Opinion and Faith

[Dameedna]

In the case of faith, someone else is proposing something to you to believe in. In the case of the opinion, it is formed by the intellect of the one who concludes it.

Being presented to one as an option does not force one to accept it. Given the significant number of those who who have rejected the faith proposal gives ample evidence that the choice is not forced.

Agreed.

No and no. See above.

None of this even remotely addresses what I said.

 

[Dameedna]

If one ‘applies’ the “Love God with your whole…” and God is Truth, and Truth is an ‘object’… then that Love (subjective as it is) would be loving an ‘object’ called Love (as God is).

If one chooses to “apply” that concept then they are making a decision. That decision is based on their opinion about what they should choose.

Perhaps the terms ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ do not consider what ‘Truths’ nature really is, and therefore are really missing the mark in definition… while not in the ‘knowing’.

There is Truth.

Then there are the humans who claim to have it. To me, if you understand the nature of truth…you would never, ever claim to have it.

You would be too humbled by it to do so.

 

[jkiernan56]

No, This is your opinion on what we know and it is your opinion on what is true. There is a difference between what is actually true, and what you think is true.

You are not understanding me. What I was trying to explain is that what is TRUE is independant of my opinion. What is TRUE existed before the world existed. What existed is God. God is the ultimate truth. God is abolute truth.

Now either what I have just said is either true or not true.
My opinion does not make it true, not does my opinion makes it false.

Either it really IS true or it really IS NOT true. Again let me try to put it to you like this … Lets suppose for the sake of discussion that I do not believe that God exists and that you do believe that God exists. We both take a position on the single reality - God does exist … true or not true … you say yes, i say no. Now one of us has to be wrong. Because what is real is independant and outside of you and me. In reality either God does exist or does not. God cannot both exist and not exist. It is an impossibility.

I am trying to help you understand something called objective reality … objective truth. Truth is not subjective …

I can say that I think that 1+1=15. But the objective reality is that 1+1=2. So what I think does not change reality. I would be thinking of something that is not real. What is real is that 1+1=2 independant of you and me … and what we think or do not think about the matter. The truth and reality of something is outside of ourselves.

You are correct to say that “There is a difference between what is actually true, and what you think is true.” I may believe something that is really not true. But the reverse can also be said - I can actually believe something is true … because it really is true …

 

[Arandur]

Why would you accept the spirit preserves the essential teachings?

Because you choose to? If you do…then you are forming an opinion about…spirit are you not?

As much as I “form an opinion” about gravity (see earlier analogy).

It depends on your definition of “opinion,” in what sense you mean it.

There is an initial act of faith to accept any Truth about God, yes. You can become persuaded first (that is my approach, and that of many), but this persuasion still requires faith, because faith is “confidence in things unseen;” i.e., it is not confirmed directly and measurably by the senses in a scientific way. It may be confirmed for you logically/rationally or spiritually, but since you have not directly witnessed unquestionable verification of a truth through the physical senses, it requires a component of faith. So does any trust in authority, I might add; most scientific data accepted by people is actually accepted on faith in the authority of the discoverer or scientific community.

 

[Michael_David]

Then there are the humans who claim to have it. To me, if you understand the nature of truth…you would never, ever claim to have it.

Ahh, here we get back to the ‘Faith’ thing. Faith does not claim to ‘have it’, rather that ‘It is’… it is only in the trying to convince another that the ‘opinion’ things surfaces (from the others point of view), rather then the common ‘belief’.

If one claims that it is the others opinion that same one claiming such is using opinionated thoughts to say so… rather then both search for that ‘IT’ that exists… outside of opinions.

 

[Dameedna]

You are not understanding me. What I was trying to explain is that what is TRUE is independant of my opinion.

I agree. What is true, is independant of your opinion.

What is TRUE existed before the world existed.

Again I agree.

What existed is God.

No.

The truth is …what existed before this universe is unknown.

You believe, what existed is a thing you call God. This is now an opinion.

The truth, is unknown.

And yes I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. No need for all the caps.

I disagree with your conclusion that “truth” results in a reality you call God.

I know, that you think your view’s are the truth. Other’s think their views are the truth.

Both realize there IS truth, both disagree.

That is why it is called an opinion.

It’s really never crossed your mind has it, that your belief about what is true could be wrong?

 

[fix]

The truth is …what existed before this universe is unknown.

You believe, what existed is a thing you call God. This is now an opinion.

The truth, is unknown.

And yes I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. No need for all the caps.

I disagree with your conclusion that “truth” results in a reality you call God.

I know, that you think your view’s are the truth. Other’s think their views are the truth.

Both realize there IS truth, both disagree.

That is why it is called an opinion.

It’s really never crossed your mind has it, that your belief about what is true could be wrong?

Is this what is termed Nominalism?

 

[Dameedna]

Is this what is termed Nominalism?

No, it is a reaction to human narcisissm.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism

Is this what you are looking for?

 

[fhansen]

Then there are the humans who claim to have it. To me, if you understand the nature of truth…you would never, ever claim to have it.

You would be too humbled by it to do so.

What does this mean? Truth is simply truth and we need to know at least some of it in order to function everyday. Humility notwithstanding.

