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.
THREE: The first reality for human beings manifests itself in all the great many beliefs and faiths throughout the world; from Astrology to Zoraoastianism. 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
No. Universal truth doesn't have a say. It is there for us to recognize or not. Also no, because whether Jack is rude is a subjective matter. Universal truth is not a subjective matter. We are, however, subjective about who better recognizes the truth for what it is and who does not.
Thank you for replying. I can see that you are consistent with the application of your Ten Truths.
As of now, I am not debating whether not universal truth exists. However, what I do consider is the accuracy of calling "well-documented history" as something accurate, peaceful, certain, and with the least conflict. I have no doubt that people aspire to do these things which is to be as objective as possible and I commend the attempt. But, ultimately, the use of language is a subjective act because it is a human creation. It is through the eyes of a human and not through the eyes of ultimate truth.
I can list facts all day in order to remain as objective as possible, but in the end, what is the point if there is no meaning behind these facts, no purpose? For example, I might state to my husband that he arrived 5 minutes after 5. That would be a fact. I wouldn't call it a universal truth because I don't want to minimize the concepts you bring forth, but it is an observation and it is certain and it can be seen as truth. But what does this fact mean and if it has no meaning, what is the point of mentioning it, of noticing it?
Anyway, I see my point is not very clear so here it is. Human language makes the documentation of our visible world subjective.
Anyway, I see my point is not very clear so here it is. Human language makes the documentation of our visible world subjective.
I agree and have always been fascinated by this topic because I grew up among Biblical literalists who practically worshipped the written word and were very thankful that it was all down there in unambiguous black-and-white, how one was to live, what one was to believe. They disparaged "worldly wisdom" (any extra-Biblical source of knowledge or understanding, including science*), personal experience, other religions of course.
All the while not understanding this inherently subjective aspect of holy writ (or any writ) and totally ignoring the volumes and volumes of their own writings debating exactly how to "rightly divide the word of truth". Is this passage "clearly meant" to be figurative and not literal? Does this prophecy have more than one fulfillment? Even the gospel account of someone questioning whose husband a guy would be in heaven if he had many wives, tells us there never was an unambiguously, objectively indisputable orthodoxy.
* Science was great though if it happened to suit us at any given moment to suggest that some scientific discovery supported our dogma.
I agree and have always been fascinated by this topic because I grew up among Biblical literalists who practically worshipped the written word and were very thankful that it was all down there in unambiguous black-and-white, how one was to live, what one was to believe. They disparaged "worldly wisdom" (any extra-Biblical source of knowledge or understanding, including science*), personal experience, other religions of course.
All the while not understanding this inherently subjective aspect of holy writ (or any writ) and totally ignoring the volumes and volumes of their own writings debating exactly how to "rightly divide the word of truth". Is this passage "clearly meant" to be figurative and not literal? Does this prophecy have more than one fulfillment? Even the gospel account of someone questioning whose husband a guy would be in heaven if he had many wives, tells us there never was an unambiguously, objectively indisputable orthodoxy.
* Science was great though if it happened to suit us at any given moment to suggest that some scientific discovery supported our dogma.
Yes. I have often read here about believers cherry-picking parts of the Bible and, honestly, I can't really fault them because I find that a very human thing to do. There is so much information in our world and not everything can be significant and meaningful, only a select few things really can be at any given moment. And that is where language comes in. We speak about the things that are meaningful to us and ignore the rest. We speak about the things that can be separated from others by defining them and ignore the things that we can't separate or ignore the things that we see no purpose for separating them. The unambiguous black-and-white beliefs come from the parts that are meaningful and that can be separated from other things. The rest goes unquoted.
And I wondered, can I do better? Can I deal with ambiguous parts of the text and understand why it was this way? Is this ambiguous condition temporary which knowledge eventually makes clear or is it meant to always be unclear. It is interesting that you bring up literal and figurative meaning because this is where I suspected was the key to answering my questions.
We speak about the things that can be separated from others by defining them and ignore the things that we can't separate or ignore the things that we see no purpose for separating them. The unambiguous black-and-white beliefs come from the parts that are meaningful and that can be separated from other things. The rest goes unquoted.
