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.
Many people become very arrogant about their belief systems, thinking that they know THE TRUTH. But the way I see it, in order to see the truer reflection of reality, you have to imagine something strange:
Imagine that THE TRUTH is like a collection of ingredients for a salad. So, SALAD, in this case is THE TRUTH.
Imagine that you are trying to get a bite of the SALAD.
But imagine that each piece of an ingredient for the salad is so big that you can only put in your mouth a little piece of that ingredient.
So for example, there are carrots, lettuce and croutons. And in order to taste the SALAD, you have to have a piece of carrot, a piece of lettuce and a piece of crouton in your mouth at the same time. But it just doesn't fit. The best you can do is try a piece of the carrot first, then a piece of the lettuce, then a piece of the crouton.
From this perspective, you can never taste THE TRUTH. You can never have the whole truth. You can never have all the ingredients of the salad in your mouth all at once in order to taste THE SALAD.
So since I see that each belief system is like a little piece of one of the ingredients of the salad, then when people are arguing over their beliefs, here is what I see:
one group is eating a tiny piece of the carrot and says: my SALAD tastes better than yours.... Another group is eating a tiny piece of the lettuce and says: no, you're wrong, my SALAD tastes better than yours
In truth, none of them tasted the SALAD yet...
And they should be more humble and say instead: my carrot tastes pretty good, how does your lettuce taste?
If the Universe is alive and is a living organism who can think for itself (where as we are individual parts of the big organism) THEN perhaps only the Universe can truly taste the SALAD. But it can taste the salad thanks to us, the little parts of it, who are each tasting a little part of some of the ingredients.
As they say, an ant colony is smarter as a group then individually. So maybe it's like that...
WE CAN LEARN THE TRUTH ONLY IN LITTLE PIECES, CALLED HALF TRUTHS OR PERCENTAGES OF THE TRUTH
We have a cool invention called "legos". Those are sets consisting of building blocks which enable you to create different structures.
You buy lego sets because you feel like it's something you would like to have, OR someone gives you a set as a gift. Usually, there are only a few sets in the local store. So even though there are lots of different sets around the world, your local store only provides a few. So you can choose only from a limited selection. Or you don't have a choice if someone gives it to you as a gift. When you receive a gift, you can choose to discard it or to try to play it and see if it works out for you.
In the store, you can buy additional building blocks if you wish to expand your structure. And when you see the pieces that don't fit your structure, you ignore them. You only buy those that could work out for your structure. Usually, you don't get mad at the store for selling pieces that are different from yours and don't fit your structure. You understand that different people have different tastes.
I am going to compare a structure to a belief system. Building blocks (lego pieces) are ideas. So my parallel is that "the stores" of humanity sell many different ideas (individual or a set) to build structures (belief systems) and even sell already completed structures.
There are many different belief systems in this world (aka: structures.) Religious, scientific, philosophical and others...
So each new idea you come across either fits with your structure or doesn't. So you ignore it or accept it. Some people may choose to discard some of the older pieces of the structure which may enable them to make the new pieces fit and make a better structure. So that's why some people have a hard time believing some idea: it's because it doesn't fit into their set of ideas/their structure.
Another point is: people should not complain about others who have different structures. Like they don't complain that different people are drawn to different lego sets.
And last, but not least point is: our selection of belief systems (which to choose to believe) is usually very limited. Stores, as we know, only carry a few types. So our choices are limited. We end up buying the best one they have (according to us) and we are happy with it.
And sometimes our belief systems are given to us as a gift (passed on by those we know). So in this case, the only choice was to accept the belief and "try it on" or to discard it. Very limited choice.
While we are "playing with our set" we are not aware that in some other stores there are much better sets. We are not aware and we are not comparing. We blissfully post online our amazement with how our set works. But the other people (from other areas), those who bought better sets can't understand it. They can't understand why these people are expressing amazement over their particular set when it's so inferior. They don't understand because they don't realize that those people are not even aware of the new sets. If they would have been made aware, they may have realized that they are holding an inferior set and would replace it with a better one.
