Epistemology

Physician heal thyself?

Did you doubt the folks that raised you were your parents when you were 0-6 years old?  Did you assume that the breast you were suckled at was not your birth mothers? 

No one - as in NO ONE, EVER, IN HUMAN EXISTENCE, was born a doubter.  We automatically assume that things are as they should be.  That's a bit difficult to refute.

That said, the human condition causes EVERYONE to question life, their purpose, etc, if they live long enough.  If they do not, we assume them handicapped mentally.  What happens next, though, is that folks pursue a knowledge of the truth or become sidetracked with other things.  Either they learn the truth, they believe a false truth (as a result of their search), or they become distracted and forget they were seeking the truth.  This is the human experience. 

Be careful of assumptions I always say. I am well aware of the level of knowledge we are born with ... it was just a little play with words is all. That being said, I came from a very dysfunctional family, never knew my natural father (still don’t care) and never cared for my drunken step father (until much later in life). I had little confidence in my natural co-dependent mother either (ditto). Yea, I was full of doubts from a very young age (be it not zero). Then the RCC latched onto me and attempted to transform me to their way of thinking but … I was already fed up with lies, deceits and misinformation mixed with a tad of the truth just to complicate things … but for a child, I was quite adapt at knowing (feeling???) the differences. As far as 'mother’s milk' is concerned I wouldn't know because she apparently has 'inverted nipples’ (whatever that is) so I was also deprived in that area too it seems. There are seemingly many paths to adulthood but they all involve brainwashing just because there is no other reasonable way, IMO. But if one is going to claim to be a responsible adult, they have to be able to at least distinguish between the rational and the irrational and learn to deal with the real world.

I am sure you didn't mean this as a compliment, so I won't treat it like one. If you don't know the difference between improving one personal data base to enable better decision making skills and just taking someone else’s word on the current subject as if it were say 'gospel' ... well, then there is something one can work on. I am not interested in playing word games any more David. The topic is supposed to be about knowledge, its validity and the veracity of the source. Whatever one does with that knowledge (or not) is up to the individual.

I'm having trouble figuring out they way you speak (no offense intended), so bear with me.

I'm not sure I really buy fully into this premise.  Certainly, those preconceived ideas can cause problems with communication, but I doubt that is the crux of what you are looking to discuss.

re: the overall topic - let me try to reiterate what I think you are saying.  You believe that religion (other things as well) can and often does cause individuals to choose not to seek the truth (or knowledg perhaps?).  EG let's say I dogmatically believe that God is a tree in my backyard and that I'm 100% sure of it.  Now, you know my claim to be a complete falsehood; however, I believe it.  At some point I had an experience that proved to me that God is a tree in my backyard.  As a result of that experience, I have decided without a doubt that my views are correct and have ceased my search for God.  So, as I reached a conclusion (albeit an incorrect one), I am no longer asking the same questions. 

But that said, let's say I'm actually correct and that God is a truly a tree in my backyard.  Once I've arrived at this "truth," to continue searching for God (having found God) doesn't make a lot of sense.  Or to put it another way - if my car keys were missing and I found them, it would be quite silly to continue looking for my car keys.

 

Well said...the only problem here is that science doesn't work this way, and I have a feeling Boobz (and others) will take that position...

Let us assume that quantum mechanics is the ultimate "truth" in physics...as of yet, not a single experiment has proved quantum mechanics wrong...yet that doesn't stop scientists from continuing to try and prove it wrong...

So even though we have a model that is believed to be correct (and is probably the single most cohesive/vetted model in physics), we haven't simply "stopped" the search for "truth" because we think we're done...

And this is where I think some pragmatism has to come in...we each individually do not have the time, resources, nor education to constantly be full-time philosophers or scientists trying to figure out the truth...even scientists and philosophers who do this as a living are often constrained to only a focused area of "truth seeking"...

That doesn't mean you should abandon all attempts to seek the "truth"...but if you are convinced that the tree in your backyard is God, then stop dwelling and move on to finding other truths or living your life...

That being said, I think it is worth separating passive and  active truth seeking...one may be justified in stopping their quest to find God once they determined God is the tree in their back yard...but if by chance you happen to be exposed to contradictory information, it would be foolish to let your convictions persuade you to completely ignore such information...

Nicely balanced comments for a change.  Thanks.  If I can summarize the previous...

