Why you believe what you believe I

[Rían]

I like your last sentence too, Lief, it was exactly what I was wanting to wish Gwai, too, so I'll repeat it, if I may :

Gwai - Your experience with God I very much hope will be enhanced still further by your entering Catholicism.

And I'll add that I pray that we all advance in our knowledge of the Truth


Brownie - please be patient with me - I really, really want to engage you in dialogue further on your beliefs, but frankly, I've just been feeling too punk lately to think well. You know, I think, that I have a chronic illness; well, having 13 people in the house over Christmas was wonderful, but really threw me into a fairly serious physical setback, and I'm struggling thru a slow recovery of strength. I'll try to get in a few more questions to give me things to think about with your reponses, but I prob. can't really get into it until (hopefully) next week, if you'll please be patient with me

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Brownie - please be patient with me - I really, really want to engage you in dialogue further on your beliefs, but frankly, I've just been feeling too punk lately to think well. You know, I think, that I have a chronic illness; well, having 13 people in the house over Christmas was wonderful, but really threw me into a fairly serious physical setback, and I'm struggling thru a slow recovery of strength. I'll try to get in a few more questions to give me things to think about with your reponses, but I prob. can't really get into it until (hopefully) next week, if you'll please be patient with me

no prob rÃ*an... take care of yourself first and foremost!

*hugs*

dissecting my pragmatic eclecticism can wait

[Rían]

thanks for the patience ... and the hug

[Rían]

(and btw, I'm not planning to stop the questions, only to slow them way down until I'm feeling better - I just wanted to tell you so you wouldn't think I had lost interest)

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

everything is an approximation of the truth... and you judge it by how well it fits observation and if it predicts any better than previous "laws"

But if everything is an approximation of the truth, then isn't there a truth they're approximating?

I see what you're saying - it reminds me of math (my minor at uni) and how we would use polynomials to fit data curves. I'm rusty on the terminology (it's been awhile!) but we would use first-order polys to fit a curve, and you could fiddle around and get a somewhat decent fit. Then if you switched to second-order polys, you could fiddle around and get a better fit, and so on. And I see how if you don't know something, you try for fits, and then better fits, and so on. But that's for things like science. Don't you think there are truths that are, to use an analogy, digital rather than analog? IOW, it's either true or not true that I have 10 fingers. If someone couldn't see or feel well and was guessing how many fingers I had, they could approximate, and then I could correct them with "more" or "less", and their approximation would become better - but EVENTUALLY they would get an ENTIRELY true answer. Do you see what I'm saying? Do you agree?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I like your last sentence too, Lief, it was exactly what I was wanting to wish Gwai, too, so I'll repeat it, if I may :

Gwai - Your experience with God I very much hope will be enhanced still further by your entering Catholicism.

And I'll add that I pray that we all advance in our knowledge of the Truth

Thanks, Rian; I really appreciate it. And that is neat; that's the same thing that I pray.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But if everything is an approximation of the truth, then isn't there a truth they're approximating?

not necessarily... even the very basics, like the laws of gravity, breakdown at an atomic level... this means either a) we haven't gotten the "law" quite down right yet, or b) there is no basic law that is true at all levels

either way, while we can not prove whether or not there are "basic truths"... we can certainly prove without a doubt that we do not yet, and may never, know what they are

so everything is an "approximation", based upon, and limited by, our ability to perceive the world around us

I see what you're saying - it reminds me of math (my minor at uni) and how we would use polynomials to fit data curves. I'm rusty on the terminology (it's been awhile!) but we would use first-order polys to fit a curve, and you could fiddle around and get a somewhat decent fit. Then if you switched to second-order polys, you could fiddle around and get a better fit, and so on. And I see how if you don't know something, you try for fits, and then better fits, and so on. But that's for things like science. Don't you think there are truths that are, to use an analogy, digital rather than analog? IOW, it's either true or not true that I have 10 fingers. If someone couldn't see or feel well and was guessing how many fingers I had, they could approximate, and then I could correct them with "more" or "less", and their approximation would become better - but EVENTUALLY they would get an ENTIRELY true answer. Do you see what I'm saying? Do you agree?

