Two questions

[wynn]

With new discoveries we adjust our thinking and our understanding because that is reality.

Sure.
For example, at some point they thought spinach contained enormous amounts of iron and that therefore we should eat it.
At some later point, they discovered that the earlier measurements were wrong, and that the human body supposedly cannot absorb much iron from spinach anyway.
People adjusted ...


But how relevant is that reality?

Has the meaning of life been discovered?

If you reverse this and look at religious texts. It is closed it is not a work in progress, it is final, and thus should be able to explain everything and everything precisely.

How exactly do religious texts not explain everything precisely?

And yet we find that is not the case, thus they are all nonsense and not the word of god or gods.

I don't see how that follows?
Would you say that only a religious text which, for example, contains nutritional values of spinach, would be a candidate for being the word of God?

 

[jpappl]

Someone who doesn't speak Spanish, for example, or has never eaten kanut, does not know what it is like to speak Spanish or what kamut tastes like. But that doesn't mean that nobody knows what speaking Spanish is like or what kamut tastes like

Sure

I do think it is possible that some people know what happens to us when we die.

I didn't say it was impossible to know, only that we currently don't. And if you are claiming some do know then the difficulty becomes how to prove they know.

As of today, I don't know of anyone who has proven they KNOW what happens to us after we die, do you ?

Furthermore, suppose you are aware of some theoretical ideas from various sources about what happens to us when we die - including annihilation, reincarnation, moving up to a higher plane of existence ...
Suppose you then die. You get to see for yourself what happens. You can then assess for yourself whether any of the theoretical ideas you had before were correct. Suppose there was one that was correct.
From this perspective, can you say that prior to death, you did not know what will happen to you after you die?

Is this knowledge, no. It was merely a guess.

We can know what would likely happen to you if you jump off a 10 story building because we have seen what has happened to others.

Another way to address the above is, what if the answer is we just end. No more thought, no more existence.

Then there is no knowing.

“ Again, we can know things, lots of things. But what I am suggesting is that when we don't know. We shouldn't make up answers, we should keep looking for the answers until we have knowledge. ”

What exactly would count for "making up answers"?

Saying that we go to heaven for one.

I think we need to distinguish between a philosophical discussion about a topic and casual, everyday communication.
For the purposes of philosophical discussion, we may make claims or assessments which from the perspective of everyday communication would be outrageous.

Yes, well and I think that the topic itself lends to that.

If we keep merely to topics that we are certain about, we do not get very far, and life's problem remain elusive and big to us.

And we don't. We keep searching and looking and discovering and then keep going from there. That is all I am suggesting.

It's about understanding our reality, not trying to create a false one because we don't have the answers.

If you believe that all you have are mere beliefs, mere opinions, and not sound, solid knowledge, chances are that life is going to be packed with uncertainty, and thus very very difficult.
Agnosticism is nice enough in theory, but in practice, it is a nightmare.

LOL, so what just claim you know something you don't. Life might be more difficult but at least you are being delusional.

Packed with uncertainty, yes. We don't know a lot of things I'm afraid.

 

[wynn]

kind of spot on

the road to impersonalism is paved with hurt

Kind of ... Okay, I'll try again.


One:
When there is an earthquake, or when it rains, or when someone is carrying a full shopping bag and the bag rips and things fall to the ground, or when a golfer hits a ball etc. - nobody frets "Oh, this was just a self-fulfilling prophecy, this isn't real, it's just manipulation!" No, we say that it was merely the laws of nature.
We usually don't consider laws and acting on laws to be self-fullfilling prophecies and therefore somehow less real.

But when someone takes up a spiritual path and then claims to be reaping its results, many people claim it was merely a self-fulfilling prophecy and nothing more, that it wasn't real.
Things such a success at school or at a business also partly fall into this category, although they tend to be ascribed a higher-degree of realness than spiritual attainment.

How is an earthquake or a ripped bag or things falling to the ground in somehow completely different from getting results on a spiritual path?
Why should the first group of phenomena happen by laws that we consider a given for this Universe and which we are not in control of (and which we even admit we don't know in full), but the second one shouldn't?


Two:
To conclude or at least give in to the fear and doubt that spiritual attainment is merely a self-fulfilling prophecy is to conclude that proper spiritual attainment, if it is to be considered real, should only come by some extra effort which is beyond any laws and is not accessible to everyone. Such a conclusion suggests an elitist, exclusionist agenda, which may vary to a greater or lesser extent, but remains in the domain of a mystical approach to spirituality.


