evolution and religion
- Thread starter hermanntrude
- Start date
RE: evolution and religio
I disagree with the notion that there are no truths, only personal perceptions of the concept of truth.
While it might be true in some cases, truth is not always just 'personal perceptions of the concept of truth'. Depends on how you define the word 'truth'. By most English language definitions, such as those that define the word truth as "the true or actual state of a matter", I don't understand how anyone could disagree with indisputable, universal facts as not being universal truths.
What you are talking about is better covered by using other words and their meanings. So perhaps when someone perceives something to be the truth, they do so *incorrectly*, and so, by certain definitions of 'truth', what they believe is not the truth.
An example of a possible truth: The sun up close is bright, especially when compared with a tiny LED light.
You might dispute that, but what you are actually disputing is not what is the truth, but what is the meaning behind certain words used in that statement, and certain subjectivies. So perhaps to a blind person, there is no difference between the brightness of the sun and the brightness of an LED light, and so the statement is untrue.
Or perhaps one who reads that statement comes from an imaginary world where their language is almost the same as my English, except a few words like 'bright' have entirely different definitions, which make the entire statement, as far as truth is concerned, meaningless for them. Of course, we all speak the same (or very similar english) language here, so this should not be much of an issue. Once you accept this, then a statement such as this:
As far as human sight is concerned, the sun up close is bright, especially when compared with a tiny LED light.
...would be a truth.
Again, I see nothing wrong with the dictionary definitions in this case. Any disagreement comes from simple differences in definitions used for words, which shouldn't be a travesty to overcome since we all speak the same language here.
I disagree with the notion that there are no truths, only personal perceptions of the concept of truth.
While it might be true in some cases, truth is not always just 'personal perceptions of the concept of truth'. Depends on how you define the word 'truth'. By most English language definitions, such as those that define the word truth as "the true or actual state of a matter", I don't understand how anyone could disagree with indisputable, universal facts as not being universal truths.
What you are talking about is better covered by using other words and their meanings. So perhaps when someone perceives something to be the truth, they do so *incorrectly*, and so, by certain definitions of 'truth', what they believe is not the truth.
An example of a possible truth: The sun up close is bright, especially when compared with a tiny LED light.
You might dispute that, but what you are actually disputing is not what is the truth, but what is the meaning behind certain words used in that statement, and certain subjectivies. So perhaps to a blind person, there is no difference between the brightness of the sun and the brightness of an LED light, and so the statement is untrue.
Or perhaps one who reads that statement comes from an imaginary world where their language is almost the same as my English, except a few words like 'bright' have entirely different definitions, which make the entire statement, as far as truth is concerned, meaningless for them. Of course, we all speak the same (or very similar english) language here, so this should not be much of an issue. Once you accept this, then a statement such as this:
As far as human sight is concerned, the sun up close is bright, especially when compared with a tiny LED light.
...would be a truth.
Again, I see nothing wrong with the dictionary definitions in this case. Any disagreement comes from simple differences in definitions used for words, which shouldn't be a travesty to overcome since we all speak the same language here.
s_lone:So do you agree with Descartes?... You think therefore you are... Isn't that a truth?
____________________________________________________
It ain't, In my books you have to" be" first in order to do anything which includes thinking....and that,s a truth.lol
s_lone:So do you agree with Descartes?... You think therefore you are... Isn't that a truth?
____________________________________________________
It ain't, In my books you have to" be" first in order to do anything which includes thinking....and that,s a truth.lol
Umm... That's pretty much what Descartes's statement is about... Because I can think, obviously, I am... Thinking necessarily comes from being. From what I PERCEIVE about Descartes's statement, thinking comes first...
If I say: I am. Is that a truth?
_________________________________________________-___
Well ,let,s see first what thought is.Scientists say it's a chemical process but that's too much for me .The way I see "thought" and the way I can understand it is that it is a response from a memory.Our knowledge and experiences are stored in our memory .We think of what we know . Obviously we can't think about somethink we dont know .When we come into an existance ,our memory is actualy empty of any knowledge and experiences therfore we can't think. So we can say : I am, but I can't think ,yet .HaHA
____________________________________________________________________
If I say: I am. Is that a truth?
_______________________________________________
because you said so ?
____________________________________________________
It ain't, In my books you have to" be" first in order to do anything which includes thinking....and that,s a truth.lol
s_lone:So do you agree with Descartes?... You think therefore you are... Isn't that a truth?
