Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This article does a good job of well describing my sentiments right from the beginning. Then too throughout and right up to the end...
"(CNN)Perhaps the oldest and grandest question asked by humanity is "How did the universe come into existence?" Indeed, proposed answers to that puzzle are found in ancient religious texts, some thousands of years old. In the modern era, that question is more properly considered to be the province of science."
Then too I sometimes wonder, is it just me or does no one else wonder how long that one bit of "compressed volume much smaller than an atom" had been around before the Big Bang and where it came from?
It recently came to my attention that my Ten Truths were being given another review but in another thread...
I'm not sure why. I've tried to capture the comments, questions and issues presented by others with respect to these truths in this thread if for no other reason but to keep this all in one place. Also, like just recently, I'm sometimes not aware that others are addressing these truths in other threads. This morning I've come across yet another comment in another thread as follows:
i am stating the obvious:
the "Ten Truths" = opinion
they are not facts.
they are your beliefs.
I'm pretty sure just about anyone participating in this forum is fairly well versed on what is opinion vs fact. What is the truth vs falsehood. Interesting to me is that rather than focus on the overall explanation provided by way of my Ten Truths, far more attention is given to whether or not they should be called truths. Why not points of consideration? Why not Ten Assertions? Some suggest this is a "manifesto."
I'm inclined to respond with "whatever!" But all such suggestions are duly noted. Okay.
However, the reason I called them Ten Truths, is because I believe each and every one is the truth, and rather than quibble about what to call them, the point is that they reveal the truth about these matters. What I am more specifically addressing by way of these ten points for consideration. If one prefers to call them my opinion, then I can run with that too. My opinion based on the truth of these matters. Opinion that is well justified by the truths as I have laid then out here.
Accordingly, I have invited any and all comments that might more importantly point out what is NOT true about anything I explain in any of these Ten Truths. This is what matters most to me. The justification I have to explain what I have here and/or to learn what I get wrong. By get wrong I don't mean other words I could otherwise use to explain the very same thing. I mean what of consequence do I get wrong with respect to any of these observations I call truths?
Please. Do let me know what in your opinion is not true about anything I explain in any of my Ten Truths.
ONE: There are essentially two realities for all human beings. One reality is as we perceive it to be, our personal reality. The second reality is all that truly exists in the universe, the same for all of us. Our universal truth.
TWO: Human beings cannot know all that exists in the universe. The universe is forever in flux, full of mystery that will forever be marveled and explored by Man as long as he survives.
THREE: The first reality for human beings manifests itself in all the great many beliefs and faiths throughout the world; from Astrology to Zoroastrianism. Many books also stem from these beliefs; the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, Speaking of Faith, The Celestine Prophecy, the Book of Mormon and others. These are the books about men such as Jesus, Mohammad, Moses and Joseph Smith.
FOUR: The second reality, all that exists in the universe, known or unknown, is disclosed to Man most accurately and peacefully by way of well documented history (rather than religious books) and empirical science (rather than theology). Universal truth is all we can accept as reality, the truth, with the most certainty and least conflict. What we can all most reasonably accept as true for all concerned.
FIVE: Faith is spawned from the human inclination to speculate or suppose beyond universal truth as determined and defined by science. Such notions, religions, often involve spirituality or a belief in an energy, power or force. A belief in a deity, god or gods, the supernatural. These notions that go beyond common human awareness are typically based or recognized more by emotions and feelings rather than facts, reason and logic. They typically call for faith rather than proof, all stemming from personal experience rather than common observation or scientific verification.
SIX: Man's ability to theorize is a faculty that allows Man to advance toward greater awareness and understanding of universal truth. The theoretical guides Man to further scientific discovery. However, when conjecture about the supernatural leads to faith and religious inculcation rather facts, reason and logic, great harm can and does come to Man instead. This is because the great majority of people still today cannot accept the confines of science. Instead conjecture is continuously promoted as truth ultimately to the point of creating profound divisions between people resulting in great conflict, violence and war still raging to this day; the Crusades, Protestants v Catholics, Jews v Muslims, Shiites v Sunnis.
SEVEN: The alternative skeptical challenge and test of faith to limit spiritual conjecture is to foster a greater respect for the truth as currently defined or understood by science. Science is the most universally accepted effort to arrive at truth with no agenda other than greater knowledge and understanding of universal truth for all human beings. This path or quest of scientific discovery offers the way to peace instead of the sure madness that arises from the significant amount of conflict between differing faiths. As Man learns to universally accept both the great promise and reasonable limits of what science can teach, the source of conflict between Man is diminished, the path toward progress cleared and the prospect of peace improved.