Three:
The problem of the self-fulfilling prophecy is connected to the problem of the ipse dixit. Namely, we tend to think that any ipse dixit argument is as such false or invalid, and is merely a self-fulfilling prophecy at best. Proposing and accepting such invalidity is at once implying that there is no controller of the Universe, but that the human mind is the controller.

being proud about a moment of clarity may head in the direction of a paradox but its certainly heads and shoulders above being proud of a moment of opacity

 

[jpappl]

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
With new discoveries we adjust our thinking and our understanding because that is reality. ”

Sure.
For example, at some point they thought spinach contained enormous amounts of iron and that therefore we should eat it.
At some later point, they discovered that the earlier measurements were wrong, and that the human body supposedly cannot absorb much iron from spinach anyway.
People adjusted ...


But how relevant is that reality?

Has the meaning of life been discovered?

Depends, in the example you gave it's relevant to reality but it is not all that important in the grand scheme of things.

Has the meaning of life been discovered ?

is a question that could have many different answers. So can anyone truly know the answer ?

“ If you reverse this and look at religious texts. It is closed it is not a work in progress, it is final, and thus should be able to explain everything and everything precisely. ”

How exactly do religious texts not explain everything precisely?

It's a difficult question. They explain them precisely enough for those who believe the texts are the literal words of god. They don't explain anything precisely that is the reality based on discoveries since they were written.

Dinosaurs for example. Evolution for example. The world and everything in it created in 6 or 7 days. Virgin births. Talking animals. Flat earth.

“ And yet we find that is not the case, thus they are all nonsense and not the word of god or gods. ”

I don't see how that follows?
Would you say that only a religious text which, for example, contains nutritional values of spinach, would be a candidate for being the word of God?

We have history books in schools today that don't give all of the details that might be relevant to a better understanding of an event.

I don't expect religious texts to have every detail on every subject or event.

But what is missing is telling.

That is why religions fight against everything that puts there story at risk. Because it has been finalized and is rigid with no room to grow.

So the discovery of dinosaurs, the reality of evolution, the earth being round and the earth not being the center of the galaxy are proof they were just myths and or poorly interpreted or greatly exaggerated works of history and not the words of god.

Do you think these would have been missed.

 

[wynn]

I didn't say it was impossible to know, only that we currently don't. And if you are claiming some do know then the difficulty becomes how to prove they know.

As of today, I don't know of anyone who has proven they KNOW what happens to us after we die, do you ?

Proven to whom, when, why, in what circumstances ...?

One cannot prove just anything to just anyone.

Trying to prove something to someone who does not even have the theoretical understanding of the terms used is impossible.

I know of people who could qualify as being able to prove they know what happens to us when we die. But they demand that in order to understand their proof, one first needs to educate and otherwise qualify themselves.

Personally, I admit that I didn't go through with that process of education and qualification. So I can't say those people are unable to prove they know what happens to us after we die.

Is this knowledge, no. It was merely a guess.

How do you know other things are not a guess?

You said we know if we have an apple in our hand. Do we really? Is it really our hand? How do we know is our hand? How do we know it is really an apple? What if we grew up in some awkward world where we were taught to call certain orange fruits with thick peels "apples"?


From your discussion so far, it is not yet clear how you avoid the problem of infinite regress.

What exactly would count for "making up answers"?

Saying that we go to heaven for one.

Why is that "making up an answer"?

And we don't. We keep searching and looking and discovering and then keep going from there. That is all I am suggesting.

Do you think that this search could ever end?

 

[jpappl]

One cannot prove just anything to just anyone.

Trying to prove something to someone who does not even have the theoretical understanding of the terms used is impossible.

Stop dancing around.

I know of people who could qualify as being able to prove they know what happens to us when we die. But they demand that in order to understand their proof, one first needs to educate and otherwise qualify themselves.

Personally, I admit that I didn't go through with that process of education and qualification. So I can't say those people are unable to prove they know what happens to us after we die.

Now you sound like LG. If only we would open our eyes to the truth we could understand. It's nonsense Signal.

If I understand everything about flying could I flap my arms and fly.

It is not about willingness.

If you know people that could provide that proof, then go ahead and have them enlighten you with their ultimate wisdom.

That is so classic. Claim you have proof but then claim that the people you are trying to prove it to are just to close minded to realize the proof is there.

Ridiculous.

How do you know other things are not a guess?

You said we know if we have an apple in our hand. Do we really? Is it really our hand? How do we know is our hand? How do we know it is really an apple? What if we grew up in some awkward world where we were taught to call certain orange fruits with thick peels "apples"?


