The problem with truisms - how to get out of their loop?

[wynn]

Over and over again, I have been pointing out that many theistic arguments are truisms. The problem with truisms is that they are rather useless in that albeit sounding true, they do not provide any instruction for a doable course of action.

I am quoting some posts to exemplify:

If one doesn't understand what qualifies as god's mercy, it doesn't matter how one is thinking

Ignorance of god is the problem

But how can one learn about God?

Just because someone, or a book, claims to talk about God, does not necessarily mean that they in fact talk about God. (Or does it? Is the Book of Mormon really inspired by God, or was it composed by a man?)

How can a person who seeks to learn about God, and who admits to not have definitive knowledge of God, discern which source indeed is about God and which one is not?
Which book to read and which one to put aside? Whom to listen to and whom to ignore?

On principle, I agree that it is paramount to act in line with God's desires. But given the mess that is taking place in the name of "truth about God" (ie. the countless theistic teachings), it seems impossible to make any kind of sane choice about who could be or is right.

How can one move past truisms, and onward to a kind of reasoning that actually provides instruction for a doable course of action?

 

[GeoffP]

That's the thing about truisms, isn't it?

 

[lightgigantic]

Over and over again, I have been pointing out that many theistic arguments are truisms. The problem with truisms is that they are rather useless in that albeit sounding true, they do not provide any instruction for a doable course of action.

I am quoting some posts to exemplify:








How can one move past truisms, and onward to a kind of reasoning that actually provides instruction for a doable course of action?

The first statement was in response to positive thinking.

It was suggested that all one requires to evoke any sort of change (or succumb to any sort of mishap) is to be respectively influenced by positive or negative thinking, or more specifically, that if you keep the notion of god's mercy vague enough, you can bounce through life doing absolutely anything and write it off as god's mercy

My suggestion was that if you get a more accurate idea of what constitutes god's mercy, you also get a very clear course of action.

the second statement was more about not even making the endeavor to know about god, or subscribing to any number of the views that we live in a world bereft of god.

IOW its more directed at persons who have already arrived at the affirmation that there is no god, and hence have no interest in the question "How can I know?"

 

[quadraphonics]

The problem with truisms is that they are rather useless in that albeit sounding true,

Your prototypical truism does more than sound true - it is true.

they do not provide any instruction for a doable course of action.

Which is actually by design. The prototypical truism is a type of thought-terminating cliche.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
"All's well that ends well."
"Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear, well, he eats you."

These are all little more than pretexts to cease analysis/discussion, no?

 

[glaucon]

Over and over again, I have been pointing out that many theistic arguments are truisms. The problem with truisms is that they are rather useless in that albeit sounding true, they do not provide any instruction for a doable course of action.

An apt observation Signal.
It is indeed often the case that a theist defense rests upon what you're calling a truism.
What's interesting to note is that you're completely correct with respect to their utility.

In logic, what you're calling a truism is known as a tautology. Although in logic tautologies can be useful insofar as they allow one to expand a proposition of rephrase an identity, it is a fact that they are valueless in and of themselves. The value of any argument is entirely contingent upon its soundness. Clearly then, you can see how a truism means nothing at all.

I suspect that the theist attempts to use the truism as a defense simply because it can readily hold the place of their illicit assumption that lies at the heart of the foundation of their belief. And because it has no value in and of itself, it cannot be refuted. In this way, the theist thinks they are making an assertion, when in fact they do no such thing at all.
From a logical position, the theist's 'argument' (sic) in this case is synonymous with the child's "Is too! - Is not!".....

How can one move past truisms, and onward to a kind of reasoning that actually provides instruction for a doable course of action?

Well, now you've moved the topic aside a bit. You're assuming here that some sort of normative ethical system is typically derived from the basis of the truism. I would argue that, at least for theist positions, that is not the case at all....

 

[wynn]

IOW its more directed at persons who have already arrived at the affirmation that there is no god, and hence have no interest in the question "How can I know?"

So I am taking issue with things that weren't directed at me? Fair enough.

But it remains that scriptures and theistic lectures state numerous truisms, and scriptures (and often enough, lectures too) are directed at anyone who reads/listens. Which includes me.

