What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[inocente]

One that no one could possibly argue against because it is completely undecipherable and incoherent.

Yes, that was my take on your argument.

*“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy.”

Orwell, 1984 *

Why?

Idiocy MUST be accepted as wisdom?

Why?

Lies MUST be accepted as truth?

Why?

Don’t ask me, I was reading back the implications of the argument as it appeared to me. Why not let Aloysium respond?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, that was my take on your argument.

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

But why?

It is you who claimed everyone has an equally valid claim to truth?

If so, on what grounds can you claim “destruction” has occurred?

At the most, you could claim CHANGE, but since everyone has an equal claim to truth, there can be NO destruction, just a different take on truth.

At least be consistent with your own position.

Remind yourself of the implications of what YOU claim about “all views.”

EVERY OBSERVER HAS AN EQUAL CLAIM

Cf.

Then if some observers see ugly and others beauty, all views must be accepted as truth, since they each represent a different aspect of the particular objective reality. The objective beauty is the sum of all the aspects seen by all the observers, from ugly through to beautiful. It cannot be only one of them, it has to be all, since every observer has equal claim.

And this everyone calls subjective.

AND therein is YOUR problem. “Everyone” does NOT call this “subjective;” in particular, NOT YOU.

At least, you haven’t been consistent in doing so.

You want to DENY that I have an equal claim at the same instant as you want to claim that I do.

Law of non-contradiction mean much?

 

[inocente]

It is you who claimed everyone has an equally valid claim to truth?

Nope. I was responding to Aloysium’s “Truth also can be understood, as being in the ‘eye if the beholder’ in the sense that certain qualities of an object, like its beauty or goodness, are apprehended in different ways, representing different aspects of the particular objective reality and of the person doing the observing.”

If that is true as stated then it implies there is no means to determine that one observer’s claim is less valid than any other, since it is being said that they all represent different aspects of the particular objective reality.

Which seems like ultra-relativism to me. But why not let Aloysium respond since I assume that’s not what he means.

If so, on what grounds can you claim “destruction” has occurred?

In your hurry to reply you confused my response to you with my response to Aloysium. Your changing the meanings of words to try to make your claim work reminded me of Orwell’s doublespeak. “It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.” I quoted 1984 to you yesterday and I’ve continued quoting it today.

I think your claim will have to stand or fall on what’s already been said, as we’re now just repeating ourselves.

 

[Aloysium]

Nope. I was responding to Aloysium’s “Truth also can be understood, as being in the ‘eye if the beholder’ in the sense that certain qualities of an object, like its beauty or goodness, are apprehended in different ways, representing different aspects of the particular objective reality and of the person doing the observing.”

If that is true as stated then it implies there is no means to determine that one observer’s claim is less valid than any other, since it is being said that they all represent different aspects of the particular objective reality.

Which seems like ultra-relativism to me. But why not let Aloysium respond since I assume that’s not what he means. . . .

It is all about relationship, ultimately existing between the two mysteries of self and other.

Beauty is a component of what is the world; we can discern it and attempt to communicate that knowledge.
Those with eyes and ears, see and hear.

We share our experiences of the world with each other.
Internally we think in words and images that enable us to commnunicate meaning with one another.
In order to communicate in this world we require an intact nervous system and a mind both which must be educated.
Whatever sort of knowledge we hold, we must resonate to communicate.

Unless what I say strikes a similar cord within you, you will not understand.

I don’t know what you mean by Ultra-reletavism.
I do hold that God is Relationality (perfected as Love).
In His image, human beings are not things or objects, but beings having a relational nature.

:twocents:

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, that was my take on your argument.

…

Don’t ask me, I was reading back the implications of the argument as it appeared to me. Why not let Aloysium respond?

Well, no actually. You are the one trying to hold two inconsistent views as if they fit nicely together, at the same time as pinning your issue on Aloysium.

You said:

I don’t see much point in continuing as it seems the only way you can keep your conjecture alive is by redefining every word in the dictionary to mean the opposite of the common understanding. As granny proudly exclaimed “look, all the soldiers are out of step except for Peter”.

Ergo, the “truth” is conventional – the common understanding – what “everyone believes” or thinks to be true.

Then, you dissect “everyone’s” view into irreconcilable “subjectivity” as if the truth CANNOT be known independently of what “everyone” knows it to be (determined by the marching of all to the tune played by the dictionary.)