again... it goes back to perception... a while back i used a colorblind example... how to my father the colors red and green are basically identical... it has to do with the rods and cones in his eyes, but imagine if everyone was born that way... and had always been that way... green and red would no longer exist as distinct colors... sure, we could study "wavelengths" (a term which is also just an "approximation", since light sometimes follows a "particle" model better than a "wave" model)... but the fact is, we would not perceive the red/green difference as we do now, and it would influence the way we study and think about the world around us

take it a step further and imagine a force like gravity that we can not see directly, but only observe the effects of... might it be possible that there is a whole lot going on with the force we call "gravity" that we just haven't associated with it yet... or maybe it is not just a single force, but a combination of factors... which may help to explain the breakdown at the atomic level

bottomline... if nothing else, we cannot know absolute truths... so the only productive way to observe the universe and human behavior is to assume they do not exist until proven otherwise... or in scientific terms, don't insert an arbitrary constant just for the sake of trying to solve an equation

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

bottomline... if nothing else, we cannot know absolute truths...

Is that an absolute truth?

... or in scientific terms, don't insert an arbitrary constant just for the sake of trying to solve an equation

Why not? If we are examining the diameter and area of a circle, and fiddle around with it, and find that by golly, there's this number that always comes out to 3.14159... , then why isn't it proper procedure to make it a "constant"? If it's there, why not use it? We may not know WHY it's there, but why not identify it, name it and use it? If we use it, we can leap off from there and do all sorts of things with it - we can integrate it, differentiate it, make applications in all sorts of fields, etc. Math and science use all sorts of constants, named after all sorts of great scientists.

I don't understand what you're getting at with the "don't insert an arbitrary constant" idea It's not arbitrary if it's always there and always the same. Of course, we could say, "well, it might not work next Wednesday", but then one must abandon all science and knowledge if you're always going to assume that type of thing. I think it's healthy and good to realize that conclusions might be in error, but IMO it's absurd and pointless to say, "well, yesterday there was this constant we call "pi", but today it might not be there, or it might not work for all circles, so we can't do anything today with it until we re-discover it for today." The moon wasn't landed on using those types of attitudes. The moon was landed on using mathematical ideas/constants/equations that have proven stable for hundreds of years.

As far as your colorblind idea - I don't see how that negates absolute truths. It would be an absolute truth that your father sees light in a defined range of wavelengths as the same color, and most other people see two colors in that range, and certain animals see certain wavelengths differently than humans, etc. We give names to things we perceive. If we, personally, don't perceive something, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If your dad doesn't perceive red, that doesn't mean that energy in that wavelength suddenly disappears whenever it's around your dad.

[Rían]

BTW, is it true that you posted at Entmoot today?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't understand what you're getting at with the "don't insert an arbitrary constant" idea It's not arbitrary if it's always there and always the same. Of course, we could say, "well, it might not work next Wednesday", but then one must abandon all science and knowledge if you're always going to assume that type of thing. I think it's healthy and good to realize that conclusions might be in error, but IMO it's absurd and pointless to say, "well, yesterday there was this constant we call "pi", but today it might not be there, or it might not work for all circles, so we can't do anything today with it until we re-discover it for today." The moon wasn't landed on using those types of attitudes. The moon was landed on using mathematical ideas/constants/equations that have proven stable for hundreds of years.

the key word is "arbitrary"... remember, we are talking beliefs here, with a bit of science mixed in... constants in mathmatics are fine, that's what it's built on... theories about the universe depend much more upon indirect or partial observation, and a good bit of speculation... religious "theories" rely 100% upon speculation

so while pi isn't terribly arbitrary (i.e. it works and no one has come up with a constant that works better)

the big bang is a bit more so (i.e. one of the better solutions in terms of observations, but there are other ones too)

any specific "religious truths" however are terribly arbitrary, since they have no basis in direct or indirect observation