By default, I assume that everyone who says something is trying to accomplish something by what they say.

Perhaps I just don't know how to read scriptures and theistic lectures; I don't know how to understand the shoulds and truisms they state.

It seems irrational to me to make a should-statement or to state a truism (which implies a should), but not intend that it be taken in the imperative sense.

Perhaps a thorough yin-and-yangist can say, for example, "Anger is bad" and thereby not mean "Don't be angry".

 

[wynn]

Which is actually by design. The prototypical truism is a type of thought-terminating cliche.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
"All's well that ends well."
"Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear, well, he eats you."

These are all little more than pretexts to cease analysis/discussion, no?

Perhaps such statements were meant to be thought-terminating cliches, perhaps this is what people who make them mean, but they don't stop my thoughts.


More importantly, in theistic context, we can often enough see reasoning like this:

Build on a good foundation. Therefore, choose Christ.

Everyone agrees that one ought to build on a good foundation. But what such a good foundation is, is another matter. It is certainly not self-evident that Christ is such a good foundation.

 

[wynn]

I suspect that the theist attempts to use the truism as a defense simply because it can readily hold the place of their illicit assumption that lies at the heart of the foundation of their belief. And because it has no value in and of itself, it cannot be refuted. In this way, the theist thinks they are making an assertion, when in fact they do no such thing at all.
From a logical position, the theist's 'argument' (sic) in this case is synonymous with the child's "Is too! - Is not!".....

Like I noted above, perhaps there is something I - and some others perhaps too - are missing as far as understanding theistic arguments goes.

Much of what theists say certainly seems to be an instruction, stated indirectly or directly; and with the instruction, also the implication of the condemnation that will follow if one doesn't act on the instruction.

Why would anyone say "God is omniscient" if not to imply something like "So you better watch out what you do, because if you don't, things will be bad for you and God will get you"??

Well, now you've moved the topic aside a bit. You're assuming here that some sort of normative ethical system is typically derived from the basis of the truism. I would argue that, at least for theist positions, that is not the case at all....

No, the other way around: I am assuming that there is a normative ethical system and the truisms are derived from it.

The problem is that while most everyone can agree on the truisms, there is considerable disagreement on the underlying normative ethical system.
For example, both Christians and Muslims agree that one ought to "build on a good foundation"; but they have very different ideas as to what that is.

 

[lightgigantic]

So I am taking issue with things that weren't directed at me? Fair enough.

But it remains that scriptures and theistic lectures state numerous truisms, and scriptures (and often enough, lectures too) are directed at anyone who reads/listens. Which includes me.

By default, I assume that everyone who says something is trying to accomplish something by what they say.

Perhaps I just don't know how to read scriptures and theistic lectures; I don't know how to understand the shoulds and truisms they state.

It seems irrational to me to make a should-statement or to state a truism (which implies a should), but not intend that it be taken in the imperative sense.

Perhaps a thorough yin-and-yangist can say, for example, "Anger is bad" and thereby not mean "Don't be angry".

maybe you could cite a lecture or something online so I can see what you mean

 

[wynn]

maybe you could cite a lecture or something online so I can see what you mean

Examples abound in your replies to people; but that may be contextualized as being specific replies to specific people.


Here, for example two earlier threads from you:

Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God

Defeating Varieties of Atheistic Arguments

All this could be true for Christians, Muslims, Hindus ... they all pretty much agree on all that, but would kill eachother over what that means in practice.

The spirit of Bhagavad-gītā is mentioned in Bhagavad-gītā itself. It is just like this: If we want to take a particular medicine, then we have to follow the directions written on the label. We cannot take the medicine according to our own whim or the direction of a friend. It must be taken according to the directions on the label or the directions given by a physician.
...
Therefore we should take Bhagavad-gītā as it is directed by the Personality of Godhead Himself.
...
*

Again, truisms that noone can disagree with (except for the names that theists from other religions would take objection to).
But what this really means in pratice is not clear. How does one take that medicine? If one asks people who claim to follow this book, they will either give very versatile answers so that one ends up confused, or give answers that are so general that they are useless, or answers that one finds impossible or repugnant to act on.

