with the expected properties of the particle, did that mean it became a fact?
It is complicated, isn't it?
For a start, few of us are competent to understand what the physicists are talking about or how to interpret the results - but from the outside I think most would probably just say that particle physics is hard and if they say such and such about the Higgs Boson, then we are not going to contradict them.
In practice, the vast majority of us are not able to parse whether the Higgs Boson is a fact or not. We've not conducted the experiments personally, we don't understand the theory, we haven't experienced the debates.
Most of us can't even understand what the hell it means. People with a soupçon of knowledge about particle physics can probably tell you where in a matrix of particles it fits, and very crudely why it matters. But 99.9% of us just take it on faith that these people know what they're talking about, and found the damned thing.
Let me repeat that. We take it on faith.
We cannot perform, or even understand, the experiments they did. We trust the physicists.
There is no reason to think they are colluding against us. There is little reason to think they have misinterpreted their data. But we cannot possibly judge that. Their findings are only "objective" to a tiny fragment of the population. They are our bridge to the data (and the theories). We trust them on faith.
“What a piece of work is a man! how
noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in
apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust?”
🤔
Nor woman, neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
I think it's OK if you want to call subjective experiences facts. This is probably widely accepted, for example, it's a fact that I feel sad. It does open the door somewhat, thus it's a fact that I've been kidnapped by aliens. Pretty much anything is a fact then, unless otherwise stated, and we would start to distinguish objective facts, I suppose.
No. This is pretty much a stupid path to wander. Subjective experiences are not fact and we've no need to qualify the fucking word.
Objective fact, quetz? How can you know? We might be a computer simulation or the fever dream of an alien parakeet. Our entire universe could be contained in an atom of a gaseous emission inside that febrile budgie's nocturnal hallucinations. Then where are your precious "objective" facts, quetzalcoatl?
How does that matter in the least? If I ask, "What is the name of Harry Potter's owl?" the correct answer isn't, "Harry Potter is a fictional character. He can't possibly have an owl; he's just words on paper."
Thanks for answering, SusanDoris. I wonder, if you are wanting people to share about their doubts and the time and consideration they spent on wondering if they are wrong, whether this may be a topic for a different board than Purgatory, because people sharing personal experience is different from debate.
No, I don't think it is so much sharing personal experiences, as it is the interpretation of such experiences that defines them and the said experiences.
I'm wondering if this distinction is as hard and fast as you seem to imply. My interpretations are also my experiences. You don't experience them, except as I put them into words and put them somewhere where you can read or hear them.
When I was a grad student, we would argue interminably about the line between experience and interpretation. One example that was put forward has stuck with me ever since then (more than 30 years). There is a field of wheat. I look out on it, and see wheat. An Agriculture student looks out on it, and says, "this wheat has these characteristics. They are in keeping with the definition we learned in the classroom of winter wheat. I conclude this is winter wheat." The farmer simply looks and sees winter wheat. She doesn't interpret, she doesn't conclude. There is no lag between the seeing, and the knowing that it is winter wheat. No intellectual processes have kicked in. She just sees winter wheat.
This phenomenon has been noted in places where people have to make split-second decisions and don't have time to think. A famous example involves a radar operator who "saw" that a blip on the screen was an enemy, and in no time at all gave a signal to intercept. They were later called on the carpet and asked to explain how they concluded it was an enemy. They couldn't say because there was no deduction step in their behavior. They saw an enemy, they acted.
Therefore I (who do have the time to cogitate on all this) conclude that distinctinguishing between experience and interpretation is not always possible or meaningful.
When theoretical physicists reasoned the existence of the Higgs Boson particle, did that make it a fact?
I think most would probably say no.
When various experiments produced results consistent with the expected properties of the particle, did that mean it became a fact?
It is complicated, isn't it?
For a start, few of us are competent to understand what the physicists are talking about or how to interpret the results - but from the outside I think most would probably just say that particle physics is hard and if they say such and such about the Higgs Boson, then we are not going to contradict them.
In practice, the vast majority of us are not able to parse whether the Higgs Boson is a fact or not. We've not conducted the experiments personally, we don't understand the theory, we haven't experienced the debates.
Most of us can't even understand what the hell it means. People with a soupçon of knowledge about particle physics can probably tell you where in a matrix of particles it fits, and very crudely why it matters. But 99.9% of us just take it on faith that these people know what they're talking about, and found the damned thing.
Let me repeat that. We take it on faith.
We cannot perform, or even understand, the experiments they did. We trust the physicists.
There is no reason to think they are colluding against us. There is little reason to think they have misinterpreted their data. But we cannot possibly judge that. Their findings are only "objective" to a tiny fragment of the population. They are our bridge to the data (and the theories). We trust them on faith.
Jesus wept. No, not that.
That is some serious Dan Brown shit.
