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.
I think I'm going to take a break from this now and see what else there is to see in this forum, before I feel like getting back to #7 (as if anyone is on the edge of their seat waiting with great anticipation about any of this). I'm guessing that might be another assumption injected here as I take a break from that sort of thing now...
I, for one, appreciate your effort to respond substantively and I applaud your willingness to accept the scientism mantle because it fits. Given your limited macro-level requirements for Reality, it is understandable, as is your reluctance to entertain anything beyond.
Irkle Berserkle Irkle Berserkle started this thread
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2020
978 posts, read 235,463 times
Reputation: 1009
Some time ago, LearnMe started a thread about the "Ten Truths" that are the foundation his thinking. That thread predictably veered off into other areas. More recently, a discussion of the Ten Truths surfaced on another unrelated thread. LearnMe suggested that I and perhaps others had mischaracterized and too quickly dismissed his Ten Truths. He invited a more substantive response, specifically from me but surely from others who also think deeply about these matters.
This is my more substantive response. I’ll simply offer my observations on each Truth. I’ll try to stay as neutral and non-snarky as I can. It would be wonderful – but perhaps I’m hoping against all hope – if the thread could remain substantive, free of the non-sequiturs, inane cheerleading, mindless emojis and snarky one-liners that substitute for thought and quickly derail almost every thread.
.
.
You should explain yourself more, I mean put up more ," Quote, unquote," jus saying, interesting stuff though, you was busy today huh.
Saw a report that came out saying that light alone creates matter, well, maybe its.neither here nor.there, just thought it was interesting.
The ten truths are nothing more than self justifying a personal belief. Anybody can use them to point the figure at another belief system.
Maybe, when they grow up, they will actually want to look at a process to evaluate reliability, But Based on the ten commandments presented, I highly doubt it,
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.
This is just naïve - almost utopian - Scientism.
As a believer, I welcome skeptical challenge. I have religious convictions, but none that place me in a straitjacket as confining as philosophical naturalism.
LearnMe’s hope is to “foster greater respect for the truth as currently defined or understood by science.” How does this differ qualitatively from the hope of a Christian proselytizer or Muslim jihadist to convert the world to their truth? It seems to LearnMe to differ only because he is convinced philosophical naturalism is the answer.
My objective is the best possible understanding of ultimate ontological reality that I can achieve in this lifetime. If I thought science had been capable of providing that understanding, I would’ve limited my inquiry to science – but I didn’t, and neither do many other sincere and diligent seekers.
“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.” Again, this is a quasi-religious sentiment. It assumes, once again, that ultimate ontological truth lies within the natural order. Worse, the “no agenda” remark naively assumes that scientists are free from human nature. Even science doesn’t assume this, which is why it demands falsifiability and peer review. Science is an area of human endeavor, no better or worse than any other.
Science “offers the way to peace.” Really – is this what LearnMe thinks history shows? Science isn’t, in the abstract, the way to either peace or conflict. It has greatly facilitated conflict, but this is the fault of human nature rather than science.
Once again, LearnMe’s sentiments are quasi-religious. The fact is, worldwide conflict would be reduced just as much (or more) if all humans were committed Christian fundamentalists, Islamic fundamentalists or Scientologists as if all humans were naturalistic atheists.
One could even describe my sentiments as the "work of the devil" and it wouldn't be the first time...
People like you like to throw all manner of such derogatory description at what I call my simple "10 Truths," and of course I know this goes with the territory, but you badly twist what I am suggesting, promoting, in a way that makes clear your bias when it comes to this topic.
You write your "objective is the best possible understanding of ultimate ontological reality that I can achieve in this lifetime. If I thought science had been capable of providing that understanding, I would’ve limited my inquiry to science – but I didn’t, and neither do many other sincere and diligent seekers."
What all I have studied over the course of my lifetime outside of what science has helped us understand is something I'm not as inclined to go on about like you are, but all that study that has included a great many disciplines has demonstrated to me the strengths and weaknesses of ALL study we can choose to focus upon. Of course science is not capable of providing that ultimate understanding of "ultimate ontological reality!" Not as of today anyway. Certainly not to anyone's complete satisfaction including mine. Not for scientists either. Why the call for patience, and even then I'm talking about more patience that takes more time than any of us has before we die.
So the question or argument you seem to be making is that there is a better way for all of us to achieve "the best possible understanding of ultimate ontological reality." What is it? Simply to believe what you believe? All that everyone else believes?
Sorry. I've got all my study, learning, experience and feelings about what is going on around us as a result of a great deal more than you give me credit for. It isn't sole reliance on science. It's my look to science instead of all other claims like yours, because that's what all my learning to date has taught me is most logical and reasonable. Reliable, verifiable. Objective. Certainly more so than religion has provided for us. More so than the myriad of personal claims about what we should all believe. I choose to wait on science instead. Even if science has it's limitations.
Limitations unlike some of you seem to believe about yourselves. Seem to realize about yourselves. Just like the story of mankind since the beginning...
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.
I won't keep beating this to death.
“Faith typically deems any question about God's existence as evil in nature, not to be tolerated.” This is just absurd. LearnMe’s view of religion is as skewed as his view of science. He apparently thinks all religious believers are closed-minded, wild-eyed zealots. How many religious believers whom you know fit this description? Almost all Christian denominations and almost all other religions have a long history of ecumenical dialogue and welcome scrutiny of their claims.
To be fair, this inability or reluctance to question when it comes to people of faith is quite obvious with some and with others more subtle. Maybe even not applicable, but my experience is that people of faith don't REALLY question, because that's a contradiction of terms. To have faith is to do exactly that, for the reason(s) faith is necessary. Lack of answers to the questions we can and should be asking ourselves without the bias of having faith. This is what I mean anyway.