"Life is short-follow your heart, keep searching with a truly open mind and don't sweat the small stuff and what others think so much--you'll barely have time to make educated guesses of your own."

I believe I see your point, though I'm not sure everything fits neatly under passive/active truth.  I get the feeling that the OP is primarily about trying to figure out why people put up barriers to expanding their knowledge. 

I agree.  Obviously, that's just a silly hypothetical providing an example where you might stop actively seeking knowledge because you've come to your own conclusion. 

Pretty much but still lacking something, hum... I can only envision such mental barriers as a protection factor … so the next question would be ‘protection from what?’ I see no reason why any sentient creature could have serious problems with bettering the old personal database. The only thing that comes to mind here is they are protecting themselves from the truth or at least what the truth could reveal or unravel. The perfect state of denial cannot be bridged by anything but a re-self-examination because it is impervious to all external stimuli.

Hypotheticals ... love em or hate them but one has to be careful of the ridiculous is all. My first pragmatic impression to the 'tree god' would be for me to cut the tree down and see what happens next (imagine that conversation %&%#). But in trying to keep with the spirit of this, I think it will ultimately lead to religion and its dogmatic practice. As to knowing or just believing one knows god ... what does that have to do with learning anything else or something you already know better? If all we had to do was deal with god or in my case without, things should proceed well between us. The real problem we could face is if we (or one of us) make the one (so far) difference between us BE the deciding factor in our dealings … then we would just be two fools trying to fool each other … foolishly.

Yep … life is too short … personally be happy and fruitful while you can … whatever it takes. Old age is full of inaccurate memories, many dogmatic views and irrefutable ‘truths’ … and I call it senility. Didn't mean to be so sharp last comment, sorry.

Oh I'm sure my back yard tree god would lead to some sort of religious or dogmatic practice.  I mean, odds are I'd tell someone about it.  Then it becomes a question of why the tree god revealed himself to me.  What was the purpose and so on. 

Anyway, I don't deal with people based on their religious affiliation or some other generalization.  I deal with them and relate to them as individuals.  As such, its not so limiting if I have a friend that is of any religion or an atheist or what have you.

With regards to religion or politics, etc, I don't have much respect for people that come across as talking heads.  Eg folks that just recite ad nauseum things they've heard others say.  I certainly believe that if you follow any religion, the reason for doing so shouldn't be something as simple as "my parents did and I do as a result."  Certainly, there are more than a few folks that were brought up in the church this way, for instance, but when you reach a certain age, I'd hope questions like "why and I here" and "why do I go to church all the time" and so are asked.  And then, after searching, be able to answer questions like that. 

Anyway, I'm not sure if there is much of a hang up here, though.  Based on your background, boobzTwo, what really motivates the OP?  I think, if asked, we'd all say that we prefer to do our own thinking.  Not that we all do all of the time, ofc, and that we can't lean on those who have come before us.  I'm just wondering if something in particular has you frustrated about folks not being able to "think out of [a] box."

Well said and is pretty applicable to me (IMO). String theory (I was going to be a math major) is where it is at now though ... I just wish I understood the mechanics better. I read and pretend to learn and at least end up with a reasonable working understanding ... I think hahaha.

Yea I guess there is I just haven't put my finger on it. My (OP) was selfishly intended to get me away from religion for a bit as that is not high up on my likable list of topics. I guess I am afflicted with some sadomasochistic tendencies, my best excuse hahaha. But over the past year, I have learned how to actually identify myself in much broader real world terms than just another atheist (my starting point). Now I am quite comfortable with my views albeit I would change much of what I expressed and especially my delivery had I the chance to start anew ... but I don't.

 

I don't think this is the only result that could take place. It really doesn't even depend on you or your 'tree' beliefs. It might even be nice for everyone to have their own tree god to pall with. But when an intruder comes to you (or any of us with our trees) and tells us individually and collectively that we are all wrong because of their belief in a one god fits all perspective, well that is not going to bode any good will or rapport. And this doesn’t even take into consideration the ‘proof’ (for lack of a better word) for this foreign belief. The problem really has nothing to do with believing in god (or not) … but is does have everything to do with believing in god in just the right way. I lose all my logical input at this point is all?

 

Ah the never ending search for truth....

 

But can you truly know Truth if you experience it?  or is it just a perspective?  interesting. 