Bull fucking shit. You don't have a PhD in subatomic physics. You take what they say on faith, like the rest of us. That isn't Dan Brown. There's no conspiracy or hidden meanings or anything like that. There are people who know things, and people who believe them but have no way of testing whether or not what they say is true. If you can't speak to that without using stupid and irrelevant allusions, well, I dunno.
It's really just division of labor. In our society we have multifurcated the work required to keep us all alive and our society moving along. We all trust the other to do their part in keeping things working, whether it's trash collectors or nuclear physicists. And that trust is a kind of faith.
Even the corrected version of this isn't much help when we're up against the possibility that individual perceptions for "perpendicular" may be faulty, individual perceptions of personal muscular control and coordination may differ or be under- or over-estimated, individual perceptions of distance to edges, and individual and possibly faulty perceptions of depth -- and that's before considering individual differences in risk-taking behavior.
Fuck it. I was going to leave this, but I cannot. This is exactly why this discussion is so difficult when it should not be.
My analogy was simple and clear and highlights the disconnect between philosophy and what we truly believe. That a person with faulty hardware or software might fail the test, regardless of their belief, is completely irrelevant to the point. Stepping over a cliff isn't risk-talking behaviour, it would be either suicidal or delusional. But your conditions and qualifications do mirror the positions faith defenders take when they seek to equate faith in science with theism.
If you believe; believe. If your believe requires proof, you do not have faith. Downgrading science does not upgrade religion. They are different things.
It may be, someday, that science does reconcile with god(s) or enlightenment. But that isn't where they began, it isn't where we are heading and they remain separate.
Here's what doesn't work for me in your simple, clear analogy: An individual walks toward the edge of a precipice. Arriving at or near the edge, she stops. What stops her? The existence of the edge? No. What stops her is her perception of the edge. She's responding to her own senses -- what she feels or hears or sees -- not to the cliff edge (assuming there is one) or to "objective reality," whatever that may be when it's at home in its slippers with the cat in its lap.
Yes, we have faith that the Higgs-Boson probably exists, but that faith is not based on 100% faith. There was a hypothesis based on observations of other known data and then experiments to test that. None of the scientists involved will ever claim that their finding of the particle is 100% proved and will keep on checking in order to be as objective as possible.
The existence or not of the particle increases understanding of the universe, it does not affect the religious beliefs of billions.
Comments
I think it's OK if you want to call subjective experiences facts. This is probably widely accepted, for example, it's a fact that I feel sad. It does open the door somewhat, thus it's a fact that I've been kidnapped by aliens. Pretty much anything is a fact then, unless otherwise stated, and we would start to distinguish objective facts, I suppose.
If you don't believe me, those of you shut-ins who are inexplicably lucky enough to have a significant other, ask them whether they love you. And then ask them repeatedly to 'prove it', and see where that gets you.
Well this just says that there are competing claims. That doesn't say anything about whether individuals wholeheartedly believe that the thing is true nor if they have any objective evidence for it.
I think there's a difference between saying that Australia is an island, and that Ahura Mazda has ravished my soul and transformed my life. Granted, they could both be said with equal conviction, but we couldn't really set out to check the latter in the same way as the former.
But it's interesting that you can say they're unbelievable. I find all supernatural claims ditto, in fact, I don't really understand what they mean. Ahura Mazda is a spirit, I think, er, what?
Think of an orgasm - it’s so ‘out of body’ that we’d think we were having a supernatural experience if we didn’t know what was happening (or if it happened out of the blue, no build up, no prior experience). Yet it’s all in our body and brain.
Similar can be said of the ‘supernatural’ I think. Amazing experiences - but are the really from outside ourselves or do they just feel like they are?
And then there’s God. I ascribe the deep peace I feel in the hardest times to God, but is it? I don’t know. I never will this side of death. But I generally ‘behave’ as if it is.
Oops, uncanny isn't it, how another voice speaks through us, just kidding.
“What a piece of work is a man! how
noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in
apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust?”
🤔
I am not, however, phrasing that as a question here.
After that God-belief evaporated, I thought of my situation as a sort of Venn diagram, with all the thousands of faiths with a common centre of God/deity/something and me at the very outer edge of the Christian section, and then taking a step into the area outside (can't remember if that has a name!).
Objective fact, quetz? How can you know? We might be a computer simulation or the fever dream of an alien parakeet. Our entire universe could be contained in an atom of a gaseous emission inside that febrile budgie's nocturnal hallucinations. Then where are your precious "objective" facts, quetzalcoatl?
What is subjective is how we perceive what is factual. The whole debate here is whether one can use tools other than the scientific process to weigh and determine what is fact.
The whole idea that anyone can be objective with regard to reality is bogus. Science can only be objective if there is no subjective scientist getting in the way.
My difficulty is that, personally – and I’m not necessarily committed to this view (it's just where I find myself at the moment) – I’m just not sure that “objective reality” is actually A Thing.
Yeah, I know. I agree. Am I missing your point?
There is that famous picture of the Rubik's cube.