EIGHT: Science fosters the peace of a universal patience and acceptance of our common condition and experience as humans. Faith forbids followers to question thus retarding Man's progress. Science encourages inquiry thus expanding Man's awareness and enlightenment. Faith typically deems any question about God's existence as evil in nature, not to be tolerated. Science has no such restrictions or judgement. Accordingly, there is no manner in which to reconcile these two competing approaches toward revealing Man's universal truth.
NINE: Faith can and does promote goodwill between some people. Creation of beautiful places of worship, help for those in need, community and comfort through difficult times. Even a code of conduct necessary for some to be moral. Yes of course, but with the good there is no need for the bad or falsehoods. Truth is best realized and peace most successfully promoted as more people patiently accept and embrace Man's common reality as revealed, defined and/or revised by science. The movement toward this patience and acceptance very slowly growing from one century to the next is the maturing of Man. His best chance for lasting peace and true understanding of all that exists in the universe, proven or yet to be proven.
TEN: People of faith will deny if not condemn these truths for many reasons; from fear of god to fear of no god. Fear of death to fear of Hell. Typically beginning with the significant influence of inculcation at a young impressionable age, the subsequent effects of confirmation bias over time, development of ego and bigotry all prevent objective reason and logic to prevail for Man as quickly as it should. Instead the condemnation persists even to this day much like when Galileo was even imprisoned for attempting to overcome these same obstacles centuries ago. Much like the Jesuits denounced Elvis Presley. Much like Harry Potter books are banned in Catholic schools today. The ignorance and intolerance persists. Much like the ongoing effort to overcome the ills of racism, sexism, xenophobia and homophobia that also still persist today, the effort to overcome these backward ways very slowly and painfully is the progress of Man that each generation represents better than the last.
All of the above cannot be denied as making perfect sense; well thought out and inspired by logic with rooms left for debate. "People of faith", as mentioned in "Ten", should not deny rather than approve those arguments, be it religious or scientific faith. However, Some People with religious faith have chosen to limit their understanding of the world and existence within the scope of religion which , somehow, prevents them from understanding and serving their God better especially with their belief that He created the universe and the world and all things that exist. "One may be blindly faithful, but should avoid being faithfully blind."
Now, I don't know if those ten arguments are your own or "extracts" from other sources. Regardless, they sit comfortably within the scope of logic. But I'd like a bit more elaboration on the 4th with regard to " well documented history (rather than religious books) and empirical science (rather than theology)." What can be considered as being "well documented history"?
All history, per my own understanding, regardless of its nature, is recorded in books, manuscripts, or storage devices to serve as testimonies to future generations to use as guidelines or basis to develop further arguments on a specific issue. What may seem to be a solid and incontestable argument today, may be rejected by or become archaic in the eyes of tomorrow's generation. Either because they'll have decided to reject the truth to embrace or conceive what makes them feel freer in life or they'll have acquired new superior knowledge (scientific or spiritual) that debunk previous beliefs.
An example of this is the past belief that the Earth was flat in contrast to today's belief that She is round. And this seems to apply to both the History recorded as fact based on accurate scientific experiments and the history recorded as fact based on accurate eyewitnesses' accounts. Can't they both be considered as "well documented histories? And yet, they both contain potholes that will be filled by next generations. For a father may be older than his son physically while the son may be wiser intellectually and spiritually.
The truth seems to be like the horizon that moves farther away as one approaches it.
Great post. Have a safe day.
All of the above cannot be denied as making perfect sense; well thought out and inspired by logic with rooms left for debate. "People of faith", as mentioned in "Ten", should not deny rather than approve those arguments, be it religious or scientific faith. However, Some People with religious faith have chosen to limit their understanding of the world and existence within the scope of religion which , somehow, prevents them from understanding and serving their God better especially with their belief that He created the universe and the world and all things that exist. "One may be blindly faithful, but should avoid being faithfully blind."
Now, I don't know if those ten arguments are your own or "extracts" from other sources. Regardless, they sit comfortably within the scope of logic. But I'd like a bit more elaboration on the 4th with regard to " well documented history (rather than religious books) and empirical science (rather than theology)." What can be considered as being "well documented history"?
All history, per my own understanding, regardless of its nature, is recorded in books, manuscripts, or storage devices to serve as testimonies to future generations to use as guidelines or basis to develop further arguments on a specific issue. What may seem to be a solid and incontestable argument today, may be rejected by or become archaic in the eyes of tomorrow's generation. Either because they'll have decided to reject the truth to embrace or conceive what makes them feel freer in life or they'll have acquired new superior knowledge (scientific or spiritual) that debunk previous beliefs.