As far as I can tell, people who claim to have faith don't really question their faith. That or their faith is not as strong as those who are more inclined to explain they need not question their faith or belief in God.
So okay, maybe not all people of faith question their faith, but I would be curious to have this explained to me by those who claim to be faithful but question their faith. Some will even explain with all honesty that God forbids them to question their belief in God.
Yourself included. Perhaps you don't believe that God forbids you to question God's existence, but do you have faith in your belief in God? Do you question that faith or belief? I mean really? How so?
I can't speak for you or all people of faith of course, but all I am explaining here is that people of faith don't seriously ask the questions that people like me are more apt to ask about the existence of God. Certainly not as honestly or objectively as atheists do. Can I really be wrong about this?
Again I invite anyone of faith to explain how or why...
I wish I could get to #10 this morning as I thought I would be able, but I've got to shove off for a drive to visit my dear old mother turning 92 today. Maybe tomorrow before I can get to more blah blah blah and those kinds of unnecessary insults as well. Thanks for your patience...
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.
LearnMe seems unaware of the actual beneficial effects of religion – and specifically Christianity – on science and every other aspect of human civilization and culture, even on the various “ills” he cites. Even atheists have acknowledged and written about it – quite extensively. The examples LearnMe cites – did the Jesuits denounce Elvis? – are childish and reflect a woefully uninformed perspective.
It seems to me that the Ten Truths deteriorate badly as one progresses through them. It seems to me that the Scientism and disdain for religion become ever-more-apparent. Just as LearnMe might say about me or any other religious believer, his Ten Truths seem transparently to be driven by emotions and feelings more than reason and logic. Certainly by the time we reach Truth Five and beyond, something other than logic and clear thinking is driving the bus.
I’ll conclude with a quote from an article on Scientism published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/...is-scientism/:
Science is an activity that seeks to explore the natural world using well-established, clearly-delineated methods. Given the complexity of the universe, from the very big to very small, from inorganic to organic, there is a vast array of scientific disciplines, each with its own specific techniques. The number of different specializations is constantly increasing, leading to more questions and areas of exploration than ever before. Science expands our understanding, rather than limiting it.
Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like “merely”, “only”, “simply”, or “nothing more than”. Scientism restricts human inquiry.
It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist. Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.
Again I appreciate this additional opportunity to discuss my Ten Truths. Doesn't happen as often for me as once upon a time when I first introduced them many decades ago and then later in this forum...
Hard for me to read how so many people will assume that which they think I'm not aware. I am "unaware of the actual beneficial effects of religion?" This here again even despite what I even clearly write in Truth #9?
It is not all or nothing for me in any case. It's more an assessment of the "good, bad and ugly" related to religion and/or the quest for the truth. Peace. Reconciling all there is to consider and learn what we can to make progress in as peaceful, acceptable way possible. Better over worse.
I have read a great deal of history as well, and always there is a good deal of "good, bad and ugly" when it comes to the history of man. Much of our history was during a time when religion was actually needed in a way to establish law and order. A way in which to get around terribly ruthless and corrupt rulers. That or to help us endure so many atrocities. "Man's inhumanity to man." For the longer part of our history, religion was for all practical purposes a part of everything we did. Including our first ponderings, assessments and conclusions about our life on Earth. Our solar system. The universe we live in. So yes of course you can comb through that history and find where religion not only ruled the day but in many ways for better rather than worse.
At the same time we can't close our eyes to all about religion that has been a very serious problem for man, and still is today. That's all. How we might be able to build on all we've learned one way or another over the course of our history since we lived in caves. To choose the better path today given all we have learned.
You wrote, "It seems to me that the Ten Truths deteriorate badly as one progresses through them."
I am very tempted to pick away at the rest you write that so badly needs correcting far as I'm concerned, but it seems it would make no difference given this problem you also note about our different perspectives. Here too again the problem of confirmation bias is blaring, but I appreciate that you wrote "It seems to me." Sure doesn't seem that way to me, and the rest you write also seems a deterioration of this effort to understand what I'm explaining. Instead you seem to badly misunderstand even the fundamentals.
I can appreciate what is good about religion in any case and at the same time appreciate what science can and does for us as well. All "good, bad and ugly" about both, but at least I can objectively recognize how the two are very different in some very significant ways and how we can all universally embrace what science is helping us to understand now during modern times as compared to all the different competing religions that in no way fosters the same sort of universal understanding and/or "maturing of man."
Your atheist creed, cement theory, and ten commandments have use too. They can be a mental toe hold for somebody to grab onto. Like any religion/faith based self help can be. Just like with most people trying to do the right thing but feel that their view/statement of belief about god/spirituality is the true path.
Your atheist creed, cement theory, and ten commandments have use too. They can be a mental toe hold for somebody to grab onto. Like any religion/faith based self help can be. Just like with most people trying to do the right thing but feel that their view/statement of belief about god/spirituality is the true path.
You often state the obvious, and perhaps there is a point in doing so. Not sure, but the insults are really unnecessary and cause for me to mostly ignore you as a rule. Nothing you seem to comment about for a very long time now is anything new for anyone who tends to follow along these threads as some of us do.
I may not see things the same way Irk does, for example, but at least he posts comments with something in the way of new substance to consider. In this case about my thoughts as described by what I call my "Ten Truths." No need to continue expressing your same old heartburn about the likes in any case.
Why not just simply focus on other things? Comments and threads other than mine?
Why not just go away?
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.