I think you hit the nail on the head there.  I'd wager a lot of the problem is in how the information is conveyed.  Consider if I created a new post called "pacov - witness of the tree god."  Within the op, I expound on divinity of the tree god, provide my own testimony about said tree god, and then begin to call all other religions false.  Now, folks will either think me crazy and pick on me a bit or they will likely be offended and defend their beliefs.  Or take it the other way.  I start a post called there is no god and go into detail as why I might believe that to be true.  Some will surely jump on the bandwagon in support; others will strongly disagree.  This too, will raise ire, and likely result in a few parties "internet yelling" at each other.  The only thing usually gained by things like this is getting a knowledge of who around holds such and such belief.  Beyond that, I doubt much knowledge is transferred.

Anyway, even if you have an open mind, if the information being conveyed is done in an offensive way, folks aren't all that likely to respond positively or accept the "knowledge."  However, if an idea is controversial to you or something that you wouldn't normally be inclined to believe (or even discuss), developing rapport and perhaps empathy makes the difference. 

I suppose it all depends on how silly one wants to be while defining 'The Truth'. Problems sprout like twigs on a tree in spring whenever a neutral starting point is not made available. Everything in the real world is subjective and relative to many differing scenarios. So how does one go about defining the ‘truth’ … a word we all use all the time?

I suppose it would be easier to consider the truth as having some varying components that need to be individually evaluated, but I will surmise up front that there is no real thing as ‘the truth’. Our language is just too vague and inadequate and our minds are still too small to make this easy. Anyone who believes there is an ‘absolute truth’ when dealing with humanity is just fooling themselves. As a people, we are fickle beyond belief (just look around) and if anything, we are more adapt at bending the truth than adhering to it. Strange thing is that we don’t seem to have many problems supporting the ‘bent’ truth though … go figure.

As an example take Christianity vs. Islam (piss on both their radical elements). They both religiously support the very same one god and for the exact same reasons (names unimportant here) but they are mortal enemies … and why … because only their specific collective has their shit together … everyone else is just out to lunch. From this (add in the Baptists, Protectants etc.) it is easy to see that the one god is not at all the issue … it is all about the religions themselves … and their support and their membership and most of all of their coffers that are being  argued over. God is just the tool they use, how inappropriate is that?

Looks real good on paper but not overly realistic I think, all things considered. On a personal level (where we like to communicate) this should work well enough in theory assuming at least some common ground and experience. But when dealing with organizations be they religious or otherwise it is never that simple. Rapport is seldom even welcome and all empathy is only internally expressed. Where is there even wiggle room for say the RCC to waffle on anything they have professed to be the true word of their god for a thousand years?  Same to be said for any religion that relies entirely on their own interpretation of all things and bars all others for no apparent real reason I can discern.  It all boils down to this: when dealing with a rock … only a fool would expect anything other than the continued inability to change anything rockish … ever.

Oh, but it is quite realistic.  The common ground is the human experience, of which we all have some, eh. 

You started with a premise about barriers to gaining knowledge and seem to keep moving back towards having a discussion with perhaps a devout Catholic and trying to get them to perhaps come around to see your point of view.  Or at least it sounds that way.  And if that's the case, the goal really shouldn't be to proselytize, but rather to discuss individual points.  Anyway, this still makes me wonder why this seems like such a sticking point for you. Do you have loved ones that are in the RCC and because of your past experiences, don't want that for them? 

 

My biggest stumbling block here is the "there really isn't any truth" perspective.

You can argue philosophically on that from a million different angles for an eternity but it also is a convenient dodge psychologically and emotionally when confronted with something you really don't want to know or think about--basically, it's the very "barrier to truth" that prompted this post.

The person who wants a compromise here but not abandon their option to dodge an issue will often demonstrate their more open philosophy along the line of, "Well...ok...let's agree there can be "truths" for conversations sake but they must include only x,y,z and can never include a,b,c.".

Which puts you right back at the barrier again--just more "rationally" justified.

We either can either share common perceptions of reality as humans--which means we can perceive some things as truths--or we all are crazy, locked totally in a world of our own imagining  but its' completely disingenuous to wash our hands and say, "What is truth?" as an out for anything one can't visualize as an individual and that another feels they may have some perception or understanding of.

You didn't seem to be interested in the remainder of my comment where I explained this??? Not all experience is useful here and yes there are some common ones but they are the ones taken for granted like eating, breathing and sleeping, useless things to build a rapport on. Try taking a devout Muslim raised in the desert totally in the embrace of Allah and see how much common ground you find from life or human experiences when placed in a room with a devout city raised Catholic Jew... sparks is all that comes to mind. There will be no meeting of the minds and that will be only because such people do not need or want to compromise ... certainly not with each other anyway. I am only trying to present a real world perspective ... not some idealistic philosophical repartee is all?  

