reason vs faith vs reality

[genkaus]

The reality is that we are largely in agreement. The problem, as I see it, is that even if you have a rational and empirically verifiable belief you can't verify it to everyone because they won't accept your proof or verifications. In fact it is extremely difficult to identify a single universally accepted truth about anything.

Which is why I keep saying that acceptance is irrelevant.

[max-greece]

Agree entirely - but what is relevant? The problem is not as easy to solve as it appears and we end up back at the OP's point which is essentially the relativity of reality.

I have to say I do not know the answer to this other than at some instinctive level that is hard to put into words.

[genkaus]

Agree entirely - but what is relevant? The problem is not as easy to solve as it appears and we end up back at the OP's point which is essentially the relativity of reality.

I have to say I do not know the answer to this other than at some instinctive level that is hard to put into words.

What's relevant is the consistent application of the rules of logic and evidence.

To elaborate, consider how Wandering Soul regards the different worldviews - she thinks of all of them as being "coherent, cogent, meaningful, rational and empirically verifiable". However, these attributes are interdependent. I do not believe that any of the current worldviews satisfy all the given criteria. Only one worldview - that has an accurate one-on-one mapping with the reality it represents - would satisfy all the conditions.

However, right now, if we have a worldview that's coherent and rational, but doesn't match up with this reality, it won't be empirically verifiable. If we arbitrarily make up the standards of evidence, then that view won't be rational. If we use different standards for different objects, then the view won't be coherent. So, right now, all the different worldviews we have match the hypothetical ideal and accurate one to different degrees - some come close, others don't. And the opinion of a person on how well their own worldview fits this criteria is a part of their worldview - so including that in the judgment would be ridiculous.

[max-greece]

Agree entirely - but what is relevant? The problem is not as easy to solve as it appears and we end up back at the OP's point which is essentially the relativity of reality.

I have to say I do not know the answer to this other than at some instinctive level that is hard to put into words.

What's relevant is the consistent application of the rules of logic and evidence.

To elaborate, consider how Wandering Soul regards the different worldviews - she thinks of all of them as being "coherent, cogent, meaningful, rational and empirically verifiable". However, these attributes are interdependent. I do not believe that any of the current worldviews satisfy all the given criteria. Only one worldview - that has an accurate one-on-one mapping with the reality it represents - would satisfy all the conditions.

However, right now, if we have a worldview that's coherent and rational, but doesn't match up with this reality, it won't be empirically verifiable. If we arbitrarily make up the standards of evidence, then that view won't be rational. If we use different standards for different objects, then the view won't be coherent. So, right now, all the different worldviews we have match the hypothetical ideal and accurate one to different degrees - some come close, others don't. And the opinion of a person on how well their own worldview fits this criteria is a part of their worldview - so including that in the judgment would be ridiculous.

And that judgement is made by....?

[genkaus]

And that judgement is made by....?

By anyone who understands what the terms "coherent, cogent, meaningful, rational and empirically verifiable" mean. It could be that person himself, as long as he is judging honestly.

[wandering soul]

The strange thing is that there are believers in all variants of religion that will claim their belief to be rational and empirically verifiable - with countless others to back up their opinion.

I would argue that this necessitates accepting that rational and empirically verifiable does indeed vary from one individual to another. William Craig Lane is a good example of someone who believes all the above about his own arguments.

Yes. And that is because they are selecting a different data set to verify and a different set of well-established mental, conceptual, and physical tools to analyze and verify the observations, theories and conclusions.

i'm not talking about the average Christian here - or any Christian as they have not developed this type of deliberate, disciplined level of experimentation and verification by a multiplicity of persons following the precise procedures to reach the results.

The data set examined and observed, the tools used to observe, manipulate, test, analyze and confirm and the theories proposed and studies are not the material world with which the sciences engage so effectively and coherently. But the process is the same and the conclusions have been over time consistently reached.

[max-greece]

The strange thing is that there are believers in all variants of religion that will claim their belief to be rational and empirically verifiable - with countless others to back up their opinion.

I would argue that this necessitates accepting that rational and empirically verifiable does indeed vary from one individual to another. William Craig Lane is a good example of someone who believes all the above about his own arguments.

Yes. And that is because they are selecting a different data set to verify and a different set of well-established mental, conceptual, and physical tools to analyze and verify the observations, theories and conclusions.

i'm not talking about the average Christian here - or any Christian as they have not developed this type of deliberate, disciplined level of experimentation and verification by a multiplicity of persons following the precise procedures to reach the results.

The data set examined and observed, the tools used to observe, manipulate, test, analyze and confirm and the theories proposed and studies are not the material world with which the sciences engage so effectively and coherently. But the process is the same and the conclusions have been over time consistently reached.

I would argue that they start with the conclusion first and then work backwards. In most religions that means they start with God or Gods and go from there. If you question the God premise the whole things falls apart.

