What if billions of people are wrong?

[Jeffwo]

<< Wow, this thread is really long.
Ok, I think we all agree on one thing, and that is that billions of people could be wrong......either way, either pro or con.

To my way of thinking, it might be a better investment, even if wrong in the end, to live a good life, in the biblical sense. You'd have nothing to lose. If you are wrong, then of course, you die and nothing further comes of it. If you go the other way, and your time comes, you find out you are wrong, then the wrath comes, and you find yourself in that situation.

There are alot of people on earth who have basically nothing. They are impoverished, sick and live in constant misery in the material sense, but yet so many of them are happy. How possible? I think their faith and teachings of their religion give them hope and the way of living of the teachings, which makes them "good people" doing good works. Whether anyone believes or not, most would agree that if everyone lived by the principles of the good book, the world would most likely be a better place. >>




I agree with ya Compuwiz. These thoughts have crossed my mind so many times.

Something else to consider too guys, Christianity will never be the majority. The bible calls
us the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world". Imagine just enough people to add
flavoring to the world.

God bless,
Jeff

 

[linuxboy]

Something else to consider too guys, Christianity will never be the majority. The bible calls
us the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world". Imagine just enough people to add
flavoring to the world.


eh...

actual passage is Matthew 5

5:13 "You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its flavor, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled on by people. 5:14 You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill cannot be hidden. 5:15 People do not light a lamp and put it under a basket but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before people, so that they can see your good deeds and give honor to your Father in heaven.

Meaning that not Christians (he was addresing this to many, many, people, not some Calvinst elect.), but people are the salt of the earth. Jesus never says what occurs when there is too much flavoring. Your analogy is pretty good but I just don't seem to understand it, it's probably just me.

The Bible does not make a claim of exlcusivity here not does it say that all people are not salty or that having too much salt is bad. Matter of fact, I happen to think that there really is an oversaturation of salt, but we're so focused trying to taste sweetness that we never indulge in our own saltiness, or alternately, light.

I really don't see how you can make the claim you did, unless you're using some bits of passage of which I am unaware. A salt that has lost saltiness was never salty to begin with; it's all salty.


God bless,
Jeff


Yes indeed.


Cheers !

 

[PistachioByAzul]

His belief is based on ignorance not fact

Again, relative terms. Within his box these are facts.

 

[xirtam]

<< Again, relative terms. >>



Engine, there's not a term you can say that *isn't* relative. Including "Again, relative terms." Just because our language is relative and inaccurate doesn't mean that absolute truth doesn't exist -- it just means that our way of understanding/communicating it is faulty. For example, a spedometer never really gives you a completely accurate reading. It's relative. Take measurements, perform calculations, divide by constants, manipulate things around in your own finite way, and you can get a speed that closely resembles 65 mph, plus or minus an error factor. Just because something is relative doesn't mean we can flatly dismiss it. I think language can come close enough for our purposes to understand perfect ideas in slightly imperfect ways.

As far as the whole "box" thing is concerned... how do you know that when you escape from one box, you're not still inside another? Maybe you don't "claim" a box, but couldn't that just put you in another box of people who don't claim boxes?

I'm not saying I don't believe in absolutes -- because I do. But we as humans think of those absolutes in relative ways. We apply them through our practical lives. What if... this, what if... that. Sometimes we come up with circumstances where there deciphering between "right" and "wrong" becomes confusing and difficult. So I guess what I'm saying is that as far as morality is concerned, the world consists of black, white, and shades of gray, but because we're more "comfortable" in the gray because it provides us more liberty, we as humans tend to mesh the black and the white with the rest of it and say there are no absolutes. How's that? What do you all think?

 

[PistachioByAzul]

As far as the whole "box" thing is concerned... how do you know that when you escape from one box, you're not still inside another? Maybe you don't "claim" a box, but couldn't that just put you in another box of people who don't claim boxes?


That's what it is, a big circle I guess.

Engine, there's not a term you can say that *isn't* relative. Including "Again, relative terms." Just because our language is relative and inaccurate doesn't mean that absolute truth doesn't exist -- it just means that our way of understanding/communicating it is faulty.

I agree. That is why some won't accept any so-called "truths", because they've epxerienced a realization that truth is not needed to live. That in itself is a truth I suppose, a box in and of it's own. But it's a truth that encompasses all other truths under a single umbrella of nature. A box that's been torn apart and folded out flat, but maybe that's too arrogant.