Then if some observers see ugly and others beauty, all views must be accepted as truth, since they each represent a different aspect of the particular objective reality. The objective beauty is the sum of all the aspects seen by all the observers, from ugly through to beautiful. It cannot be only one of them, it has to be all, since every observer has equal claim.

And this everyone calls subjective.

The option Aloysium seems to be getting at is the one you refuse to acknowledge – the truth IS, independent of what “everyone” knows AND independent of what any particular individual knows, BECAUSE being known by any knower is NOT what makes anything true.

In other words, the truth COULD be known by only one, by some and even by many, but that frequency is only incidental to the truth, not integral to it.

The TRUE exists and can be known, but being known (by only one or by everyone) is NOT what makes it true.

 

[inocente]

It is all about relationship, ultimately existing between the two mysteries of self and other.

Beauty is a component of what is the world; we can discern it and attempt to communicate that knowledge.
Those with eyes and ears, see and hear.

We share our experiences of the world with each other.
Internally we think in words and images that enable us to commnunicate meaning with one another.
In order to communicate in this world we require an intact nervous system and a mind both which must be educated.
Whatever sort of knowledge we hold, we must resonate to communicate.

Unless what I say strikes a similar cord within you, you will not understand.

I don’t know what you mean by Ultra-reletavism.
I do hold that God is Relationality (perfected as Love).
In His image, human beings are not things or objects, but beings having a relational nature.

:twocents:

I understand but let’s test your claim that “Truth also can be understood, as being in the ‘eye if the beholder’ in the sense that certain qualities of an object, like its beauty or goodness, are apprehended in different ways, representing different aspects of the particular objective reality and of the person doing the observing.”

So let’s imagine we ask ten people to say what they each think is beautiful/ugly about, for instance, Marcel Duchamp’s Bicycle Wheel. We’ll get ten different views, some of which will contradict each other. But according to your claim, each represents a facet of objective reality and must therefore be accepted as objectively true, including the contradictions.

But it gets worse if we transpose it to morality. If we ask ten people whether it’s OK to torture a puppy and any one of them says yes, then according to your claim, their view represents a facet of objective reality and must therefore be accepted as objectively true.

So it sounds as if you’re espousing something which goes even further than relativism by claiming that every opinion is objectively true, which would be a kind of ultra-individualism where there is no arbiter, not even mere social convention, and everyone has to bow before your “person doing the observing”.

Whereas I’ve been arguing that, by definition, there must be an independent arbiter to say something is objective, and if there isn’t then it’s subjective.

 

[inocente]

Ergo, the “truth” is conventional – the common understanding – what “everyone believes” or thinks to be true.

Then, you dissect “everyone’s” view into irreconcilable “subjectivity” as if the truth CANNOT be known independently of what “everyone” knows it to be (determined by the marching of all to the tune played by the dictionary.)

You’ve got yourself very confused. If words have no agreed meaning then they are useless as a means of communication. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what is true or false. Surely that’s a difference which any twelve-year old can grasp.

“The destruction of words is beautiful” (Orwell). You think it is, I think it isn’t. Which opinion, according to you, is objectively true?

*The option Aloysium seems to be getting at is the one you refuse to acknowledge – the truth IS, independent of what “everyone” knows AND independent of what any particular individual knows, BECAUSE being known by any knower is NOT what makes anything true.

In other words, the truth COULD be known by only one, by some and even by many, but that frequency is only incidental to the truth, not integral to it.

The TRUE exists and can be known, but being known (by only one or by everyone) is NOT what makes it true.*

So, according to you, “it is good to torture puppies” could be true, it’s just that no one knows it’s true. But we must accept it, just in case it’s true. According to you.

< sigh >

There may or may not be beauty in the First Law Of Holes: when in one, stop digging.

I think it would be humane to end this conversation.

No puppies were harmed in writing this post.

 

[tonyrey]

Darwinism remains a hopelessly inadequate explanation of both the spiritual and physical beauty at the heart of Christ’s teaching.

What was the purpose of “Cut a couple of words out of that and you’ll have yourself a mighty fine haiku!” with reference to “Darwinism is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of both the spiritual and physical beauty that are the basis of the teaching of Christ”?

The implication that faith is largely the result of ignorance, poverty and lack of opportunity to travel is an insult to the average person’s intelligence and the credibility of Christianity.

