Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
StevieBoy
Junior Member (Idle past 6186 days)
Posts: 13
From: All over the place
Joined: 03-30-2007


Message 161 of 305 (393478)
04-05-2007 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
10-14-2006 8:21 PM


Re: resurrecting this with some modifications.
First thanks to Razd for pointing me to this discussion. I won't read all 160 messages. I'll just have a go at replying to the OP revised version - take 3.
Observation.
If we have little faith then our green faith circle will close in on our other circles constricting them. Our faith is at the leading edge of our knowledge. Our inner circles cannot get bigger if our faith circle is restricting it. Our scientific and philosophy knowledge therefore cannot grow unless our faith grows with it. We must occasionally abandon what we know to take on new information on faith and then work these new ideas and knowledge into our beliefs. So a certain amount of faith is good and necessary.
On the other hand if we have too much Faith then we are in danger of sliding into the realm of heresy. Heresy is belief in knowledge taken in faith or otherwise believed to be fact which is contrary to, for example, the orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church or philosophy/science at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative.
We could perhaps add a circle around faith called heresy. Knowledge believed to be scientific heresy could be knowledge which has infiltrated through faith and philosophy. They are falsehoods that we have built into our belief system.
The teaching of heresy can be disasterious. Wars have been fought over the knowledge of heresy. This is where God comes in.
On to how can judge the validity of perceptions of reality.
Concordance - 2 + 2 = 4 - fair enough. Scientifically proven.
Lack of Denial - A brain teaser at first. So the more we deny other knowledge to the contrary the less we have faith in it. This mostly seems to address philosophies or theories. 2 + 2 /= 5. I can prove a theory wrong. But there is little direct knowledge for example to deny Religous heresy.
However we can judge through trust in God. God could perhaps be thought of as siting on the outer boundary of faith. God therefore helps us control all the circles and keep them in a healthy proportions. God also helps stop heresy from entering our belief system. But if we loose sight of God then this boundary is weakened. When we listen to God we may realise that knowledge we thought we believed in to a greater extent can actually be moved to the next outer circle for further scrutiny or rejected and kicked out of belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2006 8:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Reserve, posted 04-05-2007 4:53 PM StevieBoy has not replied
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2007 10:08 PM StevieBoy has replied

StevieBoy
Junior Member (Idle past 6186 days)
Posts: 13
From: All over the place
Joined: 03-30-2007


Message 165 of 305 (393810)
04-07-2007 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by RAZD
04-05-2007 10:08 PM