The reason believers don’t agree that faith and opinion are one and the same is that, for most, faith is an experience- and so something more than an opinion. And the fact that the experience of faith is subjective in no way renders it to be an impossibility anymore than love is an impossibility due to its’ subjective nature. Is love non-existent simply because not all have experienced it? Is God non-existent just because not all have experienced Him?

 

[davidv]

None of this even remotely addresses what I said.

Then I obviously have no idea what you meant by questions you posed? Sorry.

 

[jkiernan56]

IE The greatest truth that we know, is that God does not exist.

You see? I can do that too Make a statement and declare it as the “ultimate and undeniable” truth.

Yes, you could make a statement and declare your statement is the absolute truth … for instance you could declare “that God does not exist.”

Just because a person declares something is true … does not necessarily make it true. I totally agree with you.

Where I don’t think we see eye to eye is that there is a truth that is absolute independant of you and me. Either one or the other really is true A) God exists B) God does not exist

One of these statements is true and the other is false in REALITY. Yes I can’t prove the reality to you, but the reality is independant. You are absolutely correct to say that what I accept to be true … is not true. You trust the reality that God does not exist. I trust the reality that God does exist. We both have “faith” in our understanding and assessment of reality. One of us will be proven to be right and one of us proven to be wrong one day. Both of them cannot be true. What I have come to understand is true FROM EXPERIENCE and not just head knowledge, is that God DOES exist.

I could make a statement that I am a monkey typing these words out to you and not a human being. I could even tell you my statement is the absolute truth. My saying it does not make it true. What is true is that I am NOT a monkey and that I am a human being (me - Jim) typing out these words to you. So therefore, if I make the statement that Jim who is a human being is typing out these words to you … and that Jim is not a monkey … I could declare this to be true … and it would be … you know why? because it is in reality. I am not a monkey in someone’s dream typing these words out to you.

You are reading these words right now. Either that is true or not true. The reality is that you really are reading these words right now … even if I said to you that “the truth is that you are not reading these words right now.”

What is the truth is based in reality … not opinion or imagination.

 

[Michael_David]

It’s really never crossed your mind has it, that your belief about what is true could be wrong?

If this is ‘true’ then the whole of humanity, with all their senses, with all their thoughts, with all their feelings, with all their experience is living (if I dare call it that) an illusion… there is no truth we can sense, think, feel, experience.

As such, why go through the hassle to try and convince another that ‘Truth is’ if no one can confirm it without opinion?

 

[Dameedna]

What does this mean? Truth is simply truth and we need to know at least some of it in order to function everyday. Humility notwithstanding.

What we are talking about is not really the every day to day stuff, we can figure that out to a degree. Most of us admit to a lack of knowlege in certain area but most really don’t care.

The reason believers don’t agree that faith and opinion are one and the same is that, for most, faith is an experience- and so something more than an opinion.

I agree. Religious experience cannot be described, it can only be experienced.

The problem arises, when an individual tries to claim their experience, is right , the truth and correct for all humanity. It was their experience and no matter how right it was for them, it only belongs to them.

And then you get in the realm of “my god is bigger than your god, my truth is bigger than your truth”

And the fact that the experience of faith is subjective in no way renders it to be an impossibility anymore than love is an impossibility due to its’ subjective nature.

It is possible religious experience are real. But they ARE relative to the person who experienced them. And society cannot base it’s projects on what any one or two or even 1 million humans claim as truth.

Religion has it’s place, but it is personal, and therefore cannot be used to determine rules and precepts for human behaviour

Is love non-existent simply because not all have experienced it? Is God non-existent just because not all have experienced Him?

Love is an idea. It may just “be” an idea. God is an idea. He may just remain an idea.

God does not “not” exist just because everyone doesn’t experience him. But to claim he does exist as a matter of fact, or truth…is dishonest. He is a matter of belief.

We are back to the OP, who seems to be saying, that no matter what you believe, we will all disagree about matters of faith.

So no amount of a christian saying they have truth, is going to matter to a buddhist. The buddhist will smile and say “Is that so?”.

Doesn’t really help us much.

 

[jkiernan56]

What we are talking about is not really the every day to day stuff, we can figure that out to a degree. Most of us admit to a lack of knowlege in certain area but most really don’t care.

I agree. Religious experience cannot be described, it can only be experienced.

The problem arises, when an individual tries to claim their experience, is right , the truth and correct for all humanity. It was their experience and no matter how right it was for them, it only belongs to them.

And then you get in the realm of “my god is bigger than your god, my truth is bigger than your truth”

It is possible religious experience are real. But they ARE relative to the person who experienced them. And society cannot base it’s projects on what any one or two or even 1 million humans claim as truth.

Religion has it’s place, but it is personal, and therefore cannot be used to determine rules and precepts for human behaviour

Love is an idea. It may just “be” an idea. God is an idea. He may just remain an idea.

God does not “not” exist just because everyone doesn’t experience him. But to claim he does exist as a matter of fact, or truth…is dishonest. He is a matter of belief.

We are back to the OP, who seems to be saying, that no matter what you believe, we will all disagree about matters of faith.