You asked me for factors which might produce a decline in religious belief and I gave one which I think applies globally - increased exposure to other cultures.

If increased exposure to other cultures has led to a decline in religious belief it still doesn’t say much for the average person’s intelligence and the credibility of Christianity. Are other cultures superior? Is Christianity a backward ideology?

 

[Peter_Plato]

So, according to you, “it is good to torture puppies” could be true, it’s just that no one knows it’s true. But we must accept it, just in case it’s true. According to you.

< sigh >

A ridiculous statement.

No. According to me, “It is good to torture puppies” is false and is false whether every human or not a single one agrees because the truth value of the statement is not grounded in human subjectivity, proper. It is grounded in TRUTH.

Truth, however, is not grounded in the nature or potential of matter, it must be grounded in the ULTIMATE reality that grounds and accounts for all of existence - a REALITY which MUST be SUBJECTIVE (but not merely on a human level) in order to ultimately be meaningful and account for the morality or good of anything at all.

It is the subjectivity of humanity – that comes FROM the SUBJECTIVITY of EXISTENCE ITSELF – which allows human beings any glimpse at all into the more sublime aspects of existence beyond the pure potential of matter, which – on its own – cannot sustain or ground meaning at all.

That is or, at least, appears to be your error. You want to ground meaning in the objectivity (verifiability) of matter when mere factual verification provides no ground for determinations of significance or meaningfulness nor what is good or moral.

You want to deny subjectivity can be objective because such an allowance would permit the subjectivity of others to question or jeopardize your views regarding meaningfulness but at the same time you want to use “objectivity” to arbitrarily disallow the “subjective” views of others you disagree with on the grounds that they have no “objective” merit and are, thus, unworthy of your consideration.

 

[Ignatius]

Well, in this case, what are you talking about?

Ignatius:

So, You postulated that Jesus did not exist. Then I stated that the historical evidence is substantial. Then you said something about Jesus’s Miracles. I had not said anything about miracles.
That is fallacious logic. It simply does not follow that the The historicity of the specific individual known as Jesus Christ is a well-documented historical fact, the vast preponderance of accredited, knowledgeable historians will attest to the fact that the existence of Jesus Christ is far more well documented than that of most ancients known to history is dependent on the existence of miracles.
Let me draw an analogy to illustrate the fallacy.
1 Someone says that Socrates did not exist.
2 I say that he did and it is a well-documented historical fact.
3 The first person says that there is no proof that he developed that he developed the Socratic method.
Even if there is no Socratic method it does not follow that Socrates did not exist. In other words, The existence of Socrates does not depend on the existence of the Socratic method just as the fact of the historical evidence of Jesus Christ does not depend on the miracles you mentioned.
That would be like denying the existence of George Washington because there is no evidence that he chopped down a cherry tree. Your see the error, to wit: the existence of some historical person does not depend on whether they did something attributed to them. That is a red herring argument.

Sorry, I’ve been away for a while and couldn’t find your response. I was just wondering, did you understand the fallacy in the logic of your argument that I pointed out?

 

[Aloysium]

Then if some observers see ugly and others beauty, all views must be accepted as truth, since they each represent a different aspect of the particular objective reality. The objective beauty is the sum of all the aspects seen by all the observers, from ugly through to beautiful. It cannot be only one of them, it has to be all, since every observer has equal claim.

And this everyone calls subjective.

Objective reality, I see as a mystery that considered, grows to include all creation.
That reality is not the sum of aspects seen by observers, but the actual reality in itself.
Whatever the object, it is what it is.

I suppose, every observer would have claim to his particular relationship with the object.
A mother of a child would have a different relationship to her child than say a predatory pedophile.
Judged by love, one relationship is beautiful, the other grotesque and abhorrent.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There always is no use trying to reason with a subjectivist. He will always insist that everyone’s view is subjective but his own. He never allows that anyone else might have an objective portion of the truth that he simply cannot grasp. He is an intellectual juggler of ideas. No one idea is allowed to settle in his hand or in his head, except perhaps the single idea that the juggling must never stop.
:juggle:

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Sorry, I’ve been away for a while and couldn’t find your response. I was just wondering, did you understand the fallacy in the logic of your argument that I pointed out?

Check out Hee_Zen’s status. He won’t be able to respond.

 

[Ignatius]

Check out Hee_Zen’s status. He won’t be able to respond.

Oh, sorry.