An example of this is the past belief that the Earth was flat in contrast to today's belief that She is round. And this seems to apply to both the History recorded as fact based on accurate scientific experiments and the history recorded as fact based on accurate eyewitnesses' accounts. Can't they both be considered as "well documented histories? And yet, they both contain potholes that will be filled by next generations. For a father may be older than his son physically while the son may be wiser intellectually and spiritually.
The truth seems to be like the horizon that moves farther away as one approaches it.
Great post. Have a safe day.
Thank you not only for sharing your thoughts here, the compliments, but mostly the reward of a rather thoughtful comment in return that inspires what I hoped when I wrote these Ten Truths many decades ago (all mine I might add). Wrote and then eventually shared in this forum decades later.
You touch on more than just this question about "well documented history," but since that seems to be the source of your primary interest or question after reading my Ten Truths, I'll be glad to address this too.
I've also explained this many times, and I'm glad to do so again, because this area of confusion seems to persist with many people. Universal truth may or may not be well reflected in history books. That is, what actually happened may or may not be accurately captured by a historian (or theologian for that matter). Always, however, there is what actually happened. Always there is ultimately the truth of these matters, and our challenge as humans is to arrive at the truth of these matters given all we have to consider in the process.
There is so much to consider, it is hard for me to list all the sources that may help us recognize what is the truth and what is not. Facts vs falsehoods, and again..., simply because there are all the obstacles and challenges with respect to getting at the truth, we should not falter with respect to the effort to get at it.
Basically what I try to explain in my Fourth Truth is a manner in which to judge what sources of truth are perhaps better to consider in some circumstances than others. Is documented history about what actually happened during the crusades better in terms of learning the objective truth as compared to Christian literature that was put out at that time? What of the Spanish missionaries that first arrived in America and tried to convert the natives they found there into Christians? Are the history books the better place to to get at the truth of these stories or holy books? Or what best to consider about either? What about how everything came to be? The Bible or what empirical science has been able to establish as truth and document?
I don't know why people always point at the "exceptions to the rule" when it comes to the failing of any source of knowledge. What is most important is the prevailing rule with respect to when, where and how we might best distill the truth from the barrage of information all of us have to contend with. That's all.
Thank you not only for sharing your thoughts here, the compliments, but mostly the reward of a rather thoughtful comment in return that inspires what I hoped when I wrote these Ten Truths many decades ago (all mine I might add). Wrote and then eventually shared in this forum decades later.
You touch on more than just this question about "well documented history," but since that seems to be the source of your primary interest or question after reading my Ten Truths, I'll be glad to address this too.
I've also explained this many times, and I'm glad to do so again, because this area of confusion seems to persist with many people. Universal truth may or may not be well reflected in history books. That is, what actually happened may or may not be accurately captured by a historian (or theologian for that matter). Always, however, there is what actually happened. Always there is ultimately the truth of these matters, and our challenge as humans is to arrive at the truth of these matters given all we have to consider in the process.
There is so much to consider, it is hard for me to list all the sources that may help us recognize what is the truth and what is not. Facts vs falsehoods, and again..., simply because there are all the obstacles and challenges with respect to getting at the truth, we should not falter with respect to the effort to get at it.
Basically what I try to explain in my Fourth Truth is a manner in which to judge what sources of truth are perhaps better to consider in some circumstances than others. Is documented history about what actually happened during the crusades better in terms of learning the objective truth as compared to Christian literature that was put out at that time? What of the Spanish missionaries that first arrived in America and tried to convert the natives they found there into Christians? Are the history books the better place to to get at the truth of these stories or holy books? Or what best to consider about either? What about how everything came to be? The Bible or what empirical science has been able to establish as truth and document?
I don't know why people always point at the "exceptions to the rule" when it comes to the failing of any source of knowledge. What is most important is the prevailing rule with respect to when, where and how we might best distill the truth from the barrage of information all of us have to contend with. That's all.
Your lack of objectivity is revealed by your choice of alternatives - facts versus falsehoods - instead of accurate versus inaccurate or correctly understood or incorrectly understood or interpreted reasonably or misinterpreted, etc., etc. Falsehoods unnecessarily imply dishonest intent instead of just ignorance, or the wrong context, or tradition and cultural conditioning, etc., etc. I understand that you interpret these distinctions from your belief that science is the only accurate method of discerning what you call truth. It is that belief that CB calls scientism.