I wonder about being comfortable in the gray area, because I think you've called it for what it is. The question is, is it a bad thing or not. Every other creature on this planet operates in the medium, nature does, it seems sensible that we should too, and not be swayed so much into the extremes by our conciousness. But as usual, I don't know.

 

[petrek]

In re"actual passage is Matthew 5

5:13 "You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its flavor, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled on by people. 5:14 You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill cannot be hidden. 5:15 People do not light a lamp and put it under a basket but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before people, so that they can see your good deeds and give honor to your Father in heaven.

Meaning that not Christians (he was addresing this to many, many, people, not some Calvinst elect.), but people are the salt of the earth. Jesus never says what occurs when there is too much flavoring. Your analogy is pretty good but I just don't seem to understand it, it's probably just me.

The Bible does not make a claim of exlcusivity here not does it say that all people are not salty or that having too much salt is bad. Matter of fact, I happen to think that there really is an oversaturation of salt, but we're so focused trying to taste sweetness that we never indulge in our own saltiness, or alternately, light."

Linuxboy, I'm going to have to disagree. Let's take a closer look at who Christ is addressing. (Matthew 5)

"1)And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:2) And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...11) Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.12) Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.13) Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.14) Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.15) Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.16) Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18)For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Christ is clearly addressing his disciples, Christians, and as such exclusivity applies.

Later...
Dave

 

[petrek]

"Within his box these are facts."

But unless you believe that "Africans are less than human" his belief is only an opinion that he considers a fact because of his ignorance. THE FACT IS AFRICANS ARE HUMAN!

 

[Moonbeam]

Well a big point I want to make is that Jesus didn't know anything about chemistry talking about salt loosing its flavor. Were he teaching today he wouldn't use such an allusion because it is factually jarring. And since he wasn't informed of the nature of salt, he couldn't have been right about anything I guess.

 

[xirtam]

Whoa! Big point! Looks like you shattered my faith!

Did Jesus ever say that salt would lose its flavor? Do we know for sure that it doesn't?

Seems to me like it was a hypothetical.

 

[Moonbeam]

You can buy prehistoric salt from ancient seas with no polution chemicals if you look. It tastes like salt even with the mesosaur pee.

 

[Athanasius]

A point of order here about "salt losing its saltiness." The "salt" that Jesus was referring to was usually dredged from the Dead Sea (mesosaur pee and all). If it had a certain level of purity, it was suitable for flavoring foods and preserving foods. If it did not have such a level of purity, its only use was to be thrown on roads to keep weeds from growing up on them. Since it was thrown on the roads, it would be trampled by men.

His point is that people who are going to show people God must have a certain level of character, transparency, purity, or "saltiness." If they don't, they will not act like flavoring for the world or a preservative for the world. Instead, they will be trampled by the world.



<< I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy . . . not to be conformed any longer to the pattern of this world but to be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will know what is really God's will, his good, pleasing, and perfect will. (Athanasius' paraphrase, Romans 12:1-2) >>

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

<< "Within his box these are facts."

But unless you believe that "Africans are less than human" his belief is only an opinion that he considers a fact because of his ignorance. THE FACT IS AFRICANS ARE HUMAN! >>



Tell that to the KKK.

Your believe in the bible is not based on fact, but purely on ignorance. You have faith in something of which you cannot it's existance. Prove me otherwise.

At least half the solar systems have at least 1 planet inhabited by beings more intelligent and further developed than us. I have no proof for this, but you cannot proof the contrary either. It is based on believe, on faith in the truth of that statement. It may be wrong, but then we're just ignorant of that fact. It may also be right, but we are also ignorant of that then.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hehe, Athanasuis, I knew there was gonna be an explanation for the salt problem. I hadn't anticipated it would be interesting. I wonder now if the purity think was a matter of the mineral consentrates in the sea and how a precipitate would vary from sample to sample. I suppose, however, that's going a little to far afield here,

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Different peoples have different characteristics as a result of their enviroment. The slave trader sees the differences and deduces that they are godless savages. It's just a dumb analogy, but the point is what's important. "Facts" are only regarded when they serve our purposes, otherwise they are skewed.

 

[petrek]

Engine, if someone walked up to you in barefeet and told you he was wearing shoes, you would consider that a factual and truthfull statement?

