Originally posted by CalJustJust a little tip: never use analogies from science when you want to explain some wishy washy reasoning. It just doesn't work.
In cosmology, as in nuclear physics and quantum mechanics we have found incredible, unbelievable "inconsistencies", such as "dark matter" that nobody can explain.
In my son's case, he is entirely consistent in his Buddhism, so I have no reason to question or doubt either his sincerity, or his "truth".
I think I understand what you are saying, but I still think you are not only wrong, but are being somewhat negligent in refusing to look. You have no reason to doubt his truth, but at the same time, do not want to believe it either. You wish to let it be true without accepting it, and whilst holding on to your own 'truth' which we both know contradicts his 'truth' to some degree, but you would rather not think about the contradictions.
Now there are some areas in life where I can totally agree with such a stance. Some people like action and taking risks, others like to be cautious. Some people want lots of children, others want to be single. Some people want to be rich, others want lots of friends. And so on. Many life outlooks are a matter of choice and not really 'true' or 'false'.
But I think that extending this to religion is typically not valid and mostly motivated by a refusal to address the possible conflict.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI disagree - it is a totally valid analogy.
Just a little tip: never use analogies from science when you want to explain some wishy washy reasoning. It just doesn't work.
We can't even explain what we can SEE, now you want to totally explain and put in a box what we can't see! But what many people attest is a reality.
Here is another scientific analogy for you to chew on. One day, I am sure, we will know far more about the supernatural than we do today. Then, explainining this to you with a 2015 mindset would be like describing nuclear theory to a Neanderthal.
Originally posted by CalJustIt looked valid to you. Presumably because you don't know enough of the relevant science. My tip is based on the fact that most people who make such analogies don't understand the relevant science.
I disagree - it is a totally valid analogy.
Dark matter is not 'an incredible unbelievable inconsistency that nobody can explain'.
The Niels Bohr quote does not even line up with what you were trying to say at all.
We can't even explain what we can SEE, now you want to totally explain and put in a box what we can't see! But what many people attest is a reality.
Exactly why trying to use science as an analogy is such a really bad idea. The whole philosophy of science is the complete opposite of what you are pushing.
Science basically learns things incrementally about the universe, and although there is always more to learn, it typically does not contradict what we already know. Further, science tends to stick to the philosophy that if we don't know something based on evidence then it probably isn't the case.
Nobody has asked you to put into a box what you can't understand or don't have evidence for. It is the exact opposite. You claim to have a box, in which you have put such things, but you don't like people criticizing you for your box, nor do you think your box is different from anybody else's box - despite wildly different descriptions.
You seem to be holding two self contradictory positions:
1. Nothing much can be known about God.
2. Everything that is known is equivalent and equally true.
Here is another scientific analogy for you to chew on. One day, I am sure, we will know far more about the supernatural than we do today.
And I am sure that the word 'supernatural' is incoherent. Certainly most attempts at defining the word rule out scientific knowledge of it as part of the definition.
Then, explainining this to you with a 2015 mindset would be like describing nuclear theory to a Neanderthal.
Well I say that a Neanderthal claiming that his understanding of nuclear theory is all good and just as correct as the caveman's version is complete nonsense. Clearly both the Neanderthal and the caveman are completely and utterly wrong about nuclear theory. Claiming the other guy is ignorant doesn't make your made up story true.
14 May 15
Originally posted by twhitehead
It looked valid to you. Presumably because you don't know enough of the relevant science. My tip is based on the fact that most people who make such analogies don't understand the relevant science.
Dark matter is not 'an incredible unbelievable inconsistency that nobody can explain'.
The Niels Bohr quote does not even line up with what you were tryi ...[text shortened]... g about nuclear theory. Claiming the other guy is ignorant doesn't make your made up story true.
Science has been contradicting itself with new science for centuries.
RJHINDS
The Near Genius
😏
To twhitehead - without commenting on your post in detail, it is quite clear that we are talking at cross purposes, and that you are either wilfully or ignorantly ignoring my main point.
You ridicule me for saying that the caveman could have been "right", and that my claim that both Buddhists and Christians both have the "truth" is absurd.
This is because you believe that there exists an objective TRUTH, - that you know what it is and that you can defend it. Those who believe differently are in error, and you can prove it.
I am saying that everything that we can discuss (specifically in the realm of faith and belief - this is, after all, the SF) can only be relative truth as seen from a specific pov in time and space.
In this sense, the caveman's view of Spirituality, was HIS ABSOLUTE TRUTH. You and I both agree, with the benefit of hindsight, that he was wrong. But I can hear him in my mind's eye defending his position then as vehemently as you do yours today.
In some ways you seem to be as closed minded as Smugface, but I gladly grant you the right to your position.
Unfortunately it seems, however, that our positions are too far apart to hope for a meeting of minds, so I respectfully bow out of this discussion.
CJ signing out.
15 May 15
Originally posted by CalJustI don't think so. I think I do get your main point, and I think I disagree with it.
To twhitehead - without commenting on your post in detail, it is quite clear that we are talking at cross purposes, and that you are either wilfully or ignorantly ignoring my main point.
You ridicule me for saying that the caveman could have been "right", and that my claim that both Buddhists and Christians both have the "truth" is absurd.
No, I was not ridiculing you. I was trying to demonstrate that the claim that the caveman could have been 'right' is clearly false.
This is because you believe that there exists an objective TRUTH, - that you know what it is and that you can defend it. Those who believe differently are in error, and you can prove it.
No, I do not claim to know, or even think I know everything. On some particular issues, yes, I think not only that objective truths exists and that I know them: and I bet you agree.
I am saying that everything that we can discuss (specifically in the realm of faith and belief - this is, after all, the SF) can only be relative truth as seen from a specific pov in time and space.
And I strongly disagree. I say that not only can some things be known objectively, but that claims that 'relative truth' exists and that that somehow makes ridiculous claims immune to criticism is not the case.
In this sense, the caveman's view of Spirituality, was HIS ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
Except is wasn't his spirituality that was in the analogy. It was his understanding of nuclear theory. You had claimed that he knew something about nuclear theory and that what he knew was true. And that somehow, because the neanderthal was equally ignorant of modern science, they both have knowledge of relative truth about nuclear theory.
You and I both agree, with the benefit of hindsight, that he was wrong.
And that is where I may be misunderstanding you. How can he be both wrong, and still be right in his 'relative truth'?
But I can hear him in my mind's eye defending his position then as vehemently as you do yours today.
And he would remain wrong.
In some ways you seem to be as closed minded as Smugface, but I gladly grant you the right to your position.
Well I don't know why you feel that way. If you put forward a persuasive argument, then I will change my mind. At the start of this post, I thought I understood your position, now I am not so sure. I am not even sure that you understand your own position as your statements keep contradicting each other. But failing to adequately explain your position is not a good excuse to call me closed minded. That is a totally unwarranted accusation. And I suspect nothing more than an excuse to run away from giving a better explanation of your position or possibly admitting its flaws.