Truth, Reason and Love

For discussion of philosophy, religion, spirituality, or any topic that posters wish to approach from a spiritual or religious perspective.
Post Reply
baby tuckoo
Deluded Simpleton
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Sacramento

Truth, Reason and Love

Post by baby tuckoo »

[I have split this discussion off from the thread "What Faith Have You Chosen" at the request of the threadstarter of that thread. bt, feel free to change the name. If anyone feels that their post should or should not have been moved, let me know and I'll see what I can do. VtF]

Cerin wrote:Not failed utterly, vison! Just in the first attempt.


eta: I consider (rightly or wrongly) an atheist to be someone who has a somewhat firm and dedicated certainty that there is no God, as opposed to someone who has never had a reason or inclination to believe in God, but who isn't necessarily convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no God.

Even given your definition, Cerin, I read vison's post as clearly atheist but she was somehow unwilling to take on the mantle. Hence, my response. I don't mean to talk for her, but she asked.



I am perfectly willing to use the term "god" to describe the forces of nature, and I often do. I also use the term to refer to the forces of serendipity in human affairs. I do neither with a blasphemous intent, though I see that it might be interpreted so. The term in both respects comes with a clean pedigree: God and Nature are frequently fused in the thoughts and language of believers; God's Will and Luck are one and the same to most devout as they seek to explain that which cannot or should not be.


I use the term "supernatural" in its basest sense: not under the set of real physical laws . . . above them. No, it does not apply to something that can't be explained by the facts we have at the moment. It does apply to an event that reverses physical possibility or established natural law. Of course we can be tricked to believe this has happened. We can trick ourselves, too.

For instance, I don't doubt for a second that there are Unidentified Flying Objects. They are just that: Unidentified. That doesn't mean they are aliens who kidnap and study us. I don't believe those exist. I easily believe they are unidentified.

I don't doubt that people in Guadalupe believed they saw something in 1536, or that the people in Lourdes saw something, or that Joan thought voices were instructing her. But that's the power of the human mind to instruct its rational side about things irrational. It is not other than natural. "Supernatural" is not the same as "spiritual".

Let me just say: No proof has ever been credibly offered of the existence of the supernatural under a strict definition. Under controlled circumstances before unbiased observers, no physical law has ever been overcome. There is no proof of a "spirit world", no matter how profoundly some might believe it. No human can bend the laws of nature to his/her will. Until a person does so under adequate scrutiny, I consider such claims to be the product of the active human imagination, god bless it.

But as "truth" or "reality", it is "baloney", as Penn and Teller would call it in polite company.
Last edited by baby tuckoo on Sun May 11, 2008 8:44 am, edited 8 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

You might be surprised how many religious people would be quite ready to agree with many of your points, bt. I agree, for example, that no one has ever shown physical proof of the existence of God, and I firmly believe that such proof is impossible and will never be found. I think science is not just the best but the only tool for understanding the physical world.

The question is whether one does, or does not, believe that only things for which there can be empirical evidence exist. You do; I do not.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
baby tuckoo
Deluded Simpleton
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Sacramento

Post by baby tuckoo »

We choose what to believe.


The debate is ancient . . . and modern.


Your senses? They are easily fooled.



Your reason? It is easily foolish.



Your innate sense? DNA might have its own agenda. Even if not, the "god" (or nature) that gave you that sense might have her own reasons. Yes, it's a wonderful mystery. I think "Art" is the best avenue to explore it. "Religion", though inevitable, is perhaps the worst.


We don't perceive causes or laws in our psychological lives. We can't. We perceive events and sequences, then we infer causations and necessity. This gives birth to God. A "law" of behavior or belief isn't an eternal or necessary decree to which events are subjected, but merely a mental summary or shorthand of experience.


Those lists in the Old Testament are, in fact, "The Ten Suggestions." (I thank their current proponents for the term.) That's exactly what they are. To make them absolutes does them a disservice.


What can you know for sure? One thing: that you are a thinking creature who is here, now. That's it. Seems trite, but it's not. You think, and that is the only clean evidence you have. You know it because it's the only thing you experience directly. You might feel closely tied to your idea of god, but it is a conspiracy of your reason and your senses. They want it badly, and to most people it seems real enough to believe as a priori, prior to experience.


We might well be born with a god-shaped hole in our souls, but that's a bi-product of our unique self-awareness. Our need to fill it doesn't prove that a celestial correlary (allah, god, zeus, or alien visitors) exists.


Beyond your direct perception of yourself, only the mathematical truths and the duplicable observations of science (both tested by multiple persons and in multiple circumstances) can be called true. The rest is superstition or, worse, psychology.