Dave

 

[Moonbeam]

I was curious:

" In the water that remains after evaporation solid matters make up 26 per cent of the whole; 7 per cent being chloride of sodium (common salt), the rest being chiefly chlorides of magnesium, calcium, and derivatives of bromium. The chloride of magnesium gives the water a very loathsome taste; the chloride of calcium an oily appearance."

There are salt beds in the area.

 

[petrek]

"Tell that to the KKK."

Members of the KKK are well aware of the fact that skin color has nothing to do with intelligence, and thusly africans are just as human as non-africans

"Your believe in the bible is not based on fact, but purely on ignorance. You have faith in something of which you cannot it's existance. Prove me otherwise."

Q1) Have you read the Bible?

Q2) Israel

"At least half the solar systems have at least 1 planet inhabited by beings more intelligent and further developed than us. I have no proof for this, but you cannot proof the contrary either. It is based on believe, on faith in the truth of that statement. It may be wrong, but then we're just ignorant of that fact. It may also be right, but we are also ignorant of that then."

And?

 

[PistachioByAzul]

No, but what does it matter what myself or anyone else thinks. In his world he's wearing shoes.

 

[linuxboy]

Engine, if someone walked up to you in barefeet and told you he was wearing shoes, you would consider that a factual and truthfull statement?

Dave

Oh alright, why not get into this whole thing of mental states, propositional attitudes, truth conditions, language semantics and syntax and all the good sort of philosophy of mind stuff that seems to occupy many an idle mind.

It seems to me that the person who told me the statement would be speaking a different language or possibly uttering a falsehood, that is, a logical negation of a truth. If the latter were true, the statement would be false iff both of us has similar content and propositional attitudes toward the object, namely shoes.

However, suppose that syntaxical difference would not be contingent on truth conditions. That is, the uttered statement would lead to the formation of nearly identical content or identical sort of characteristic; semantic leading to a similar mental state. In such a situation, truth conditions would be a direct result of that ineffable sort of similarity which, as I have claimed is part of language but is impossible to describe with the sort of language of thought some people think is possible. Since that would be true in such a case, I would say that yes, that is a truthful and factual statement, both for me when I am mindful of the semantic experience beyond fragmentation and for the person, who tries to fragment a piece of his world and express its merits to me.

On the other hand, if we can't even have truth conditions, and can't experience direct semantics then how in the world do we communicate? Hehehehe.

Oh and like Engine says, it's true in his world (not esposing relativism here)

Cheers !

 

[mygumballs]

the way i see it is that religion started off as philosophy to explain man's surroudings. this, in a way, was a good thing for them as it could be considered an early form of science, just based on inductive reasoning instead of deductive. but soon afterwards, when science split away from philosophy, it seemed the what remained was religion. the way i think it should be, and i don't intend on offending anyone when i say this, is that religion should be once again considered a form of philosophy. something to GUIDE your life's decisions and emotions, rather than to explain nature and existence in general.

 

[linuxboy]

rather than to explain nature and existence in general

Woah woah woah. Why is it that people tend to assume that epistemic circularity is a problem that only haunts those poor benighted folk who were not as "advanced" as we are? Nature and "existence", as you call them, cannot be "explained". Let's talk about levels of ontology. To know and explain something is only reductionary. One can assume that this is all there is, ever, but I am somewhat hesitant to make this claim since I happen to perceive otherwise. In other words, you cannot make this claim of de jure judgment without attacking the de facto realities of religion, and not what it "has become".


Cheers !

 

[mygumballs]

<< rather than to explain nature and existence in general

Woah woah woah. Why is it that people tend to assume that epistemic circularity is a problem that only haunts those poor benighted folk who were not as "advanced" as we are? Nature and "existence", as you call them, cannot be "explained". Let's talk about levels of ontology. To know and explain something is only reductionary. One can assume that this is all there is, ever, but I am somewhat hesitant to make this claim since I happen to perceive otherwise. In other words, you cannot make this claim of de jure judgment without attacking the de facto realities of religion, and not what it "has become".


Cheers ! >>



i never said science has an underlying explanation for nature. nothing in science can be proven. but "One can assume" a PROBABLE(not exac) explanation through series controlled experiments done several times. this is deductive reasoning. philosophy, on the other hand, makes speculation through pure thought rather than experimentation, in other words, it used inductive reasoning. that's what Aristotelian physics (and all physics for that matter, untill people accepted galieo's scientific method) was.

so i'm not at all disregarding any form of religion as a possible explanation for the universe. there's ALWAYS a chance anyone can be right, although some are more probable than others. the only way we can increase this probability, and in turn our certainty, is through deductive reasoning.