Your lack of objectivity is revealed by your choice of alternatives - facts versus falsehoods - instead of accurate versus inaccurate or correctly understood or incorrectly understood or interpreted reasonably or misinterpreted, etc., etc. Falsehoods unnecessarily imply dishonest intent instead of just ignorance, or the wrong context, or tradition and cultural conditioning, etc., etc. I understand that you interpret these distinctions from your belief that science is the only accurate method of discerning what you call truth. It is that belief that CB calls scientism.
The choice of history to reveal some truth is itself rooted in ignorance. Or cynicism but that requires a certain kind of cleverness that has not been apparent in the OP for whom nuances are nonexistent. It is all about US and Others. History is constantly rewritten, erased, rectified, dependent on whose history and who is doing the telling, who has the agency to speak and who is silenced. American history itself is a great lesson in this, never mind ancient history.
Thank you not only for sharing your thoughts here, the compliments, but mostly the reward of a rather thoughtful comment in return that inspires what I hoped when I wrote these Ten Truths many decades ago (all mine I might add). Wrote and then eventually shared in this forum decades later. You touch on more than just this question about "well documented history," but since that seems to be the source of your primary interest or question after reading my Ten Truths, I'll be glad to address this too. I've also explained this many times, and I'm glad to do so again, because this area of confusion seems to persist with many people. Universal truth may or may not be well reflected in history books. That is, what actually happened may or may not be accurately captured by a historian (or theologian for that matter). Always, however, there is what actually happened. Always there is ultimately the truth of these matters, and our challenge as humans is to arrive at the truth of these matters given all we have to consider in the process. There is so much to consider, it is hard for me to list all the sources that may help us recognize what is the truth and what is not. Facts vs falsehoods, and again..., simply because there are all the obstacles and challenges with respect to getting at the truth, we should not falter with respect to the effort to get at it. Basically what I try to explain in my Fourth Truth is a manner in which to judge what sources of truth are perhaps better to consider in some circumstances than others. Is documented history about what actually happened during the crusades better in terms of learning the objective truth as compared to Christian literature that was put out at that time? What of the Spanish missionaries that first arrived in America and tried to convert the natives they found there into Christians? Are the history books the better place to to get at the truth of these stories or holy books? Or what best to consider about either? What about how everything came to be? The Bible or what empirical science has been able to establish as truth and document? I don't know why people always point at the "exceptions to the rule" when it comes to the failing of any source of knowledge. What is most important is the prevailing rule with respect to when, where and how we might best distill the truth from the barrage of information all of us have to contend with. That's all.
bold above is a false dichotomy.
"a false dichotomy tries to force a conclusion by offering an incomplete list of alternatives. Typically only two options are considered, while in fact a number of additional options are available. When someone reasons from an either-or position and hasn't considered all relevant possibilities it is a failure of reasoning, a false dichotomy."
Your lack of objectivity is revealed by your choice of alternatives - facts versus falsehoods - instead of accurate versus inaccurate or correctly understood or incorrectly understood or interpreted reasonably or misinterpreted, etc., etc. Falsehoods unnecessarily imply dishonest intent instead of just ignorance, or the wrong context, or tradition and cultural conditioning, etc., etc. I understand that you interpret these distinctions from your belief that science is the only accurate method of discerning what you call truth. It is that belief that CB calls scientism.
Sorry but again no. I meant facts versus falsehoods, but this does not mean I could not also include facts versus inaccuracies. Versus misunderstanding and/or misinterpretation. Sure include them all! I don't unnecessarily imply dishonesty. In some cases it is flat out dishonesty and in other cases more like you suggest otherwise.
I believe we are better able to distinguish facts from falsehoods than you want to admit or recognize however. Or facts versus untruths. Objectively speaking. That's all.
Either way, there is what is the truth and there is what is not. This is the important distinction most important to make clear when it comes to so many of these competing notions or claims of truth that can't be justified a such.
The choice of history to reveal some truth is itself rooted in ignorance. Or cynicism but that requires a certain kind of cleverness that has not been apparent in the OP for whom nuances are nonexistent. It is all about US and Others. History is constantly rewritten, erased, rectified, dependent on whose history and who is doing the telling, who has the agency to speak and who is silenced. American history itself is a great lesson in this, never mind ancient history.
What "choice of history" are you referring to exactly? Specifics please, and again if I have in any way pointed at facts or history that is anything but true, please do make this clear to me as well. Otherwise these sorts of general statements and sources of heartburn are what is the clear sign of bias that prevents the objective evaluation of such facts and history utterly impossible.
The choice of history to reveal some truth is itself rooted in ignorance.
Then YOU are doing history wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