I'll stop now. I mean no offense to anyone. Any of you are free to call me any kind of fool you wish. None of the above has personal content unless you choose to take it that way. That's your choice. I'm simply explaining my own choice.
Image
User avatar
vison
Best friends forever
Posts: 11961
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:33 pm
Location: Over there.

Post by vison »

I'm not an atheist, but an untheist.
"A" means "anti" to me, although I know perfectly well that is NOT what it means in the context.

"Un" suits me better, that's all. :)

bt: :bow:
Dig deeper.
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

If faith were a matter of proofs, then it wouldn't be faith. It would be facts.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
baby tuckoo
Deluded Simpleton
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Sacramento

Post by baby tuckoo »

Right you are, Cerin.

So, why should someone else's "faith" have so much influence in the world?


Why shouldn't everyone adhere to my personal mythology? Sure, it's odd to have a Rutabaga as my object of worship, but how can you question my faith? How dare you? Curb your intolerance, cynical knave.
Image
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

baby tuckoo wrote:We choose what to believe.


The debate is ancient . . . and modern.


Your senses? They are easily fooled.



Your reason? It is easily foolish.



Your innate sense? DNA might have its own agenda. Even if not, the "god" (or nature) that gave you that sense might have her own reasons. Yes, it's a wonderful mystery. I think "Art" is the best avenue to explore it. "Religion", though inevitable, is perhaps the worst.


We don't perceive causes or laws in our psychological lives. We can't. We perceive events and sequences, then we infer causations and necessity. This gives birth to God. A "law" of behavior or belief isn't an eternal or necessary decree to which events are subjected, but merely a mental summary or shorthand of experience.


Those lists in the Old Testament are, in fact, "The Ten Suggestions." (I thank their current proponents for the term.) That's exactly what they are. To make them absolutes does them a disservice.


What can you know for sure? One thing: that you are a thinking creature who is here, now. That's it. Seems trite, but it's not. You think, and that is the only clean evidence you have. You know it because it's the only thing you experience directly. You might feel closely tied to your idea of god, but it is a conspiracy of your reason and your senses. They want it badly, and to most people it seems real enough to believe as a priori, prior to experience.


We might well be born with a god-shaped hole in our souls, but that's a bi-product of our unique self-awareness. Our need to fill it doesn't prove that a celestial correlary (allah, god, zeus, or alien visitors) exists.


Beyond your direct perception of yourself, only the mathematical truths and the duplicable observations of science (both tested by multiple persons and in multiple circumstances) can be called true. The rest is superstition or, worse, psychology.



I'll stop now. I mean no offense to anyone. Any of you are free to call me any kind of fool you wish. None of the above has personal content unless you choose to take it that way. That's your choice. I'm simply explaining my own choice.
And I can only point back to the post I made. Reason/science and religion are two different domains, and I'm happy in both. Others prefer one or the other. I'm comfortable with having a belief that is not based on reason or physical senses such as scientific measurement, even though I value reason and respect science deeply. They are just the wrong tools for looking at God.

Someone who believes that only what reason can describe and only what can be physically measured can exist—such a person is certainly not going to be able to believe in God. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect it. :)

I believe that the Universe is bigger than the rules of reason and science, that something (Someone) exists outside them, without invalidating them, any more than the existence of light invalidates the existence of gravity.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
axordil
Pleasantly Twisted
Posts: 8999
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
Contact:

Post by axordil »

any more than the existence of light invalidates the existence of gravity.
To quibble, I don't think this is a good analogy. Light and gravity interact in a predictable and quantifiable way. I largely agree with your point, though.

I believe I've said before that I believe in the validity of revealed truth, a category that certainly involves belief in any God. I just don't believe that, like empirical truth, it necessarily holds up when shared. Revealed truth (that is, faith) is valid--so long as you are the person to whom it was revealed.

The analogy I've been working on is (since I'm American) about roads. The same roads exist for me and you and the little boy who lives down the lane. There are a variety of road maps available, and there are some differences between them, but most of the reputable ones do a fairly good job of showing you the methods by which you get from point A to point B. If a company puts out too many inaccurate road maps, people stop using them. That's empirical truth, on which science is based.

Now--how you then choose to make that journey is a different question. Do you take the most direct route, driving a sports car? Do you take a route with less traffic, driving a minivan? Do you listen to Bach or Ludacris? Do you signal when you turn? Do you get on a mountain bike and go cross country? :D

Many paths, many destinations, many styles, many choices. You may really, really think that you have the best possible route, and the best possible car, and the best possible CDs to listen too. You may even hang out in a club with people who take the same route, and drive the same car, and listen to the same music. And yet even within that club--some prefer leather seats, some cloth. ;)

That's revealed truth. That's belief. That's religion. And in terms of getting around in life, the mode you choose to take is as important as the road you're on.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

Well, it's not a perfect analogy, no, since both light and gravity are physically real. I couldn't come up with a better one.