The unique thing about science is that it starts with a hypothesis and then uses experimentation or further research to either confirm the hypothesis or reject it and then move on to the next one.

---

And that judgement is made by....?

By anyone who understands what the terms "coherent, cogent, meaningful, rational and empirically verifiable" mean. It could be that person himself, as long as he is judging honestly.

You know that this could go on and on forever. I will, however, stop here.

[wandering soul]

I would argue that they start with the conclusion first and then work backwards. In most religions that means they start with God or Gods and go from there. If you question the God premise the whole things falls apart.

The unique thing about science is that it starts with a hypothesis and then uses experimentation or further research to either confirm the hypothesis or reject it and then move on to the next one.

.....
You know that this could go on and on forever. I will, however, stop here.

well, I may have reached the end of anyone remotely interested in this line of thought

quick reply to Max

yes, you are right that that is the method for religions. And add to that those who do apply any sort of rational, empirical analysis to the ideas are only the intellectual elite. The average adherent doesn't actually engage in any analysis at all. The religious professionals are simply engaged in "proving" the "rightness" of their positions to the believers - and enforcing the "wrongness" of everyone else.

But there are traditions which do not start or end with God but have conducted rather rigorous and repeatable experimentation on consciousness itself. There are different schools of thought, different conclusions and different encompassing reality structures. But that there are multiple traditions engaged in the same types of work on the same range of observable, experienced data, to my mind puts them in a strong position.

one brief further clarification for the last interested mind and then I'll leave too if no one is interested


Reality:
I select this word because of (a) its comprehensive inclusivity and (b) because it alone conveys the level of personal investment which is displayed when it is challenged.

Paradigm, world view, perspective, outlook, are all very good ideas/concepts but reality encompasses all of this and far more as well. And although we are each personally invested in each of these, with varying degrees of discomfort involved in changing them, we sometimes can and do move away from one paradigm, view, etc. and into another. When our reality is challenged however, we mount every defense of the emotions, psyche, mind, and energy to defend it. Our actual very identity is so intimately and completely undifferentiated from our conceptions of reality that we feel a primal visceral recoil when it is challenged.

I use the word reality because that is how I see everyone expressing themselves.

Yet I mentally moved out of my familial reality structures when I was a teenager in the 1960s and found there were many other realities - cohesive, consistent, rational, empirically verifiable, providing verifiable explanations of the universe, humanity, life and everything. The one thing none of them were, and I realized could never be, was comprehensive. To get the whole picture I would have to start finding and collecting them.

I find I can be inside each of these, experience life through that reality, find it satisfying, meaning-creating, aesthetically pleasing, socially supporting, etc etc. I can also step outside of them and see them as others see them and see all of them interacting in relation to each other.

[Whateverist]

Yet I mentally moved out of my familial reality structures when I was a teenager in the 1960s and found there were many other realities - cohesive, consistent, rational, empirically verifiable, providing verifiable explanations of the universe, humanity, life and everything. The one thing none of them were, and I realized could never be, was comprehensive. To get the whole picture I would have to start finding and collecting them.

I find I can be inside each of these, experience life through that reality, find it satisfying, meaning-creating, aesthetically pleasing, socially supporting, etc etc. I can also step outside of them and see them as others see them and see all of them interacting in relation to each other.

Interesting. By contrast, from a similarly young age, I realized that my opinion, worldview, 'reality' -call it what you will- was not coterminous with myself. I realized my understanding was like a fish. If a better explanatory system came along, it would eat the one I was operating under but that would diminish me not one bit. Instead, I would merely start operating under the 'larger fish' explanatory system. So ideas are not something to identify with and needn't be defended. That is why I don't enjoy debate as such. I'm much more interested in discovering what to think on a topic than in defending any particular formulation even if that describes what I currently believe to be true. I'd always prefer to take on the larger fish.

[wandering soul]

Interesting. By contrast, from a similarly young age, I realized that my opinion, worldview, 'reality' -call it what you will- was not coterminous with myself. I realized my understanding was like a fish. If a better explanatory system came along, it would eat the one I was operating under but that would diminish me not one bit. Instead, I would merely start operating under the 'larger fish' explanatory system. So ideas are not something to identify with and needn't be defended. That is why I don't enjoy debate as such. I'm much more interested in discovering what to think on a topic than in defending any particular formulation even if that describes what I currently believe to be true. I'd always prefer to take on the larger fish.

I quite agree that I love discovery of new viewpoints rather than debate over the same territory.

I think it is interesting that you experience yourself inhabiting your expanding explanatory systems, exchanging the more limited for those better able to cover all the various aspects of lived experience. While I have tended to keep all the systems handy and move about among them. I'm the fish moving between habitats. None of them completely satisfies all aspects of my lived experience. All of them work very well for parts of my mental life. Some are way better at at holding together almost everything. I usually stick with those and visit the others!

But it looks like we're the last ones left here. Not so much interest in this type of exchange?