Taking that medicine according to my own intelligence or "whim", as said above, the book itself says is wrong. If I ask others, I end up confused.

Call it "painting oneself into a corner" (and how this justifies that one gets rejected by others), but there is a logical loop that one falls into if one admits one's lack of knowledge or ability and tries to act as if one were per default wrong or a tabula rasa.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

The spirit of Bhagavad-gītā is mentioned in Bhagavad-gītā itself. It is just like this: If we want to take a particular medicine, then we have to follow the directions written on the label. We cannot take the medicine according to our own whim or the direction of a friend. It must be taken according to the directions on the label or the directions given by a physician.
...
Therefore we should take Bhagavad-gītā as it is directed by the Personality of Godhead Himself.

Again, truisms that noone can disagree with (except for the names that theists from other religions would take objection to).

It's an analogy, which perfectly expain the state of mind needed to gain understanding.

How would you like it to be explained to you?

But what this really means in pratice is not clear.

You're kidding. Right?

How does one take that medicine?

By following the instructions.

If one asks people who claim to follow this book, they will either give very versatile answers so that one ends up confused, or give answers that are so general that they are useless, or answers that one finds impossible or repugnant to act on.

Then don't ask someone who makes such a claim.

Taking that medicine according to my own intelligence or "whim", as said above, the book itself says is wrong. If I ask others, I end up confused.

So why are you prepared to accept that injuction but play dumb to others?

Call it "painting oneself into a corner" (and how this justifies that one gets rejected by others), but there is a logical loop that one falls into if one admits one's lack of knowledge or ability and tries to act as if one were per default wrong or a tabula rasa.

A loop which you have created.


jan.

 

[glaucon]

Like I noted above, perhaps there is something I - and some others perhaps too - are missing as far as understanding theistic arguments goes.

While I'll grant that I, and others, can and do misunderstand theists, that misunderstanding has nothing to do with their 'arguments'. Any argument based upon a tautology is, by definition, not and argument at all....

No, the other way around: I am assuming that there is a normative ethical system and the truisms are derived from it.

Interesting.
I can't possibly see it being laid out in this manner.
It seems clear to me, and history, that the 'core tenets' of a theistic belief system precede and predate their prescriptive codes....

 

[Saquist]

The problem with truisms - how to get out of their loop?

Stop making right turns...

 

[wynn]

It's an analogy, which perfectly expain the state of mind needed to gain understanding.

How would you like it to be explained to you?

In a manner that I can understand.

But what this really means in pratice is not clear.

You're kidding. Right?

Not at all.

Applying oneself to spiritual practices is not exactly as simple as taking pills at prescribed hours on an empty/full stomach ...

If one asks people who claim to follow this book, they will either give very versatile answers so that one ends up confused, or give answers that are so general that they are useless, or answers that one finds impossible or repugnant to act on.

Then don't ask someone who makes such a claim.

Why not? I mean, on the grounds of what may I reject them? On the grounds that what they say is incomprehensible to me?

Taking that medicine according to my own intelligence or "whim", as said above, the book itself says is wrong. If I ask others, I end up confused.

So why are you prepared to accept that injuction but play dumb to others?

I'm not. I am pointing out that there are mutually exclusive injunctions/instructions.

Call it "painting oneself into a corner" (and how this justifies that one gets rejected by others), but there is a logical loop that one falls into if one admits one's lack of knowledge or ability and tries to act as if one were per default wrong or a tabula rasa.

A loop which you have created.

I request that you show me at least five scriptural references where it is said that if a person acts according to what they think is their best intelligence, this is good enough.

 

[chimpkin]

Um...just from my own perspective, and needing to sleep:

I am inclined to agree with the Gnostics in that we should seek to apprehend the will of the Divine side of existence for ourselves first, then act in accordance.
Agreed, this is a sort of spiritual anarchy.

For me, the best way up that mountain seems to be Pagan worship and Buddhist philosphy/practice.

I imagine it varies upon temperament and mode of thought as to what will best help that apprehension among various people.