 

[inocente]

What was the purpose of “Cut a couple of words out of that and you’ll have yourself a mighty fine haiku!” with reference to “Darwinism is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of both the spiritual and physical beauty that are the basis of the teaching of Christ”?

A haiku is 17 words and you wrote 19.

If increased exposure to other cultures has led to a decline in religious belief it still doesn’t say much for the average person’s intelligence and the credibility of Christianity. Are other cultures superior? Is Christianity a backward ideology?

As far as the UK is concerned, you guys wouldn’t go out to dine at curry houses if there had been no Indian immigrants, but that doesn’t mean Indian culture is necessarily superior or that English cooking is necessarily backward. I think it stands to reason that in a multicultural society with many influences young people will tend to switch or question religion more than an isolated society.

But as I said, the UK is less than one percent of the world. Can you cite evidence for a global decline in religious belief?

 

[inocente]

A ridiculous statement.

No. According to me, “It is good to torture puppies” is false and is false whether every human or not a single one agrees because the truth value of the statement is not grounded in human subjectivity, proper. It is grounded in TRUTH.

Truth, however, is not grounded in the nature or potential of matter, it must be grounded in the ULTIMATE reality that grounds and accounts for all of existence - a REALITY which MUST be SUBJECTIVE (but not merely on a human level) in order to ultimately be meaningful and account for the morality or good of anything at all.

It is the subjectivity of humanity – that comes FROM the SUBJECTIVITY of EXISTENCE ITSELF – which allows human beings any glimpse at all into the more sublime aspects of existence beyond the pure potential of matter, which – on its own – cannot sustain or ground meaning at all.

That is or, at least, appears to be your error. You want to ground meaning in the objectivity (verifiability) of matter when mere factual verification provides no ground for determinations of significance or meaningfulness nor what is good or moral.

You want to deny subjectivity can be objective because such an allowance would permit the subjectivity of others to question or jeopardize your views regarding meaningfulness but at the same time you want to use “objectivity” to arbitrarily disallow the “subjective” views of others you disagree with on the grounds that they have no “objective” merit and are, thus, unworthy of your consideration.

For the last many posts I’ve simply been pointing out that communication is impossible when you invent your own private meanings for words, and apparently you’ve spun that into some philosophical argument which you think I’m making but I’m not. There wouldn’t be confusion if you stuck with the usual meanings of words.

I’ve made my points. As I said before, your claim will have to stand or fall on what’s already been said.

 

[tonyrey]

What was the purpose of “Cut a couple of words out of that and you’ll have yourself a mighty fine haiku!” with reference to “Darwinism is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of both the spiritual and physical beauty that are the basis of the teaching of Christ”?

Which words are they and why did you select them?

If increased exposure to other cultures has led to a decline in religious belief it still doesn’t say much for the average person’s intelligence and the credibility of Christianity. Are other cultures superior? Is Christianity a backward ideology?

As far as the UK is concerned, you guys wouldn’t go out to dine at curry houses if there had been no Indian immigrants, but that doesn’t mean Indian culture is necessarily superior or that English cooking is necessarily backward. I think it stands to reason that in a multicultural society with many influences young people will tend to switch or question religion more than an isolated society.

But as I said, the UK is less than one percent of the world. Can you cite evidence for a global decline in religious belief?

Please answer the questions before we proceed:

Are other cultures superior to Christianity (from a rational and moral point of view)?

Is Christianity a backward ideology?

 

[inocente]

Which words are they and why did you select them?

Your “Darwinism is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of both the spiritual and physical beauty that are the basis of the teaching of Christ” (sorry you need to delete more than 2 words to get to a haiku 17).

*Please answer the questions before we proceed:

Are other cultures superior to Christianity (from a rational and moral point of view)?

Is Christianity a backward ideology?*

Nope and nope.

Now please answer my question: Can you cite evidence for a global decline in religious belief?

And a supplementary: As your point on religious decline is off-topic and this thread is approaching a thousand posts, do you think you might get a wider audience if you started a new thread about whether or not there is a global decline in religious belief?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Oh, sorry.

No need to apologize. In the past when someone’s persistent absence wasn’t pointed out it’s resulted in many attempts to interact with some one. Just didn’t want you to waste your time.

 

[Ignatius]

No need to apologize. In the past when someone’s persistent absence wasn’t pointed out it’s resulted in many attempts to interact with some one. Just didn’t want you to waste your time.

Grazie mille!