As far as I know my whole family on my mother’s side are Catholics (been over 45 years since I left that behind me) ... but what does that have to do with me? Whatever floats their boat works for me ... just don't ask me to jump in too. My problem with the RCC is with the RCC itself as I could care less about its members (well, individually I care, collectively I could care less). Have you never taken up your pen in defense of a Lula diatribe before? Convert a Catholic to what (???), how ridiculous that one is.

 

You missed the point entirely David. It is not so much that there is no truth to be told ... it just varies due to the complexities of living in a real world where we are NOT in absolute control of much besides ourselves. From a religious perspective, truth is implicated and administered as the word of god and that is fine if it suits ones purposes, but try and administer that ‘truth’ to someone else of some different heritage … well have fun with that one. Take ‘thou shall not kill’; First of all the words themselves are wrong and should state ‘thou shall not murder’ as killing is acceptable to religious folk as well as most of the rest of us (Buddhists???). Guess there will always be exceptions. With that being said, can you make no argument or envision no situation where murder can be acceptable and even necessary?

I was watching Stargate Universe and in one episode there was a crash where a man was pinned under an immovable object, was in excruciating pain and was dying … almost there too. But the survivors couldn’t stay (you know how that works) … well what are you going to do when he begs you not to leave him to die alone. Two things come to mind here: Give him a weapon and allow him to end his own life (suicide) … pain will break the theological barrier and allow him to do this … but what about the soul you guys are so concerned about. This doesn’t seem to be a theologically acceptable solution. Option two would be to murder him (the option taken) and allow him passage wherever that takes him … but at least it grants him an escape from the pain and suffering … also theologically unacceptable. What would you do under similar circumstances? From a theological standpoint, both the murder and/or the suicide are unacceptable even though they are the only two viable options available. Want to make it even worse (not hard to do) … say the dying person was your mother or your husband. Absolute truth just doesn’t interface well with our species because we are too adapt at discovering exceptions to the rules simply because we must in order to survive. He was smothered in case you were interested …

 

So is it an absolute truth that there is no absolute truth???  Absolutely?

 

Your statement right after that, however, is very true.  Humanity has always bent the truth to its own desires.  Is it possible to find the truth, with all the manipulation that has passed down through the ages?  That is what I see as the biggest hurtle to human ... enlightenment?  I guess that word will work

To minimize further dancing around ... why don't you take a stab at describing 'absolute truth' instead of just using the terms like they have been defined in any real usable manner … and see how many holes I can punch in your definition. First problem though would be to define ‘truth’ on its own merits so it should be a while before you get to the ‘absolute’ part.

Truth has a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with fact or reality. It can also mean having fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal. In a common usage, it also means constancy or sincerity in action or character. The direct opposite of truth is falsehood, which can correspondingly take logical, factual or ethical meanings. However, language and words are essentially "tools" by which humans convey information to one another. As such, "truth" must have a beneficial use in order to be retained within language. Defining this potency and applicability can be looked upon as "criteria", and the method used to recognize a "truth" is termed a criterion of truth. Since there is no single accepted criterion, they can all be considered "theories". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth)

We are finite creatures and don't handle absolutes well--but that does not imply there are no absolutes.  The biggest problem is we often think our own private thinking is "absolute"--with no discernible reason for it other than it suits us.

A true absolute would supersede ourselves.

The issue is that an internally dishonest person can cloud truth and honesty with the question followed by the inference, "Well there's no way to be sure."

FYI--I don't have any theological barriers.  My limits are self-determined as best they can be by my own conscience.

Why do you write things like this. If there is even a small doubt as to your (someone else's) honesty ... end of conversation ... I know mine is intact. I do not see Lula as a dishonest person ... I view her to be intellectually dishonest because of her denial of the realities all around us, especially when they do not even threaten her beliefs.

Which is why it has no earthly meaning??? Absolutes are little more than a denial of our infallible humanity where we are not even allowed to make a choice for ourselves.

Nobody said there were no absolutes ... there are plenty as long as we remain in the real world. I thought we were talking about 'absolute truth' is all ... and that doesn't exist on earth. We are just tied up with our inferior language so we play these word games to no good end.