Absolute truth and human understanding

[Kyuuketsuki]

Why does 'absolute' matter? In philosophical/relgious debates it appears, but in real life it doesn't seem to be that important. At the end of the day, we all decide what we 100% believe e.g I 100% believe I exist, I do not doubt this in any way, so to me my existence is absolute. It may not be to you, but it's how I perceive it that matters.

I think that rationality matters, therefore the irrational matters inasmuch as it is anti-rational. It matters because we have a duty to teach our kids to the best of our ability which means teaching them what we understand (rational) rather than what we believe (irrational) and because if we don't get our kids to understand the difference they will treat religion, astrology, ufology, acupuncture, reflexology, claims to Atlantis being real & Egyptians having technical knowledge greater than ours as real.

I know you'll probably disagree with the first one and everyone is entitled to believe what they want but to the rationalist these are all the same and it's important that these things are not allowed to hold sway over reality.

Imagine you're reading a newspaper, perhaps 75% (maybe more) of the articles require some understand, some comprehension of science and rational concepts.

Am I talking gobaldy gook?

No but it might be gobbledegook lol ... no, it was an entirely valid question

Kyu

[CoxRox]

Kyu, I agree with you about rationalilty and I suppose the two are linked. Then again, rationality is subjective (try telling a schizophrenic they aren't really hearing voices).

[Tiberius]

Just digressing slightly from the thread, Daystar makes a similar statement on another forum:

'The Bible isn't a science book but when it touches on subjects related to science it is correct.'

It is his inability to realise that if you are to make such a statement without backing it up with evidence, or proof, you will not be y aken seriously.

He only has that view because he picks and chooses his science, and has reinterpreted the Bible into his own version that he reckons is perfect. I don't doubt that his version is more accurate in some parts, but to claim that it is a perfect translation is to assume that there were no changes made to the oldest original copy we have got, and also that his translating is spot on (which it may or may not be seeing as he doesn't have any academic status in ancient languages).

[Edwardo Piet]

At the end of the day, we all decide what we 100% believe e.g I 100% believe I exist, I do not doubt this in any way, so to me my existence is absolute. It may not be to you, but it's how I perceive it that matters.

Atleast I don't decide to believe though IMO. I don't decide to believe that cars exist for example. No matter how hard I tried to not believe in the existence of cars. I couldn't just decide not to believe them. I can see them, I can hear them, I can feel them. And I can smell their pollution in the air. I will believe they exist whether I like it or not. Unless I go crazy or something.
I can pretend they don't exist. I can pretend to disbelieve in the existence of cars. I can try and fake it to make it, - if disbelieving in cars was my goal! - Do mantras like: "Cars don't exist cars don't exist cars don't exist". But that won't make me believe cars don't exist if I really DO believe cars exist.
I don't think belief is a matter of policy.
What I wonder is...if you BELIEVE belief is a matter of policy...then can you choose your beliefs? If you BELIEVED 100% that you could choose to disbelieve in cars or believe in Zeus and believe that spearmint flavoured Goblins existed in reality. Could you? I think disbelieving cars would perhaps still be impossible unless you were messed up - because, you know, they're right there in front of you when you go out, right in your face. - But if you believed you could choose to believe in the positive-existence of Goblins, Zeus, the FSM, IPU,etc. If you 100% believed you could choose to do that , could you?
And if you could, the thing is...I believe you could only do that IF you actually believed that you could choose your beliefs in the FIRST place.
I am pretty damn certain you can't choose to believe that you can choose your beliefs! I think your experience of reality would have to compel you in some way, to believe that could actually do that.
I do not believe that belief -at least at the core level - Is a matter of policy; an act of will. And I do not believe I choose to disbelieve that it is a matter of policy - at least at the core level.
By the way, I would have addressed the rest of your post CR but the thing is I pretty much agree with the rest
Besides, if you're going to digress slightly (if it is a digression?) then I guess I can digress slightly too (if it is only slightly, although I am responding to part of your post at least - and also if even that is a digression by me? Or me too?)
Evf

[Purple Rabbit]

[Why does 'absolute' matter? In philosophical/relgious debates it appears, but in real life it doesn't seem to be that important. At the end of the day, we all decide what we 100% believe e.g I 100% believe I exist, I do not doubt this in any way, so to me my existence is absolute. It may not be to you, but it's how I perceive it that matters.
Am I talking gobaldy gook?