Apparently no amount of training or prior knowledge can make an observer see the central squares as the same colour.
Objectively they are the same colour - we can use tools to prove it. But we all perceive it subjectively and, it turns out, wrongly.
IJ
Philosophy rarely contests gravity, and never wins on the rare occasions it tries.
Yes, sure, I was bending over backwards to accommodate. I'm not sure about subjective facts, after all, I seem to be a fact. But it's so easy to conflate philosophical stuff with instrumental stuff, e.g., observations.
He could fly in the air like a bird.
Watched by thousands of people,
He leapt from the steeple:
His tombstone tells when this occurred.
I'll get me parachute....
IJ
Which is correct. In correcting other errors, I looked at that and incorrectly corrected it.
That's like the famous Dr Johnson objection to Berkeley, kicking a stone. Actually, it doesn't refute Berkeley, who didn't deny that things exist, but argued that that they are made up of mind. Well ...
But I read it correctly, as you had inadvertently written it correctly, but incorrectly!
I think.
Where's me pills?
There must, surely, be a sentient God/god somewhere, laughing his/her/its celestial head off at our Anticks here in this Vale of Tears.
IJ
The formation of a suitable question will need a bit of thinking! I have a few ideas, but it can't be done in a hurry.
IJ
Even the corrected version of this isn't much help when we're up against the possibility that individual perceptions for "perpendicular" may be faulty, individual perceptions of personal muscular control and coordination may differ or be under- or over-estimated, individual perceptions of distance to edges, and individual and possibly faulty perceptions of depth -- and that's before considering individual differences in risk-taking behavior.
Frankly, if the universe were software, humanity would be its primary bug.
Okay. I'll be interested in what you come up with. Am I correct in understanding that it's still people's personal experiences you want, and their interpretation of their personal experiences, rather than more generalised speculation? Not so much personal experience of, say, their prayer and church attendance, but their personal experience of considering non-belief, the questions they personally have asked themselves about their experiences, how objective they personally have been? I would still consider this personal experience - experience of thought process and questioning - as it will differ from person to person.
My analogy was simple and clear and highlights the disconnect between philosophy and what we truly believe. That a person with faulty hardware or software might fail the test, regardless of their belief, is completely irrelevant to the point. Stepping over a cliff isn't risk-talking behaviour, it would be either suicidal or delusional. But your conditions and qualifications do mirror the positions faith defenders take when they seek to equate faith in science with theism.
If you believe; believe. If your believe requires proof, you do not have faith. Downgrading science does not upgrade religion. They are different things.
It may be, someday, that science does reconcile with god(s) or enlightenment. But that isn't where they began, it isn't where we are heading and they remain separate.
Yes, this. Thank you mr cheesy.
Let me repeat that. We take it on faith.
We cannot perform, or even understand, the experiments they did. We trust the physicists.
There is no reason to think they are colluding against us. There is little reason to think they have misinterpreted their data. But we cannot possibly judge that. Their findings are only "objective" to a tiny fragment of the population. They are our bridge to the data (and the theories). We trust them on faith.
No, the correct answer is "Hedwig."
That is a FACT.
When I was a grad student, we would argue interminably about the line between experience and interpretation. One example that was put forward has stuck with me ever since then (more than 30 years). There is a field of wheat. I look out on it, and see wheat. An Agriculture student looks out on it, and says, "this wheat has these characteristics. They are in keeping with the definition we learned in the classroom of winter wheat. I conclude this is winter wheat." The farmer simply looks and sees winter wheat. She doesn't interpret, she doesn't conclude. There is no lag between the seeing, and the knowing that it is winter wheat. No intellectual processes have kicked in. She just sees winter wheat.
This phenomenon has been noted in places where people have to make split-second decisions and don't have time to think. A famous example involves a radar operator who "saw" that a blip on the screen was an enemy, and in no time at all gave a signal to intercept. They were later called on the carpet and asked to explain how they concluded it was an enemy. They couldn't say because there was no deduction step in their behavior. They saw an enemy, they acted.
Therefore I (who do have the time to cogitate on all this) conclude that distinctinguishing between experience and interpretation is not always possible or meaningful.
Yes. This. Thank you.
That is some serious Dan Brown shit.
Here's what doesn't work for me in your simple, clear analogy: An individual walks toward the edge of a precipice. Arriving at or near the edge, she stops. What stops her? The existence of the edge? No. What stops her is her perception of the edge. She's responding to her own senses -- what she feels or hears or sees -- not to the cliff edge (assuming there is one) or to "objective reality," whatever that may be when it's at home in its slippers with the cat in its lap.
Yes, we have faith that the Higgs-Boson probably exists, but that faith is not based on 100% faith. There was a hypothesis based on observations of other known data and then experiments to test that. None of the scientists involved will ever claim that their finding of the particle is 100% proved and will keep on checking in order to be as objective as possible.
The existence or not of the particle increases understanding of the universe, it does not affect the religious beliefs of billions.