I am not sure if my point was clear or not. But to clarify it: some people don't understand how others can believe some old fashioned ideas about reality. But they don't realize that those others simply did not hear yet about the "latest and the greatest". And if some of them did, they did not understand it. They saw that it did not fit their current structure and they just said: oh well, who knows what that is.
LEARNING BY PERCENTAGES/degrees OF THE TRUTH
Because beliefs are like structures, you can't FORCE an idea on the structure if it doesn't fit. You have to adjust your structure or reject the idea. Some people choose to do one and some the other.
But imagine that you have a teacher who wants to teach you something. But that teacher is wise and knows that the idea (the block) that he wants to give you won't fit into your current structure. So he will have to look around and to find something that fits your structure, but that is CLOSER to the truth, to the idea that he wanted to give you.
Because the teacher knows that if he simply gives you a new building block and say: this is the reality... and you realize that it doesn't fit into your structure and your structure become invalid in your eyes, it could be emotionally devastating for you. So the wise and patient teacher will find a block that gives you a part of his new idea, but still fits into your structure. Therefore, the block/idea that he gave you won't be as true as the other block/idea that he had. But it will be a stepping stone for you to evolve in your learning and to still keep your structure. And overtime, the teacher would lead you to change your structure a bit by bit until it becomes a different one and the new piece would fit perfectly into it.
So that's how we learn: by knowing a bit of the truth now and a bit later and more later.
Sometimes, like in an example above, someone (like a teacher) may know something that is true 70%, but will choose to tell you something that is true only 50% percent and only because the 70% piece simply won't fit into your structure. But in the long run, doing it this way would work out for the best.
So for example, if I meet a religious person, I can't just give that person my ideas and tell that person that God does not exist and this is the reality. That person will either be emotionally devastated or will reject the idea because it doesn't fit his/her structure.
So my option would be to work within his structure. To try to adjust his structure little by little, so that eventually it may fit what I need to give him.
So my belief is this: if someone does communicate with people (like Jesus or angels or God or whoever), they usually would work within that person's structure (that person's belief system) and they would adjust it or maybe choose to let it be if that's better for that person.
So people from different beliefs can't compare notes with each other and say: my god told me such and such... did your god tell you the same thing? If not, then your god is false and mine is true... It's like comparing apples to oranges...
No, if there was a god, then he would be wise, and the wisest thing to do would be to tell that person what he needs to hear, not what the ultimate reality really is
There's far more here than I can adequately address, so this will be a necessarily incomplete comment. Apologies in advance for the run-on sentences
The OP's comparison of partial/half-truths (beliefs) with salad or legos calls to (my) mind the relativity and inherent subjectivity of any individual's p.o.v./perspective, such as in:
Each person has unique (non-identical) mindset, vantage point, mental picture/memory (even for the same object/stimulus/event), and each of those is correct, insofar as what they each know is true to that person's experience/perception/interpretation-it's just not "all" the truth there is to be had.
Each person has access to some fragment, facet, a fractional portion of "the larger truth" (version complex enough to be "complete"-therefore too complicated for any one person to ever comprehend).
-----
The approach wherein one seeks compromise between a new idea (likely to be rejected/dismissed) and a previously-held (or exisiting) idea (which one accepts) reminds me of how new products are introduced (such as branding item with a known/trusted name), or how parents try to get finicky kids to try a new food (esp. something "healthy").
With the example called "chaining", it can be done gradually, by putting a little bit more of the "healthy" food in an otherwise-unhealthy-but-well-liked food. The hope is that one will surreptitiously help the person adapt to the target (unfamiliar and/or disliked) food, with less protest. At first, the person may not realize this, because the novel/healthy, "initially unattractive" food is paired with or disguised by the familiar and appealing (unhealthy) food item.
Didn't mean to tangent with that particular instance (of premeditated incremental habituation), the same concept applies to broad variety of phenomena (with or without the awareness/consent of those persons being subjected to these measures)-for good and for ill (and who can definitively say, objectively evaluate, which is which) ?
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.