In the debate on religion the claim of the absolute matters. And that is where quite a lot threads here end up. Several great thinkers have pointed out with good reasons that the absolute (if it exists at all) is not obtainable by man. Still that is the claim of religions and many other supernaturally based views.

Is the claim on the absolute relevant in daily life? At the end of the day, I for one don't decide on what I believe for 100%. I might decide where to put my 100% bet on, where to go for. But there is ALWAYS that skeptic in my head. During the day I decide on what is most probable given all information and keep to that as a working model untill new information sufficiently falsifies it. Your believe that you exist 100% isn't an absolute claim if you add that it is your perspective. That is a subjective claim and by all means you're entitled to have those.

If you ask me on the other hand if it's possible for me to doubt if I exist then my answer would indeed be yes. The doubt being more on the 'I'-part than on the 'exist'-part. Let me explain what I mean. I have no proof of control over the thoughts I think. I don't know where they originate, what influences them and where they are being caused. I might like to think so, but I can't trace my thoughts to 'inner workings'. The origin of my thoughts are essentially an enigma for me. Of course I can see some correlation and consistency in my thoughts, but I have no real proof that my thougts originate from one unchangeable entity that can b called 'I'. Also there are other clues that place doubt on the idea of an 'I' as an indepently existing entity. Science shows that thougths are influenced by hormones, dopamines, entropines, drugs and other chemicals. Also a genetic makeup plays a part. Can I really see myself as an independent entity from my body? Is the genetic makeup me or is this genetic makeup the thing 'me' has to put up with? Also, I am clearly different from the 'I' I was at age 10. Where has 'I' gone? So imo all kinds of doubts are indeed possible.

But let's be clear, that doubt is possible in this rather extreme example, in no way means I use my possible non-existence as a working model in daily live.

[Edwardo Piet]

Good post PR,
And also, to know absolutely 100% for certain that an omniscient intelligence exists - wouldn't you have to be omniscient yourself?
Probably? I'm not absolute here either Just thinking.
Evf

[Purple Rabbit]

Good post PR,
And also, to know absolutely 100% for certain that an omniscient intelligence exists - wouldn't you have to be omniscient yourself?
Probably? I'm not absolute here either Just thinking.
Evf

To check if a claimed omniscient entity knows just one fact A you would have to have access to absolute truth about fact A. To check if a claimed omniscient being knows all facts about everything you indeed would have to be omniscient yourself. The claim is not falsifiable.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah....I guess it could be possible that you could just have access to absolute truth in God's existence but then not in anything else...
But I think to have access to whether an invisible, intangible, inaudible supernatural being existed!! You WOULD have to be omniscient yourself...
I think that...it may not be the case...
It could be possible. But of course I don't think its possible to know there's a God .
Because I believe the supernatural almost certainly does not exist.
Evf

[Purple Rabbit]

Religions so far have produced only liquid definitions of their gods. Gods are like rubber, they bend and shape to nicely fit the holes in the unfinished fabric of reason. When there was ignorance on the place of earth in the universe god created heaven and earth as seperate substances one after the other. Knowing this to be wrong from science left little room for such a view. Now the word of gods is bent to fit simultaneous creation of heaven and earth. Gods feed on ignorance and the urge to fill gaps in understanding.

[Edwardo Piet]

As Dawkins said not only is faith the belief in spite of the lack of evidence. Its even perhaps BECAUSE of the lack of evidence.
I think that one of the pathetic weapons the religious through at you is "My God/gods cannot be disproved!".
And of course its very difficult to disprove something that there's no evidence of the existence of in the first place!!!
If there was actual scientific evidence of the existence of God. It would be falsifiable.
Of course its hard to disprove something that there's no evidence of TO disprove in the first place!
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Once there actually IS evidence of God....THEN it would have to be disproved.
It seems the fact there is NO evidence of God that makes believers often think their belief is so strong! If there was evidence of God he could actually be falsified!
It seems they often completely miss the point! God doesn't need to be falsified because there's NO evidence TO be falsified!
There's no evidence of God whatsoever. So what are we being asked to disprove here?!
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. The burden of proof...is on the believer!
If only more believers could grasp this point!!! I think its so vital! Atheists/non-believers don't have to disprove God, miracles or the supernatural! The believers have to provide evidence first! There are many that don't get that. Its stupid being told to disprove "God".
Evf