From your discussion so far, it is not yet clear how you avoid the problem of infinite regress.

And now your being silly. Your taking this in circles it seems on purpose. We will see.

Regarding the apple. Let me make it a little more specific. You and I both speak english, obviously so no language barriers and you know what an apple is.

We are both in a room, we can see each other. I hold an apple out in my hand, you look at it and say you have an apple in my hand. You KNOW I have an apple in my hand.

Same situation, I put both hands behind my back. The apple is in one hand. I ask you to guess which one.

If you guess the right one, was it knowledge ? Was it a guess ?

What if we grew up in some awkward world where we were taught to call certain orange fruits with thick peels "apples"?

If you persisted you would be thought of as an idiot.

“ “ What exactly would count for "making up answers"? ”

Saying that we go to heaven for one. ”

Why is that "making up an answer"?

Because nobody knows what happens to us after we die.

“ And we don't. We keep searching and looking and discovering and then keep going from there. That is all I am suggesting. ”

Do you think that this search could ever end?

I hope not.

 

[Photizo]

If you believe in god.

Do you believe that your religious text is the word of god ?

And is it the basis for your belief in god ?

1. Yes.

2. No.

 

[jpappl]

1. Yes.

2. No.

Are you a christian, muslim or ?

You believe in the texts creation story.

Do you also believe dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago.

 

[wynn]

That is so classic. Claim you have proof but then claim that the people you are trying to prove it to are just to close minded to realize the proof is there.

Ridiculous.

Well, it is the standard approach in science and many other areas of knowledge as well.

If one wants to understand some proof in mathematics, physics or chemistry, for example, one has to first undergo some training to become qualified to do so.
For example, someone with little or no education in math can't just go to a class in post-grad math and expect to understand much.

Regarding the apple. Let me make it a little more specific. You and I both speak english, obviously so no language barriers and you know what an apple is.

We are both in a room, we can see each other. I hold an apple out in my hand, you look at it and say you have an apple in my hand. You KNOW I have an apple in my hand.

It appears you are failing to take into account that there is something you are seeing with (physically and cognitively), and you are taking this something for granted, as if it were fully reliable and therefore there would be no need to question it.

 

[wynn]

Depends, in the example you gave it's relevant to reality but it is not all that important in the grand scheme of things.

What is "the grand scheme of things"?

It's a difficult question. They explain them precisely enough for those who believe the texts are the literal words of god. They don't explain anything precisely that is the reality based on discoveries since they were written.

Dinosaurs for example. Evolution for example. The world and everything in it created in 6 or 7 days. Virgin births. Talking animals. Flat earth.

I don't know any references in religious texts that would explicitly say there are or were no dinosaurs. There are some people who claim there were no dinosaurs, though.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, from the perspective of science.

The world was created in 6 or 7 days - but as far as I know, it is not defined in the Bible what kind of days those were. Whether they were human days or of some other kind. (Just like we have "human years" vs. "elephant years" vs. "cat years", for example.)

In the Bible the virgin birth is brought up as something pertaining to Jesus, not to just any person, and Jesus is considered more than just any regular person.

Sure animals talk, in some way.

And flatlands are flat, and there are flatlands on Earth.

But what is missing is telling.

That is why religions fight against everything that puts there story at risk.

Some religionists are like that, but not all.

Because it has been finalized and is rigid with no room to grow.

I think you need to widen your horizons beyond the Bible and look into other religious texts.

So the discovery of dinosaurs, the reality of evolution, the earth being round and the earth not being the center of the galaxy are proof they were just myths and or poorly interpreted or greatly exaggerated works of history and not the words of god.

That is one very relative "proof" against scriptures being the words of God.

 

[jpappl]

Signal,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
That is so classic. Claim you have proof but then claim that the people you are trying to prove it to are just to close minded to realize the proof is there.

Ridiculous. ”

Well, it is the standard approach in science

No it is not, not even close to being the same. Science deals in facts, supported by evidence. The belief in god is faith, no evidence or facts are needed. The evidence points away from the religious texts idea of god or gods.

If one wants to understand some proof in mathematics, physics or chemistry, for example, one has to first undergo some training to become qualified to do so.
For example, someone with little or no education in math can't just go to a class in post-grad math and expect to understand much.

Of course, but you are mixing oil and water here. One has a building block of facts to work with and build upon. The other has nothing to offer but a request for more faith.

They are not the same at all.

By your analogy, it would be like running all of math and science classes based on one book, the book is a work of fiction with no facts in it and the book has all the answers that we can obtain in it.