So no amount of a christian saying they have truth, is going to matter to a buddhist. The buddhist will smile and say “Is that so?”.

Doesn’t really help us much.

Dameeda, whether you believe it or not, the central truth of Christianity is in a historical event that a Person by the name of Jesus Christ was put to death on a cross and rose from the dead 3 days later … and was actually seen by those who lived with Him.

Now either it is true that Jesus really did rise from the dead … body and soul … or it is a lie. Both cannot be true. There really is A TRUTH. Either Jesus did rise from the dead or he didn’t.

I happen to believe that the objective reality is that Jesus rose from the dead and is alive today. You’re right that my believing it does not make it true. For me, the reason I believe it … is because I really do think it is TRUE … an objective fact … reality … truth. My believing it does not make it any more true … My not believing it does not make it any less true.

 

[fix]

No, it is a reaction to human narcisissm.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism

Is this what you are looking for?

Your position seems to be what this other poster said to me in the past:

Nominalism, of which there are many grades and variants, is a general term for a perspective which doubts or denies the real relationship between concepts and objects. Nominalism suggests that either there is no objective truth or that if there is we can’t know anything about it because everything is so tied up in our perceptions.

Something to consider: Even the most intellectually convinced nominalists act like realists when it counts-- generally obeying traffic laws, not keeping the hair dryer on the bathtub, ducking punches, etc. I saw a pro-life ad which included a perfect example of a converted nominalist. A woman who had decided against abortion pondered the question “Why was it a baby when I wanted it and something else when I didn’t’”?

 

[fhansen]

It is possible religious experience are real. But they ARE relative to the person who experienced them. And society cannot base it’s projects on what any one or two or even 1 million humans claim as truth.

Religion has it’s place, but it is personal, and therefore cannot be used to determine rules and precepts for human behaviour

The question the OP posed was if faith and opinion were basically equivalent and my response is emphatically “no”.

Love is an idea. It may just “be” an idea. God is an idea. He may just remain an idea.

To anyone who’s experienced love or God on a profound level they no longer remain just an idea.

We are back to the OP, who seems to be saying, that no matter what you believe, we will all disagree about matters of faith.

So no amount of a christian saying they have truth, is going to matter to a buddhist. The buddhist will smile and say “Is that so?”.

Doesn’t really help us much.

Christians believe-or should- that their experience is one of incalculable worth to the world. And that everyone’s free to agree or not. Buddhists can agree or disagree or offer their own ideas. In that sense, Christianity is nothing more than one more voice among the myriads claiming to know something worth knowing.

 

[Arandur]

Religion has it’s place, but it is personal, and therefore cannot be used to determine rules and precepts for human behaviour

You’re not being consistent here, but letting your opinion and desire to marginalize religion in favor of relativism assert itself over your previous ideas of truth.

This would be more consistent:
If any moral values coming from any one or any combination of religions is true (if it is indeed how we are supposed to live, what is best for us, and/or what we may be judged by), then those moral values should be applied across society.

If those moral values are untrue, then they are non-binding and neutral. However, since society still in fact is a living together of humans with different ideas, something still needs to be worked out that allows society to function given the different ideas of its constituent humans.

So if you are wrong about religion and moral values, then they should be applied to human behavior beyond the individual level. Since it is a distinct possibility that you are wrong, the debate must be had and cannot be dismissed.

If you are right about religion and moral values, then they do not need to be applied to human behavior beyond the individual level.
However, again the same caveat is posed, and again you have the situation where human community must find a way to function given peoples’ different ideas. So again, you cannot dismiss moral values.

There is no reasonable ground under either circumstance by which you can claim that “[religion] cannot be used to determine rules and precepts for human behaviour.” Well, one caveat: if you live in isolation from anyone with moral or religious views, then you may ignore validly ignore religion as a means “to determine rules and precepts for human behavior.”

 

[jkiernan56]

The question the OP posed was if faith and opinion were basically equivalent and my response is emphatically “no”.

To anyone who’s experienced love or God on a profound level they no longer remain just an idea.

Christians believe-or should- that their experience is one of incalculable worth to the world. And that everyone’s free to agree or not. Buddhists can agree or disagree or offer their own ideas. In that sense, Christianity is nothing more than one more voice among the myriads claiming to know something worth knowing.

Very beautiful words Fhansen. Love is no longer an idea is so true … it is a realty … it is a Person

 

[Dameedna]

You’re not being consistent here, but letting your opinion and desire to marginalize religion in favor of relativism assert itself over your previous ideas of truth.

No I haven’t.

But I’m not learning anything here, just practicing my debating skills which has never been my intention.

Interesting thread, have fun with it

 

[jkiernan56]

No I haven’t.

But I’m not learning anything here, just practicing my debating skills which has never been my intention.

Interesting thread, have fun with it

Dameedna, where I see you having difficulty is in acknowledging there is such a thing as objective truth. You take the position that truth is relative … that position denies the reality of objective truth. Thank you for engaging us in discussion. Maybe it really is true that you are not learning anything here. I believe that’s true … you believe that’s true … hmmmm … we have a consensus … lol