I also see some neither want nor need the Divine, and seem to be good folks without it.

I am willing to admit all this nonmaterial stuff might be a figment of my psyche, but as I find it a useful figment, I intend to keep it.

I judge others on their individual actions.

I tend to see morality as "Whom does it harm?" and if the answer's "No one," then it's not an immoral act, no matter how odd it may seem. But there's no holy book that's from.

Why do you need an external authority to tell you what is best in terms of morality?

Is it because you think a "loving" god is readying the barbecue skewers?

I find all external authorities suspect, as I find their interests are often not of the least suffering, greatest happiness and good for the greatest number...but control. And whatever the holy texts were, they have most certainly been edited and rewritten to reflect that interest in control.

 

[Sarkus]

Applying oneself to spiritual practices is not exactly as simple as taking pills at prescribed hours on an empty/full stomach ...

Applying oneself to spiritual practices usually requires one to have belief in something, and so rather premature if you lack that belief.
But undoubtedly they will insist that you undertake these practices (for which you require belief in God) and claim that by doing so you will believe in God. But they fail to see the "believe to believe" cycle this requires and in which they are trapped.

Why not? I mean, on the grounds of what may I reject them? On the grounds that what they say is incomprehensible to me?

Why not? Is there a fear that to not accept them will be to your detriment later on (i.e. after death)?

I request that you show me at least five scriptural references where it is said that if a person acts according to what they think is their best intelligence, this is good enough.

If the scriptures did that it would be like a self-help book saying "Don't follow this book".


Signal, you also have to be mindful that not all claimed truisms are truisms. They may be true, but need significant explanation (hence not self-evident), or they may be an attempt by a person to cite mere opinion as an incontestable fact.

If it does not appear true to you (perhaps even after some simple explanation) then it is unlikely to be a truism.

If it is a truism then there is no need to get out of the loop - as it is a truism. Which may itself sound like a truism
But on the whole I think they should still be explainable as to why they are to be accepted as such. WHat should be self-evident usually requires little in the way of explanation if it is not at first self-evident.

But if it does not seem true to you, call it out, ask for clarification and explanation. The loop only exists if you want it to and if you are happy with it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

In a manner that I can understand.

And how would that be?

Applying oneself to spiritual practices is not exactly as simple as taking pills at prescribed hours on an empty/full stomach ...

It's an analogy.
You follow the instruction.

Why not? I mean, on the grounds of what may I reject them? On the grounds that what they say is incomprehensible to me?

Just follow the instruction.
If it doesn't make sense to you, then you're not ready to accept it.

I'm not. I am pointing out that there are mutually exclusive injunctions/instructions.

They all refer to the same point.
This, you will realise in time.

I request that you show me at least five scriptural references where it is said that if a person acts according to what they think is their best intelligence, this is good enough.

Irrelevant.
One can only act according to intelligence.
There is no best or worst of your intelligence, just intelligence.

jan.

 

[Lori_7]

signal,

you mentioned omniscience as a truism. you could also add omnipotent, omnipresent, and the foundational tenet that god is an entity of this sort. you could go further and incorporate god's spirit, which is said to have moved many people, and through which you are said to be reborn.

you could, and should be able to, apply that practically to your life in a personal way without being afraid you're going to screw it up somehow. i'd like you to realize that the best you can ever achieve is to examine your own intentions and get to a place where you're ok with them, where you love them even. and you can do that with your intentions about god and leave the rest to god. doesn't that seem reasonable? doesn't that seem like a reasonable expectation? for an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent entity that created you and everything else, and controls the entire universe, AND has a spirit? yes. yes it is reasonable. do you want god to guide you, but are afraid god's not capable of doing that? or is this an intellectual endeavor, just to decide whether you practice a religion or not, and if you do, which one in particular?

 

[Sarkus]

Signal, please remind me: do you believe in the existence of (a) god?

 

[wynn]

Just follow the instruction.
If it doesn't make sense to you, then you're not ready to accept it.

I agree. In fact, I outright think I am not ready to accept it.

But I am still faced with contempt from theists, whom I do not know how to defend myself from and feel very much affected by.