Allegedly "black and white" or "cut and dried" capital-T Truth reflects a desire for clarity that the real world generally refuses to provide, if you examine it too closely. It also fits with the (very human, as you point out) tendency to simplify things as much as possible via "rules of thumb" or conventions or customs or what have you. Christian fundamentalism, in my experience, tended to attract people who are particularly wanting to escape moral uncertainty, who have an obsession with "rightness" and avoidance of "wrongness". A desire to please authority figures, and to avoid their displeasure at all costs (practically speaking, it's as much about the church leadership as it is about god).
Quote:
Originally Posted by elyn02
It is interesting that you bring up literal and figurative meaning because this is where I suspected was the key to answering my questions.
It always pegged my irony meter, even as a believer, that Biblical literalists were perfectly capable of taking parts of the Bible figuratively if taking it literally caused problems. Even they could understand that always taking everything literally is stupid. it was just that they were heavily biased toward a literal interpretation, however tortured, if it was remotely possible.
The appeal of the literalist approach was that it was simple. It means what it says, at face value. Eve, a literal person, and literally the first woman, was literally made from one of Adam's literal ribs.
The problem is that going too far with this produces great complexity. Some of it is situational, and results in hilarious band-aids. My favorite is that the literal interpretation of various statements in the New Testament mean that if you die without having repented of your sins in a particular way that requires some fairly grown-up abstract thinking to understand, you will be forever separated from god (= go to hell). Now what happens if a four year old child tragically dies? You're a pastor, and have to tell the parents, who are deep in grief and shock, that their toddler is currently burning in hell? Maybe they put two and two together and come to you seeking reassurance: surely, god would not be so cruel -- and you're supposed to say, "yes"?
So ... and this is SO unlike their carefully cultivated self-image ... they did the only thing they could, and invented a doctrine out of thin air instead of literal Biblical statements, known as "the age of accountability". That god decides when a person dies if he is "old enough to know better", and this conveniently varies by individual based on mental and emotional maturity. Your precious little Johnny was only four. He is in god's arms now. It's okay.
I can only imagine that someone, somewhere, came up with this idea after much prayer and seeking god, and felt this was god's will. Which is another thing we were normally against: personal experiences or feelings. We were supposed to go by god's word alone, lest we be deceived by our own wayward hearts. And yet, when god "forgot" to cover some thorny question or other in his word, we would declare that god had "spoken" to us! Because we always wanted simple, clear direction, no matter what. So if it wasn't written out for us, we had to invent it.
These are some of the reasons I abandoned my faith, for the sake of my own sanity, so that I could just admit that some things aren't certain, or simple, or simplifiable. That sometimes there are no good options, and some sky wizard isn't ready to smite me if I get it wrong. That some things are unknown, and that we can't know the unknown because some bronze age goatherd wrote it on a parchment.
The appeal of the literalist approach was that it was simple. It means what it says, at face value. Eve, a literal person, and literally the first woman, was literally made from one of Adam's literal ribs.
Even if this happened literally, it is still one piece of information out of thousands that must hold some kind of figurative meaning in order for the literalists to point it out. That's what makes an objective fact subjective to human thought. The human noticed it. The human thought that particular point important.
For argument's sake let's state Eve coming from Adam's ribs as fact.
Now what? If it has no implications, then it was just an objective statement of fact. Nobody would argue over it. It's like me noticing the grass is green or a leaf fell to the ground. But we know that is not accurate. We know it has implications, especially figurative implications.
Sure, the figurative implications might be simple, such as, "And this is why men should rule over women..." or perhaps a little more progressive implications, such as, "And this is why a man should care for his women. She comes from him. (And not from Venus)." Pointing out this "fact" is part of human behavior and is subject to the one pointing it out. This is why "documented history", even literal facts, cannot be conflict-free.
Even if this happened literally, it is still one piece of information out of thousands that must hold some kind of figurative meaning in order for the literalists to point it out. That's what makes an objective fact subjective to human thought. The human noticed it. The human thought that particular point important.