____________________________________________________
It ain't, In my books you have to" be" first in order to do anything which includes thinking....and that,s a truth.lol
Umm... That's pretty much what Descartes's statement is about... Because I can think, obviously, I am... Thinking necessarily comes from being. From what I PERCEIVE about Descartes's statement, thinking comes first...
If I say: I am. Is that a truth?
_________________________________________________-___
Well ,let,s see first what thought is.Scientists say it's a chemical process but that's too much for me .The way I see "thought" and the way I can understand it is that it is a response from a memory.Our knowledge and experiences are stored in our memory .We think of what we know . Obviously we can't think about somethink we dont know .When we come into an existance ,our memory is actualy empty of any knowledge and experiences therfore we can't think. So we can say : I am, but I can't think ,yet .HaHA
____________________________________________________________________
If I say: I am. Is that a truth?
_______________________________________________
because you said so ?
I can't accept that truth is quite as subjective as some posters here seem to think it is. It seems self-evident to me, for example, that there's an objective reality out there that exists quite independently of our perceptions of it. I'd argue that statement is a truth. It was here long before we were here to perceive it (about 13.7 billion years before, by today's best estimates), and it'll carry on long after we're gone. Our perceptions of it are limited by the capacities of our sense organs so we don't directly perceive things as they actually are--Einstein clearly proved that a century ago with special relativity--and if modern science has made one thing perfectly clear, it's that physical reality, whatever it is, isn't remotely what our unaided senses tell us it is.
I'd also argue the evolution is a truth, in that it incontrovertibly has happened, and continues to happen, more or less as Darwin originally described it, though with a lot of refinements and additions since.
I'd further argue that religion contains truths, though probably not the usual ones most believers would offer. Biblical stories still resonate with us, for example, not necessarily because they're particularly brilliantly written, but because they're about things that are universally true of human nature and the human condition. Whoever wrote those stories, they were master psychologists, whatever else they might have been. All literature that we recognize as great and enduring has that characteristic.
And just as an aside, I've always understood Descarte's dictum "Cogito, ergo sum" as he put it, "I think therefore I am," to mean only that his thinking is the proof to himself that he exists. Lots of other things exist without thinking (including some people I know...), so thinking is just a sufficient condition for existence, not a necessary one.
I'd also argue the evolution is a truth, in that it incontrovertibly has happened, and continues to happen, more or less as Darwin originally described it, though with a lot of refinements and additions since.
I'd further argue that religion contains truths, though probably not the usual ones most believers would offer. Biblical stories still resonate with us, for example, not necessarily because they're particularly brilliantly written, but because they're about things that are universally true of human nature and the human condition. Whoever wrote those stories, they were master psychologists, whatever else they might have been. All literature that we recognize as great and enduring has that characteristic.
And just as an aside, I've always understood Descarte's dictum "Cogito, ergo sum" as he put it, "I think therefore I am," to mean only that his thinking is the proof to himself that he exists. Lots of other things exist without thinking (including some people I know...), so thinking is just a sufficient condition for existence, not a necessary one.
I agree with Dexter and HumanBeing on this one...
While I don't deny the value and importance of subjectivity, my sense of logic pushes me to believe in a reality that is independant of our perception of it. I can't imagine how my own existence would be possible without a concrete form of objective reality. By "objective". I mean something that is totally universal. Something that will be true for any type of entity in the Universe.
While I don't deny the value and importance of subjectivity, my sense of logic pushes me to believe in a reality that is independant of our perception of it. I can't imagine how my own existence would be possible without a concrete form of objective reality. By "objective". I mean something that is totally universal. Something that will be true for any type of entity in the Universe.
Re: RE: evolution and religio
humanbeing I'm quoting you because your response seems to concur with everyone else's with that mindset. Two things come to my mind as I read your post(s). First thing, this argument sounds a great deal like the argument of the tree in the woods. Does it make a sound if someone’s not there? Secondly, have all the lawyers been told there is only one true truth about a situation? Seems to me the whole legal system stems on the belief there are many truths to a scene of a crime. There are no facts, simply assumptions.
humanbeing said:
Precisely
humanbeing I'm quoting you because your response seems to concur with everyone else's with that mindset. Two things come to my mind as I read your post(s). First thing, this argument sounds a great deal like the argument of the tree in the woods. Does it make a sound if someone’s not there? Secondly, have all the lawyers been told there is only one true truth about a situation? Seems to me the whole legal system stems on the belief there are many truths to a scene of a crime. There are no facts, simply assumptions.