Oh, and I'm in the minivan (no leather seats) listening to Bach. On the scenic route. (I like your metaphor. :) )
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
Angbasdil
The man, the myth, the monkey.
Posts: 606
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:37 am
Location: Woodstock GA

Post by Angbasdil »

baby t,

Well said. I even agree with most of, maybe 80%. But I fail to see how your line of reasoning invalidates faith but not science.
Beyond your direct perception of yourself, only the mathematical truths and the duplicable observations of science (both tested by multiple persons and in multiple circumstances) can be called true. The rest is superstition or, worse, psychology.
Okay. It's good to have standards. Aside from math, it's not true if it can't be proven. So I'm going to make a statement here, and I want you to subject it to that standard for me and tell me if the statement can, by your standards, be called "true".

The statement is as follows:

"Beyond your direct perception of yourself, only the mathematical truths and the duplicable observations of science (both tested by multiple persons and in multiple circumstances) can be called true. The rest is superstition or, worse, psychology."

Please note my emphasis on the exclusionary word "only".
User avatar
Padme
Daydream Believer.
Posts: 1284
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:03 am

Post by Padme »

So are you saying there is no North once you get off this planet?
baby tuckoo
Deluded Simpleton
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Sacramento

Post by baby tuckoo »

Angbasdil wrote: "Beyond your direct perception of yourself, only the mathematical truths and the duplicable observations of science (both tested by multiple persons and in multiple circumstances) can be called true. The rest is superstition or, worse, psychology."

Please note my emphasis on the exclusionary word "only".

Excellent point, Ang. Syntax defeated me. A better wording follows.



"Beyond your direct perception of yourself, the mathematical truths and the duplicable observations of science (both tested by multiple persons and in multiple circumstances) are all you can know to be true."


The only in that location defeated the point.


Thanks.
Image
User avatar
Angbasdil
The man, the myth, the monkey.
Posts: 606
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:37 am
Location: Woodstock GA

Post by Angbasdil »

Yeah, I like that wording better myself. But the question still stands.

How do you know that that statement is true? Is it a mathmatical truth, or is it a duplicable observation of science?
baby tuckoo
Deluded Simpleton
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Sacramento

Post by baby tuckoo »

I know it for the only "knowable" reasons: The former part because I experience it directly; the latter part because it is repeatedly proved by disinterested parties using empirical measurements.

Isn't that what I said earlier?



Please don't think that I'm saying these are the only things in the human psyche. Not at all. But you can't ask me to believe things that won't submit to these tests. Those things are, to some extent, in your head, and only in your head.
Last edited by baby tuckoo on Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 45926
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

bt, I believe that Love is a form of Truth, even though it is completely untestable. And I don't just mean romantic love, I mean the "love your neighbor" kind of love.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
axordil
Pleasantly Twisted
Posts: 8999
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
Contact:

Post by axordil »

I wouldn't call it untestable at all, Mr. V. I think much of human history, large and small, testifies to the power and truth of love, even if that testimony is often to what transpires in its absence.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

I would never dream of asking you to believe something you can't believe, bt. Someone with your view of the Universe cannot believe in God without committing intellectual dishonesty.

And I know you would say that my religious beliefs, experiences, and emotions are all in my head, and I know I would never be able to prove otherwise, but I do not think I'm intellectually dishonest in the Universe as I understand it.

So here we all are. :)
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
baby tuckoo
Deluded Simpleton
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Sacramento

Post by baby tuckoo »

You are certainly not alone, VtF, in this belief. It is one of the most popular of romantic (in the older sense) notions.


No reasonable person--I am one of them--would refute the force of love on the human psyche. "Love", though, is so intangible as to have suffered centuries of re-definition by, gulp, poets. You and I might think we know what we mean by "love", but under close questioning we would probably disagree: eros or agape? affection or affiliation? attraction or spark?


It's none of these. Like all the terms above, Love is an abstraction. Real to the individual but obscure to reason. The human animal loves the term Love for it carries heavy emotional artillary. Unfortunately, it has become lost in the baggage claim of abstractions.


I love ice cream. Do you doubt my love? How dare you? We shall meet on the field of honor for my satisfaction.
Image
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

And while you're stalking around threatening each other with swords, I will steal your ice cream.

There are many different kinds and degrees of love (I just discovered this and I'm thinking of writing a book). Love can be empirically observed, at least its effects can (hi, Mom and Dad!).

It would probably be useful if we had more than one word for it. Eros, agape, philia, and storge would be a start. However, even that gets messy because we tend to take them in custom blends.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 45926
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

baby tuckoo wrote:Real to the individual but obscure to reason.
But that is my point. Love is just as real as reason. Just a different kind of real.

And, of course, as I said earlier, Faith is really just a form of Love.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Post Reply