For argument's sake let's state Eve coming from Adam's ribs as fact.
Now what? If it has no implications, then it was just an objective statement of fact. Nobody would argue over it. It's like me noticing the grass is green or a leaf fell to the ground. But we know that is not accurate. We know it has implications, especially figurative implications.
Sure, the figurative implications might be simple, such as, "And this is why men should rule over women..." or perhaps a little more progressive implications, such as, "And this is why a man should care for his women. She comes from him. (And not from Venus)." Pointing out this "fact" is part of human behavior and is subject to the one pointing it out. This is why "documented history", even literal facts, cannot be conflict-free.
History particularly is not. it is not just about dates, often even that cannot be exactly established. it is also the lense through which one is seeing. Post Colonial version of history speaks a different truth when it finally speaks.
Thank you for replying. I can see that you are consistent with the application of your Ten Truths.
As of now, I am not debating whether not universal truth exists. However, what I do consider is the accuracy of calling "well-documented history" as something accurate, peaceful, certain, and with the least conflict. I have no doubt that people aspire to do these things which is to be as objective as possible and I commend the attempt. But, ultimately, the use of language is a subjective act because it is a human creation. It is through the eyes of a human and not through the eyes of ultimate truth.
I can list facts all day in order to remain as objective as possible, but in the end, what is the point if there is no meaning behind these facts, no purpose? For example, I might state to my husband that he arrived 5 minutes after 5. That would be a fact. I wouldn't call it a universal truth because I don't want to minimize the concepts you bring forth, but it is an observation and it is certain and it can be seen as truth. But what does this fact mean and if it has no meaning, what is the point of mentioning it, of noticing it?
Anyway, I see my point is not very clear so here it is. Human language makes the documentation of our visible world subjective.
I'm with you...
No one can easily or entirely get around the challenges and obstacles that you well describe, but again universal truth exists regardless. All I am trying to point out is perhaps just an alternative way of thinking as described in my Ten Truths that suggests a preference toward all we can ascertain as the truth of these matters as objectively as possible. Ideally the objectivity counters the bias and prejudice that has caused us to veer from the truth of these matters that has also lead to unnecessary friction and violence. In this case as a result of conflicting religious beliefs. Ancient superstitions that we still see "alive and well" today.
I am not fool enough to think the progress I'm advocating is any easy trick. Heck, there are people who reject this sort of inclination right from the start, but this is the direction we must strive to make the sort of progress I imagine we humans can make over time. Even despite the language barriers and all the others.
Thanks for the comment(s) in any case. It all starts with thinking about the merits of these ideas in the first place. I appreciate that you can at least do this in an adult, civil and in my opinion intelligent manner.
I agree and have always been fascinated by this topic because I grew up among Biblical literalists who practically worshipped the written word and were very thankful that it was all down there in unambiguous black-and-white, how one was to live, what one was to believe. They disparaged "worldly wisdom" (any extra-Biblical source of knowledge or understanding, including science*), personal experience, other religions of course.
All the while not understanding this inherently subjective aspect of holy writ (or any writ) and totally ignoring the volumes and volumes of their own writings debating exactly how to "rightly divide the word of truth". Is this passage "clearly meant" to be figurative and not literal? Does this prophecy have more than one fulfillment? Even the gospel account of someone questioning whose husband a guy would be in heaven if he had many wives, tells us there never was an unambiguously, objectively indisputable orthodoxy.
* Science was great though if it happened to suit us at any given moment to suggest that some scientific discovery supported our dogma.
When we lean toward "cherry picking" whatever facts or truth that "support our dogma" we are again veering in that direction driven by bias and prejudice that is NOT the sort of objective critical thinking I advocate. As I have noted along these lines many times before as well, we should want the truth and nothing but the truth REGARDLESS how it makes us feel. REGARDLESS how it fits whatever we WANT to believe.
Objective reason is not driven by personal wants and desires. This is a great challenge, no question, because we humans are full of wants and desires, but ultimately there are methods of establishing the truth that can and do overcome those challenges. Again this is an important part of how we make progress despite the ignorance that tends to retard that progress.
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.
