|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 11:22:19 [Permalink]
|
Just to throw my 2ct wrench in the works,
I have issues when we refer to God/etc. as "unknowable" because we clearly have no clue as to the extent of possible knowledge. The only thing that my be truly unknowable could be the limits of knowledge itself. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 11/16/2007 : 13:25:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
If objective reality is defined as that which can be observed... |
It cannot be, as observation is subjective.| I think you may mean that the existence of objective reality cannot be absolutely proven and that is true but knowledge need not be absolute to be knowledge. |
Within any self-consistent reality, what you say is correct, whether there is an objective reality or not. Do we exist within a self-consistent reality? Do you exist?
Yes, this is all dead-end stuff, but that's not the point. The epistemology that is science relies upon the assumption that there is an objective reality, and that we exist within it. Science wouldn't function well otherwise, but that's part of the question. Assuming that science works as a method for gaining knowledge - even incomplete or not-fully-proven knowledge - depends upon this assumption and so any answer to "is there an objective reality?" that is based upon science is begging the question.
Dude (at least) and I agree on one thing regarding this issue: the alternative can only lead to madness. I accept the premise that there's an objective reality for pragmatic reasons: because otherwise there'd be little reason to get out of bed, and because my subjective experience is consistent with the premise. But that doesn't mean that it's true, or even a little bit real. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 14:58:47 [Permalink]
|
BPS wrote: | I have issues when we refer to God/etc. as "unknowable" because we clearly have no clue as to the extent of possible knowledge. The only thing that my be truly unknowable could be the limits of knowledge itself. |
Enough people such as Einstein have used the concept of "God" in this manner that I find it acceptable. I wish people would be more clued and honest about the context in which statements about "God" are made when they are done in this manner, but as I've said before, when it comes to sensitive issues, people will always take quotes out of context if it serves their purposes.
There was an atheist in my Humanist group who used the concept of God this way, and it was clear to me after talking with him about it with an open mind that he used the concept as a way of maintaining humility in the face of the great void - a way of acknowledging our incredible smallness in the grand scheme of things. These words that religions have always employed have great psychological power - words such as "God", "faith", "spirituality", "divine". It is hard for people to let them go even after they have consciously rejected any narrow, literal meaning for them. I think these words still have a role, at least until we have new words which pack the same punch. For instance, I've often referred to my conversion to atheism as a "spiritual experience" because the day that I went from being agnostic to atheist was experienced by me as a sort of intuitive leap when suddenly I felt like I could envision the whole of reality functioning is a very harmonious, rational, and purely materialistic way. What I actually saw in my mind's eye was certainly not a literal reality, but it was the only way I could be intellectually connected to the new worldview I was suddenly grasping. I cannot think of any phrase as powerful and literarily accurate for what went through my mind that day except for "spiritual experience", though I don't believe anything mystical or supernatural was involved. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 11/16/2007 15:00:35 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 22:37:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Valiant Dancer wrote: In this case, however, Buddhism ceases to be a religion and becomes a philosophy and Metaphysics becomes a religion.
I'm not sure that isn't a valid reclassification. |
Looking at the history of religions, I don't think it is valid.
|
Buddhism has no God/supernatural forces. It has proscribed rituals but the focus is directed inward. In religions, the focus is directed outwards to the cosmos at large or extradimensionally at least.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 11:46:30 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: | Buddhism has no God/supernatural forces. It has proscribed rituals but the focus is directed inward. In religions, the focus is directed outwards to the cosmos at large or extradimensionally at least. |
Not sure I agree with that, but I think there's a language barrier at work here. What word or words in major Eastern languages translate to the English word "religion"? Do people in India use the same word to classify the institutions of Hinduism and Christianity? Do people in China use the same word to classify the institutions of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Islam? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 11:48:51 [Permalink]
|
| The more I re-read aspects of this conversation, the more I'm convinced that the term "religion" is indeed on its way out and will probably, or perhaps hopefully, in the somewhat near future be replaced by something like "worldview" or "lifestance". |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What is religion?