RE: evolution and religio
Well, I already gave my thoughts earlier, but whatever...
Does it make a sound?
If by sound you mean:
1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
Then no, it did not make one that I could hear.
If you mean:
2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level.
Then yes, it made sound.
Can you please define a 'true truth'? Then give me your definition of 'truth'. That would perhaps help this discussion from getting any more complicated than it needs to be.
Anyhow, I don't know if all the lawyers have been told there is only one true truth about a situation... Exactly what does it have to do with the discussion?
Well, I already gave my thoughts earlier, but whatever...
Does it make a sound?
If by sound you mean:
1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
Then no, it did not make one that I could hear.
If you mean:
2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level.
Then yes, it made sound.
Can you please define a 'true truth'? Then give me your definition of 'truth'. That would perhaps help this discussion from getting any more complicated than it needs to be.
Anyhow, I don't know if all the lawyers have been told there is only one true truth about a situation... Exactly what does it have to do with the discussion?
RE: evolution and religio
"I think, therefore I am"
lends very strong weight to the idea of truth being subjective.
The fact is we can all safely assume we exist since we all think and eat and poop and so on. But whether we ACTUALLY really TRULY exist, can't be proven ultimately, just as pretty much nothing can be totally proven as it always relies on a perception which is imperfect. But living like that is going to drive you mad, so you assume (often with a mental footnote that it's possible you're wrong) that the floor is under you, the flower smells nice and the poker up your arse hurts like hell (one possible example of where the mental footnote might be dropped).
"I think, therefore I am"
lends very strong weight to the idea of truth being subjective.
The fact is we can all safely assume we exist since we all think and eat and poop and so on. But whether we ACTUALLY really TRULY exist, can't be proven ultimately, just as pretty much nothing can be totally proven as it always relies on a perception which is imperfect. But living like that is going to drive you mad, so you assume (often with a mental footnote that it's possible you're wrong) that the floor is under you, the flower smells nice and the poker up your arse hurts like hell (one possible example of where the mental footnote might be dropped).
I see it this way - Science can't really explain evolution, at least in a convincing way - for the moment. But who knows maybe in 10 or 15 years it can. Science is always discovering new things and getting rid of old theories and the Christain Church has never really liked scientists in the first place, because every little discovery takes a certain amount of "power" away from them.
Re: RE: evolution and religion
Actually, you're quite wrong about that. Science has very convincing explanations of how evolution works, and why it works, right down to the level of the molecules of inheritance. What it doesn't have is an explanation of how it all got started, what the first self-replicating molecule was and how it came to be. But once that happened, the forces of natural selection came into play. Richard Dawkins has written several highly readable books on the subject, and often includes some informed speculation about how things got started, but for the moment that's all it is. In particular I recommend Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, A Devil's Chaplain, and what I consider a masterwork, The Ancestors Tale.lady_hawk_ca said:
Yes, maybe you are correct in that respect BUT most people don't understand it properly...that's why the idea of coming from a "monkey" (I'm using this as an example...) is so distasteful. They prefer to believe that we were put here "magically", than believe that man is just another animal.
I guess what I was trying to get at is that Science hasn't been able to present it to the public in a way that most people really understand, and will accept. I guess it's sort of like the Earth is round business centuaries ago - believe it or not, I have a neighbour here in Spain (he's 50) that doesn't believe the Earth spins, nor does he really understand the idea of gravity. Most of us tend to forget that there is still a lot of ignorance out there and that is what the Church feeds on.
Anyway, I have read a few books on the subject by a couple of Spanish authors, but you still must admit that there are "loopholes" and that is what the Church looks for so they can refute the idea of evolution and until Science is able to show the World beyond a douibt and in a fairly simplistic way how evolution came about and works; we will always have the Church throwing the idea back at us saying it can't exist because of....
I guess what I was trying to get at is that Science hasn't been able to present it to the public in a way that most people really understand, and will accept. I guess it's sort of like the Earth is round business centuaries ago - believe it or not, I have a neighbour here in Spain (he's 50) that doesn't believe the Earth spins, nor does he really understand the idea of gravity. Most of us tend to forget that there is still a lot of ignorance out there and that is what the Church feeds on.
Anyway, I have read a few books on the subject by a couple of Spanish authors, but you still must admit that there are "loopholes" and that is what the Church looks for so they can refute the idea of evolution and until Science is able to show the World beyond a douibt and in a fairly simplistic way how evolution came about and works; we will always have the Church throwing the idea back at us saying it can't exist because of....