Why you believe what you believe I

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I disagree about those bits of logic, Rian.

Following your logic, the following does not make sense:

"God is a rock. God is not a rock."

This, according to you, (correct me if I am wrong), does not make sense. Let's add sentenced in between those statements.

"God is a rock. He is what I hold on to in this world, so that I do not flow away with the tide. He is my salvation. However, God is not made up of physical minerals, I will not pray to a boulder. God is not a rock."

Make sense? It should. The first statement, "God is a rock", is a metaphor. The second statement, "God is not a rock," is a statement meant literally. Your ideas about logic don't take important language devices into account. "God is a rock. God is not rock" can sound nonsensical, but you don't know if it's a nonsensical statement until you know what the speaker means. I am suggesting that meaning is more important than the words used for them.

According to me, those statements do NOT make sense IF you are using "rock" in the same sense in both sentences. However, you are NOT, as you pointed out. Your example makes perfect sense, as long as it is expressed that one is a metaphor and one is meant literally. That makes all the difference.

Take my example.

"That is a table. That is the Sun." Is it a table, or the Sun? It can't be both, right? What if you did the add-ins?

"That is a table. The table was a tree. The tree could not survive without the Sun. The Sun is in that table. That is the Sun."

Now it's more complex, and the first statement "That is a table" is the literal statement, while "that is the Sun" is more figurative.

But you don't need the add-ins, as long as you understand that they are there. Thus "That is a table, that is the Sun" can be a perfectly true and understandable statement. One must read between the words, and beyond them.

It's a huge jump from "is in" to "is", and IMO, it's unjustified, unless you're just enjoying talking poetically with someone and it's understood that it's not literal. But there is a huge difference between poetical talk and talk that is meant to be an actual, literal comment on reality. I think both types are necessary, but if one claims that poetical talk is literal, I think it's dangerous, because then you can say anything is true about anything - and it's meaningless. And that's dangerous.

Two examples -

First : You're walking with me thru a forest. You're blindfolded, because I told you I wanted you to experience the forest with your other senses more. We reach a deep chasm. I tell you "Ñólendil, this chasm is spanned by a tree. You go on ahead and I'll guide you from behind." As you take the first step, you step onto the REAL thing that is ACTUALLY spanning the chasm - some nice quality, scented, double thick ... toilet paper. As you plunge down the chasm, giving an artistic Gandalf effect, you call out "That wasn't a tree!!" I yell down after you, "But I was speaking poetically! Toilet paper comes from trees - trees are in toilet paper - toilet paper is a tree!" Poetry is fine - I love poetry and beautiful speaking and metaphors - but one MUST understand the difference.

Second : If you take the table that supposedly "is" the sun, and replace the REAL sun with this table, then ... we would all die, Ñólendil. We would all die. And THAT'S reality. The table is NOT the sun, altho it has depended upon the effects of the (REAL) sun.


SO - the talk sounds nice, and I have no problem with metaphors. But sometimes we must talk about reality, or we will die. And I think Hinduism/Buddhism takes this talk too far - they will say "all religions are one" in the same way they'll say "the table and the sun are one". But if the truth claims of one worldview are contradictory to the truth claims of another - the easiest example being atheism and Christianity - then "God exists" and 'God does NOT exist" cannot both be true, unless you're saying you're talking poetically somehow. But at some point, we also need to deal with reality, and make decisions based on what we think is true ...