The Truth is a fire,
We all stand around it,
If one steps into the fire,
That one will know the Truth
But if one steps into the Fire,
That one will die.
We all want to know the Truth but we simply can't.
So is anyone a tad dumb or a bit crazy when they have an idea about it?
I think not; as long as the Truth is unknown, respect everyone's idea
because my idea is just as inaccurate as one-anothers.
Isn't this a nice analogy of religion?
(p.s. yes, i excluded the option if someone claims to know the truth
and
do damaging things to people - those are the real dumb and crazy ones...)
Greetz, Robin (from Holland)
(p.p.s please correct any misspelled words or sentences - i'm not english minded)
MockingGods Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 4004
Location: USA
Posted:
Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:45 am
Hey Robin from Holland
Star16 wrote:
I think not; as long as the Truth is unknown, respect everyone's idea
because my idea is just as inaccurate as one-anothers.
This is the main reason humans developed science; to analyze truth claims empirically from more then just one perspective. An assertion of truth is basically meaningless without external corroboration. Most religious assertions can not be corroborated because they deal with a non-objective, non-verifiable pseudo reality, and thus are due little rational respect as objective truth.
I concur with MockingGods. The philosopher of science Karl Popper also had a good analogy for truth. He suggested that truth is like an invisible bullseye. We know that there must be a truth, and we take various aims at it. When we get a theory, we do not know whether it is the truth (there may always be a better theory out there)/. All we can do is see whether this theory is corroborated by evidence and try to prove it wrong in hopes that it is strong enough to remain unscathed.
But in the end, we will never know that we have the FINAL truth on anything. (We do however know that there is a center to the bullseye).
I would also suggest, though, that this does NOT make all theories worthy of respect. Some theories have more proof behind them than others. I would argue in the case of evolution v intelligent design, that the former has infinitely more proof behind it than the latter. The latter, while it may end up showing true one day, has come nowhere close. Thus, I dismiss it.
Also, the hypothesis that god created everything is not a very good one in my eyes, becasue it seems to 'explain' things by not explaining anything at all.
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
Posted:
Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:23 pm
Kevin, I like you, I really do. You have more patience in your left pinky than I do in my entire body.
However, putting the solid science of evolution in the same sentence as ID makes my lip twitch and my dick itch!
Of course we should dismiss ID. But when you entertain the two, the myth lovers conflate ID as a 50/50 proposition to evolution.
I like to put it this way. It is OK to use file 13, your trash can. ID belongs in the trash can of ideas.
When we say, "You cant know for sure anything" I am not disputing that.
I am saying how much of a gamble is it to toss aside something that was clearly born out of ignorance? To discard ID is like discarding Santa.
If one can discard Thot spitting in the eye of Horus to cure his blindness, we can also discard the idea that human flesh POOF came from dirt and we can discard claims that the universe is a giant brain.
Saying "I don't know" is fine, and it is true nobody knows what the future will bring as far as discoveries. But we should not cling to absurdities.
MockingGods Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 4004
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:53 am
Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:
But in the end, we will never know that we have the FINAL truth on anything. (We do however know that there is a center to the bullseye).
I actually was thinking more about just this after making my original post. There are at least two types of "truths" people would have us believe. Absolute truth; the type most religions claim is gained from some sort of divine authority and Probable truth; that which is most likely true and is gained by repeatable, independent observation and experimentation. Absolute truth, while it probably does exist, will most likely always be just beyond our grasp. Anyone claiming absolute truth is either lying or deluded about its source.
The feeling is mutual, Brian. We disagree as often as not (or more often than not), but I like the dialogues we have.
Quote:
Of course we should dismiss ID. But when you entertain the two, the myth lovers conflate ID as a 50/50 proposition to evolution.
I also have a problem with the "both views have equal probability" stuff. Evolution has been confirmed by ample, ample evidence. ID has been confirmed by no evidence and only has behind it philosophical speculation (that has been widely trounced).
When I say that we will never know whether the 'truth' we know today is the final truth, I am certainly not saying that we cannot regard certain theories as much more likely than others.
All I am getting across here is that science revises and revises. We never know when a theory that is well supported today will either be significantly revised, or overturned by a more successful one, no matter how confident we feell.
Quote:
Saying "I don't know" is fine, and it is true nobody knows what the future will bring as far as discoveries. But we should not cling to absurdities.
Yes. I think we can feel pretty confident in the germ theory of disease and Newton's universal law of gravitation. Even though we really don't know that these theories will not be overturned someday, we can feel pretty certain that the germ theory is more solid than the Goddunit theory.
Absolute truth; the type most religions claim is gained from some sort of divine authority and Probable truth; that which is most likely true and is gained by repeatable, independent observation and experimentation. Absolute truth, while it probably does exist, will most likely always be just beyond our grasp. Anyone claiming absolute truth is either lying or deluded about its source.
That is another thing that bugs the crap out of me; another religious hypocricy.
On one hand, religionists claim to have absolute truth that their god and religion is the true one.
On the other, they chastise science by constantly suggesting that one of its virtues - that it is always tentative - is its downfall.
To my mind, I would rather live by a 'belief system' (if one wants to call science that) that does not profess dogmatism and claims to have knowledge that they cannot possibly have. I like the fact that science recognizes that the human condition is to live with unstable knolwedge. (What is probability but our best attempts to make educated guesses to compensate for our lack of absolute knowledge?!)
I think that what religion sees as an asset - claim to absolute truth - as one of its biggest flaws.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file