Re: resurrecting this with some modifications.
This is an interesting debate but Razd I'm new here, I haven't participated in any other debates. I should apologise because my response to your OP was rushed, I didn't understand your post fully and this a long post as a result.
RAZD writes:
I pointed you here specifically because you made the illogical comment:
StevieBoy writes:
Message 19
Many people do not buy into the theory that God exists and yet they only have to look hard and honestly at the body of evidence that supports a firm and tenacious belief in God over 2000 years to wonder if possibly, just maybe, all these believers might actually be onto something and may one day enter a journey for themselves to find out who God is and what God means for them.
With the assumption that only your god mattered.
The comment was not my best post. It is easily seen as disparaging towards the readers here. It's not that only my God matters, I don't believe that at all. But I think everyone has God and that matters. It is making the point (badly); that for anyone (not directed specifically at people on this board) who think they must subscribe to anything but their own version of God is wrong. It also implies a question: why wouldn't anyone want to believe in God?
Perhaps you could tell me why you think the comment is illogical? I don't understand the connection between this and Deism. Nor did I believe it to be particularly relevant to your thread here.
RAZD writes:
I repeat: when are you going to admit the reality and become a Deist?
I found your original suggestion that I "admit your a Deist" intrusive. I hadn't even heard of Deism and I was further irritated that you would ask of it again. The notion that I should "admit" anything is point scoring and does not nurture debate. For what it's worth; I feel blessed to have been raised without any religious beliefs, of any kind, being forced or otherwise placed upon me and I maintain that position. I am free to choose a Religion if I want. What I didn't realise is that God is fundamental to the great source of knowledge that is Faith. Philosophy may have nurtured my belief in God but it was a calling that ultimately led me to God. I give this information in the trust that it not be misused.
The green circle does not represent only one persons faith but all faiths of all people. Yours is in one part of that circle as it does NOT encompass the beliefs of hindus and buddhists yes?
Correct. Your post talked about personal views of reality and individuals having different areas and sizes, and I misinterpreted your diagram No 3 to represent an individuals beliefs rather than the whole of society. Are you exploring how we can all agree on what knowledge fits into which areas? Rather I thought you were discussing commonality in how we individually perceive knowledge.
RAZD writes:
You seem to be afraid of knowledge and want to pull your circle of faith in tight around you, close in around your other circles constricting them.
I wasn't afraid of faith if that is what you mean to imply? I failed to see the wisdom in it. Without faith it was difficult to take on knowledge that is not backed by evidence and/or popular belief. It seems there is much confusion in the world over what God represents.
What led you to make the comment that I was afraid? Diagram 3 represents nicely how humans tend to organise our knowledge on a personal level as well as a whole. Either way I made an observation based on your diagram that I thought might be of interest to you. I reasoned that the knowledge of Faith is important for the advancement of the other realms of knowledge. Do you have any other comments on this?
RAZD writes:
I see the whole being a map of reality and our perceptions being limited to part of it. Reality outside that realm would not be "heresy" by definition.
See Definition Above.
RAZD writes:
Again, this is fear of knowledge that contradicts beliefs, rather than faith or any logical position based on evaluation of the validity of the knowledge. To me this is not reality but delusion:
See Definition Above.
Are you saying both Heresy and Delusion are not reality? There is an important distinction between Heresy and Delusion that you may have overlooked. Delusion is fixed, false and in confrontation with fact. Heresy is opinion or belief or theories that are widely believed to be false but that could become truth, scientific fact or orthodox through popular belief. Hence heresy exists in the realm of reality if it is true knowledge. But isn't it important to consider belief in knowledge which is false or delusional when judging the validity of perceptions?
RAZD writes:
Concordance is that you and I agree that 2+2=4, that the earth orbits the sun, that the sun is a star in a remote arm of a typical spiral galaxy, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Is this the same as general consensus? I agree that we can agree on what we can see through the telescope and what we find in the earth etc. For the most part we can agree. Although a friend of mine is colourblind and he thinks blue and green are the same colour. He takes it on faith that they are different. He may even believe everyone else is wrong.
RAZD writes:
Lack of denial just means that there is no evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Do you have any examples on how we can use Lack of Denial to judge our perceptions of reality? This I am confused about.
RAZD writes:
My god lives in the reality that extends beyond the circles. Free. Unconstrained.
I am glad to hear that. This is akin to what I believe. As I said I perceive God to be on the outer boundary of faith (as pictured in diagram 3). And there is infinitely small distance between something that is the edge of that line and that which is in the area just beyond. My God is also free to explore the unknown.
If that is all too much, I have two main questions that I would like to ask you:
How do you account for things that are widely believed but are not in fact reality? For example supposing if the current state of belief was that the earth is flat? Or doesn't this matter because we are only representing reality?
In your mind what do each boundary line between the realms of knowledge and the unknown represent? Who determines what knowledge goes where? For example, the scientific community may decide when something becomes scientific fact and we can place this knowledge realm of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2007 10:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2007 7:15 PM StevieBoy has replied

StevieBoy
Junior Member (Idle past 6186 days)
Posts: 13
From: All over the place
Joined: 03-30-2007


Message 167 of 305 (394422)
04-11-2007 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by RAZD
04-08-2007 7:15 PM


Re: reality, deism and flat-earth beliefs
RAZD writes:
I said admit reality ... then become a Deist
Sorry about that I miss read it.
I can relate to Deism the most since I believe in God but as far as I can tell I do not believe in any established religions.
RAZD writes:
Thus the only thing we can conclude from this -- if we take your precept that such belief is evidence -- is that god(s) exist but we do not know, can not know, what god(s) exist.
That is largely what I believe. In the three Religion you list, the something they believe in are not the same, therefore there is not one God but many. Either there is one God or we all perceive God differently. We can only know our own God.
RAZD writes:
I don't see it is necessary to have faith to be able to do math, or logic, or to follow the scientific process to see how things work.
That is correct because that knowledge can easily be validated when it comes as knowledge from a third party. But what about the Einsteins of this world? They dream up ideas, take them on faith and then set out to prove their theories through reasoning.
RAZD writes:
which of these logical structures is valid?
I think C is the answer.
RAZD writes:
Welcome to the fray.
Cheers.
Edited by StevieBoy, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2007 7:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2007 6:11 PM StevieBoy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024