(these are just my opinions, so sorry again if i offend anyone...)

 

[linuxboy]

i never said science has an underlying explanation for nature. nothing in science can be proven. but "One can assume" a PROBABLE(not exac) explanation through series controlled experiments done several times.

The problem with probablistic outcomes is that they really provide no motivation for a changing justification based on its merits alone. Certainly, if there is some other justifcation that is not grounded in reason (say, zeitgeist), then of course, that is a perfectly fine worldview.

this is deductive reasoning. philosophy, on the other hand, makes speculation through pure thought rather than experimentation, in other words, it used inductive reasoning. that's what Aristotelian physics (and all physics for that matter, untill people accepted galieo's scientific method) was.

Woah woah woah there. Inductive arguments certainly have their place in the world of thought but they are hardly king. Read Athanasius' fine post; we're still trapped and we're still neurotic. Those problems are very existential and even if science could solve them, should it?

so i'm not at all disregarding any form of religion as a possible explanation for the universe. there's ALWAYS a chance anyone can be right, although some are more probable than others. the only way we can increase this probability, and in turn our certainty, is through deductive reasoning.

Certainty is, due to the problem already posed in this thread, impossible. Faith is required. Probabilistic outcomes do not depend on our appreciation or approach but are rather there, waiting to be discovered. If you claim that deduction is a better tool than totality, then I must disagree there based purely on the notion of ontological chaining.

(these are just my opinions, so sorry again if i offend anyone...)

I really like your post. I just wish it gave me something that would help me out of this neurotic state.

Cheers !

 

[petrek]

"Oh alright, why not get into this whole thing of mental states, propositional attitudes, truth conditions, language semantics and syntax and all the good sort of philosophy of mind stuff that seems to occupy many an idle mind.

It seems to me that the person who told me the statement would be speaking a different language or possibly uttering a falsehood, that is, a logical negation of a truth. If the latter were true, the statement would be false iff both of us has similar content and propositional attitudes toward the object, namely shoes.

However, suppose that syntaxical difference would not be contingent on truth conditions. That is, the uttered statement would lead to the formation of nearly identical content or identical sort of characteristic; semantic leading to a similar mental state. In such a situation, truth conditions would be a direct result of that ineffable sort of similarity which, as I have claimed is part of language but is impossible to describe with the sort of language of thought some people think is possible. Since that would be true in such a case, I would say that yes, that is a truthful and factual statement, both for me when I am mindful of the semantic experience beyond fragmentation and for the person, who tries to fragment a piece of his world and express its merits to me."

While considering the wording of my question to engine, I obviously considered such extraneous possibilities that affect the philosopher. But I was trying to show engine the difference between absolute truth and assumed truth. And considering engine's previous posts considered my question to be understood by him the way I intended for it to be understood-in a straight forward manner. Even though I myself considered the numerous possibilities prior to deciding on the wording, knowing that the possibility existed that either moonbeam or yourself would respond to the question I used as few words as possible while still getting the point across, however, because I was addressing engine I didn't add the extra paragraphs of presuppositions and fragmentary thought processes that would likely be needed to clarify the otherwise straightforward question. (incidentally, I also gave it a 50/50 chance that engine would either answer my question or differ the question by claiming that the person making the statement believed it to be true. He did both, so does that mean I'm 100% right or 50% + 50%?)

Now, obviously, there are many possibilities in regards to why the person who was in barefeet said he was wearing shoes, maybe he was a foreigner and meant to ask where he could get shoes, but didn't know the language well enough, maybe he just wanted to see what the reaction would be, maybe he didn't now what shoes were and meant jeans, maybe he just forgot to include the word no before shoes, etc, etc.

Nonetheless, I wasn't concerned when asking the question to engine, as to why the fellow said he was wearing shoes when he wasn't. I was trying to get the point across that just because someone believes or states something does not make his statement or belief true or factual. Truth and facts exist regardless of whether or not someone is aware of them or accepting of them, and just because someone states something that he believes to be true or factual (for whatever reason) does not make that statement true or factual.

Later...
Dave

 

[petrek]

"No, but what does it matter what myself or anyone else thinks. In his world he's wearing shoes."

The moral of the story is that people lie, and people who are aware of the truth/facts, can recognize when someone is lying.