Absurd.

It appears you are failing to take into account that there is something you are seeing with (physically and cognitively), and you are taking this something for granted, as if it were fully reliable and therefore there would be no need to question it.

Seeing the apple isn't fully reliable. If I had an apple in my hand and you could see it, would you question if it was an apple or would you know ?

 

[jpappl]

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Depends, in the example you gave it's relevant to reality but it is not all that important in the grand scheme of things. ”

What is "the grand scheme of things"?

Just means that I am not going to worry about a little spilt milk. It means that some things have very little or no relevance to world views. The fact that we gained some understanding about the amount of iron in spinach will not effect say the political-economic views of the populace.

“ It's a difficult question. They explain them precisely enough for those who believe the texts are the literal words of god. They don't explain anything precisely that is the reality based on discoveries since they were written.

Dinosaurs for example. Evolution for example. The world and everything in it created in 6 or 7 days. Virgin births. Talking animals. Flat earth. ”

I don't know any references in religious texts that would explicitly say there are or were no dinosaurs. There are some people who claim there were no dinosaurs, though.

Right, and they take that view because it contradicts the creation story. They have no choice and any honest literal bible or other religious text believer must take that position, of course doing so is an insane position. So they are screwed.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, from the perspective of science.

A work in progress that is getting more complete everyday. There are facts that support the theory, which is completely missing from the religious text, because they didn't know about the fossil record and what it would reveal. Because they are not the word of god(s).

The world was created in 6 or 7 days - but as far as I know, it is not defined in the Bible what kind of days those were. Whether they were human days or of some other kind. (Just like we have "human years" vs. "elephant years" vs. "cat years", for example.)

A common answer to steer away from the inevitable conclusion. So tell me, how many years makes up one of those 6 or 7 days ?

Doesn't god put the plants on the earth before creating the sun. That was brilliant. Apparently he didn't know the plants use the sun to grow.

In the Bible the virgin birth is brought up as something pertaining to Jesus, not to just any person, and Jesus is considered more than just any regular person.

I know. Hello, virgin birth. Give me a break. I believe the real answer is that someones daughter got knocked up or raped and then they claimed it just happened. Probably because she may have lost value as a female if she wasn't a virgin.

There was a woman who recently claimed her daughter got pregnant from swimming in a pool. She was just as insane.

And flatlands are flat, and there are flatlands on Earth.

Flatlands are not flat as the earth is round. That is the point, they didn't know that, some may have reasoned it, but according to the book the world was laid out like a table. Flat, wrong again. Of course.

“ Because it has been finalized and is rigid with no room to grow. ”

I think you need to widen your horizons beyond the Bible and look into other religious texts.

Well there are some religions that are more fluid. But any religious text that is taken literal sets the person up for failure. Theists who understand this don't view the book as fundamentalist do. They use it as a guide of sorts and I don't have a problem with that.

I don't have a problem with theists in general. I have a problem with those who claim they know the one and only way and the one and only god.

They don't.

So the discovery of dinosaurs, the reality of evolution, the earth being round and the earth not being the center of the galaxy are proof they were just myths and or poorly interpreted or greatly exaggerated works of history and not the words of god. ”

That is one very relative "proof" against scriptures being the words of God.

I am glad you agree and I am not asking or trying to convince you to not be a theist. But I am suggesting that you don't put all of you eggs in one basket, especially ones filled with so many contradictions.

This is what I am talking about with the work in progress comment that we discussed. I don't put all my belief or faith in scientists. I put my faith in science. I believe it will continue to ebb and flow with information and that we will continue to increase our knowledge base about our reality.

It will have people who try to hold on to failed theories but they will be replaced when information changes or falsifies the theory, and thus will continue to be a work in progress.

 

[scifes]

Ok.

You believe in dinosaurs. Right.

You believe in evolution. Right.

You believe the world, all the plants and animals and humans were created in 6 days and that is the word of god. Right.

i*m glad to have good enough organisational skills to have room for them all in my head

 

[wynn]

Seeing the apple isn't fully reliable. If I had an apple in my hand and you could see it, would you question if it was an apple or would you know ?

It's a question of epistemology.
A question of what one considers to be "knowledge", "to know".

It's easy to talk about "truth" and "facts" when one is blind to problems posed by epistemological considerations.

 

[jpappl]

Signal,

These are better ways to look at the question.

We are both in a room, we can see each other. I hold an apple out in my hand, you look at it and say you have an apple in my hand. You KNOW I have an apple in my hand.

Same situation, I put both hands behind my back. The apple is in one hand. I ask you to guess which one.