As far as your colorblind idea - I don't see how that negates absolute truths. It would be an absolute truth that your father sees light in a defined range of wavelengths as the same color, and most other people see two colors in that range, and certain animals see certain wavelengths differently than humans, etc. We give names to things we perceive. If we, personally, don't perceive something, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If your dad doesn't perceive red, that doesn't mean that energy in that wavelength suddenly disappears whenever it's around your dad.

it doesn't negate absolute truths... it is just an example of how we can never be sure if we are able to "perceive" everything about our existance... and if we can't, even if absolute truths exist, it is a fact that we can never be 100% sure what they are... thus, while you can choose what truths to believe, you must be willing to accept the fact that they may be wrong

that's why i'm agnostic

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

BTW, is it true that you posted at Entmoot today?

is that a rhetorical question?

[inked]

brownjenkins,

"any specific "religious truths" however are terribly arbitrary, since they have no basis in direct or indirect observation"

Is that also true of psychology?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

brownjenkins,

"any specific "religious truths" however are terribly arbitrary, since they have no basis in direct or indirect observation"

Is that also true of psychology?

actually, as one who studied psych for a while in school, i'd have to say that it is almost worse than religious orthodoxy, since many i have met who ascribe to the profession not only believe their theories are near fact, but that they are actually science

i prefer to think of it as the "art of counseling"

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

is that a rhetorical question?

No, absolutely not. I'd really like to hear your answer.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, absolutely not. I'd really like to hear your answer.

well i guess it all depends upon when i answer the question... of course, if i answer now i will have to answer yes... i'll get back to you tommorrow

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

BTW, is it true that you posted at Entmoot today?

yep, couldn't resist

[Rían]

So that's an absolute truth?

(or if you're going to be difficult, I could give you a particular date)

[Starr Polish]

Obviously it's not an absolute truth, Rian. How can we know that Brownjenkins actually exists? How do we know we aren't "brains in a vat" that are simply receving sensory input from some unknown external source?

Bahaha...gotta love my philosophy class. (sorry, couldn't resist.)

[Rían]

Why "obviously", and why is it not an absolute truth?

Note that I was asking HIM if it was an absolute truth. He would know. Now he could lie to us, or he could be under the influence of drugs and not really know the answer , but that does NOT remove the fact that either he DID post today or he did NOT post today. There IS a yes/no answer to that question; it is NOT an approximation-type question.

I just don't really get into the brain in a vat thing ... if you're gonna have that as a possibility, then why bother to think or talk at all? Sure it's possible - and it's also possible that things are pretty much as they seem (i.e., we're NOT brains in a vat). So as a personal choice, I choose to believe that things are pretty much as they seem. Otherwise, why bother with talking? Why bother with anything?

And it's either true or false that we're brains in a vat

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

Bahaha...gotta love my philosophy class. (sorry, couldn't resist.)

More thoughts from my vat ...

IMO, philosophy used correctly is a great thing. Philosophy that just says, "How do we know everything is not just an illusion?" just doesn't cut it for me. It doesn't put bread on the table or ease suffering or increase beauty or show love. I think the correct answer to that question is, "Well, I don't know - but I'm going to act like we are NOT brains in a vat. If we are indeed brains in a vat, it certainly wouldn't hurt to act like we're not. If we are NOT brains in a vat, it would CERTAINLY hurt to act like we ARE. So the best choice, given that we'll never know for sure, seems to be to act like we are NOT brains in a vat. End of answer - let's go out there and do good!"

[inked]

The Socratic/Platonic story of the guy with the Ring which makes him invisible is an old philosophic discussion which touches on this subject directly. If we had the power of invisibility which rendered us incapable of being caught, how would we then act? It is our choices which make us what we are - even when not held accountable for them by our fellow humans. The conclusion: to act rightly in accord with the Good is mankind's highest attainment. See NICHOMACHIAN ETHICS.