If you guess the right one, was it knowledge ? Was it a guess ?

or, how about this.

We are watching a football game, there is 10 minutes left and the score is tied. You think the team in blue is going to win but since there is 10 minutes to go you can't say for sure.

The blue team ends up winning. 10 minutes ago when you thought the blue team was going to win was it knowledge then ? or was it a belief ?

So the key IMO to any epistemological consideration regarding knowledge is justification.

 

[jpappl]

i*m glad to have good enough organisational skills to have room for them all in my head

LOL. Very funny.

 

[lightgigantic]

Its too bad you can't say that clearly, but "big bang" doesn't involve any creation. All the matter and energy expelled was already there to begin with.
:shrug:

To make things more clear, you are discussing the big bang within the jurisdiction of secondary creation ....... which is fine .... but it doesn't answer issues surrounding the primary creation (such as what prompts primary matter to make the shift that brings about secondary creation ..... IOW what prompted the big to become a big bang?)

 

[lightgigantic]

What are the requirements?

Every claim of knowledge comes with a host of normative descriptions (which in turn can be further sub-classified).

If you are at a loss as to what constitutes the general direction of normative descriptions that surround theistic claims, a good example is

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.

SB 11.14.17 Those who are without any desire for personal gratification, whose minds are always attached to Me, who are peaceful, without false ego and merciful to all living entities, and whose consciousness is never affected by opportunities for sense gratification—such persons enjoy in Me a happiness that cannot be known or achieved by those lacking such detachment from the material world.

IOW a fully fledged enamouredness with temporary things sets one behind the 8-ball from the start.

 

[lightgigantic]

Lightgigantic -


Jpappl said:



This is like an "argument from self-fulfilling prophecy". The idea is that if something is a self-fulfilling prophecy, then it isn't actually true or real, but is merely something one has brought about by one's own activity, and as such, doesn't testify of how things actually are; because for something to be actually true or real, it has to be beyond being a mere self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is something I am struggling with myself. I tend to think that all spiritual pursuits are merely self-fulfilling prophecies and don't have anything to do with how things actually are. At least that for me it would be so, but not necessarily for everyone.
Needless to say, with such an outlook, it is hard to find the motivation to practice.

Do you know a counterargument to this "argument from self-fulfilling prophecy"?

I guess a lot depends on how one dresses up the self.

For instance, issues of suffering in the material world are the big stumbling block in the pursuit of pleasure.

If guess there are a range of responses to this, but just a few off the top of my head

1. One could believe that someday in the future humanity will solve it all (post dated rain cheque)
   
2. One could believe that suffering is an irrevocable part of existence (which in turn can take one down the road of impersonalism or the "love it or lump it" attitude of contemporary mudha-hood ... ie one of the four unfortunate types to whom spiritual life remains unattainable as per BG)
   
3. One could develop some sort of saccharine world view based on taking relief in the suffering of others ("I may have it bad but not as bad as the XX .... insert favoured greatly suffering minority group XX .... so therefore things are OK)

its by no means an exhaustive list, but regardless of which option one resorts to, suffering always has an element that no amount of cosmetic surgery can do away with. With a little bit of spiritual knowledge, one can see that this is so because the whole material concept of life (ahankara) is built on the platform of suffering.

After that, its simply a case of how much one is intoxicated with it as to maintain the ambivalence necessary for material life.

 

[lightgigantic]

Signal,

These are better ways to look at the question.

We are both in a room, we can see each other. I hold an apple out in my hand, you look at it and say you have an apple in my hand. You KNOW I have an apple in my hand.

Same situation, I put both hands behind my back. The apple is in one hand. I ask you to guess which one.

If you guess the right one, was it knowledge ? Was it a guess ?

or, how about this.

We are watching a football game, there is 10 minutes left and the score is tied. You think the team in blue is going to win but since there is 10 minutes to go you can't say for sure.

The blue team ends up winning. 10 minutes ago when you thought the blue team was going to win was it knowledge then ? or was it a belief ?

So the key IMO to any epistemological consideration regarding knowledge is justification.

But there is the wider philosophical issue of epistemology that extends to who it is justifiable to.

For instance, suppose one is watching the football game under the impression it is a live telecast and the other person is fully aware it is a replay, having already watched it.

Or suppose you have an apple in a room that is dark, but one of the persons is wearing infrared goggles.

Or at the other end of the scale, of knowledge with a faulty foundation.

eg of mistaking one thing for another/correlation=causation. For instance suppose someone runs away from a rope, thinking it is a snake