You started with "Why do people do this?"...I'm presenting some reasons why and how it's often rationalized. Wasn't directed at anyone posting here.

It's not always obvious when someone is being internally dishonest.

By "supersede ourselves" I was meaning that despite what we may want to believe a true absolute would not be dependent on our accepting it--that's all.  That doesn't make it have no earthly meaning

I didn't state, "there were no absolutes", I presented that people uncomfortable with ones they feel they perceive will sometimes try to avoid them by using philosophical or rhetorical statements.

I'm pretty much referring to the first half or so of Plato's allegory of the cave.  It's pretty on-topic.

I've only been trying to understand what you are on about as it doesn't make much sense to me.  I ask questions like "why has X person made this post." At least to me, that's far more interesting than gibbering on about absolute truth.  For instance, if you don't find yourself struggling with the things you listed in the OP, why do you care if others have restrictions to seeking the truth?  You know, the practical, real life side of our discussion (eg what are we really talking about here?).  That answer clarifies what you are actually on about to me anyway.  Provided you were interested in a discussion about the question you posed in your op, of course.  I get that this is a philosophy forum and I suppose diving layers and layers below what the actual topic was in order to define absolute truth and so on will happen (even though it likely just muddies the original topic), but I don't really find that to be all that fruitful.  And now that a debate of sorts has begun, I expect that people simply begin to recite their opinions over and over, likely without any desire to learn from each other, but hopefully I'm wrong.

from the OP:

1. Believing that you have already found the truth.  2. Believing that there is no truth.  3. Believing that there is truth out there, but X person doesn't have it to share with you.  Why do you ask?

Pretty much sums it up.  I also agree what you stated in the reply prior to that.

"Plato's cave" is an allegory about people basically in the dark guessing their way through life with limited vision and misunderstandings.  When confronted with truth, they recoil at first as it is blinding and unsettling and painful.

He makes the points that some will be content to simply stay as they are and others will understand that truth is something to be striven for--not to be ignored as by the others.

His advisement in the allegory is in the context of being spoken to a young ruler-to-be and he encourages him to reach for higher philosophical principles so he can be a better man and be more effective in administering over people who do not have his understanding.

His overall point though was that truth in and of itself is something to always be reached for--the highest goal--practical for one's own enlightenment and for governing societies.

A real conversation here would be one where people were honest about their own reasons for struggling with truths personally.  Sadly, this is the internet.

I believe this to be adequate for my reasoning for the use of such limiting barriers??? I was misleading in the OP ... I am well aware of why the barriers are placed there ... I just don't understand the need to do such things if the truth is what is being sought

First, we are talking about real knowledge here. If you take the science out of this, then I could agree ... but I cannot (don't know how to). (1.): We have backtracked on many things we thought we knew but that later turned out not to be 'quite' true ... so we change (correct) the error and move on. We didn't (and still don't) succumb to the notion that we knew the truth of something and then placed a cease and desist order on further studies. (2.): I see no point in even discussing this option and think it is as unrealistic as it gets. (3.): Again we are supposed to be discussing the truth (as much as is humanly possible) so if someone is not willing to share … I don’t want to play with them either. You used the word HAVE to share … I think it should have been WANT to share … but that still implies they are not willing to be truthful … again no playmate for me.

Glad you sorted out the quotes!  :P  These forums tend to do some crazy things with nested quotes from time to time, eh.

OK - thanks for clarifying things a bit.  I think I see a bit more now.  I've recently been rereading some of Gaiman's work that covers a bit on knowledge.  The basic concept in blatantly false (as you'll see), but there's an interesting bit of truth in there.  First, the concept - We all know everything there is to know.  We simply refuse to accept this truth. 

And this leads me to a quote from Ecclesiastes, actually.  "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow"

I think there is also a very human component within all of us that knows that to be true.  Obviously, you can come up with your example that makes the above statement both true and false in the context I presented it in (eg the researcher that discovers the cure for cancer has probably not increased sorrow substantially - but knowing, for instance, that your husband or wife is cheating on you... well, that would likely increase your sorrow quite a bit).  Anyway, the point here being that not seeking the truth (eg CHOOSING intentionally) does occur as a defense mechanism.  In this case, people often don't want to know the truth. 

Spot on.  You are correct.

Anyway, all of that said, then perhaps this all boils down to more of a conversation of how we break down barriers that keep people from gaining knowledge, then?  Or perhaps continue and try to come up with a more exhaustive listing of what barriers exist and why?

Back to your question: Those who seem to be having difficulties with their ‘personal truths’ … well I would guess they are just fooling themselves with almost/maybe the truth and from there trying to fool others too. This is much more difficult to fall victim to if you (we) do our own research and investigations … as opposed to taking someone else’s word on the matter and running with it. I believe in evolution as that is where all the (my) evidence points … I am not just trying to pretend it is so to argue with say biblical literalists. For a very long time we thought the speed of light was as fast as it gets for matter … but we have since LEARNED otherwise, so we easily adjust our thinking to accommodate this and we move on hopefully to bigger and better things. This can only be accomplished if we understand that we do not have all the answers … only a desire to seek them out wherever they are hiding.

I can relate to increased sorrow Pacov.  You get older and see and understand things then realize the people behind you are going to take a long time to get there--suffering in the process--and there isn't much you can do to directly change it.  You see it with your children, with society and humanity in general.

You get opportunities now and then in life to pass something on but you never have the ability to just "make it happen".

Boobz, I'm actually interested in the topic--not religion, Lulu or sparring.

Boobz brought science getting things wrong sometime and my own approach to truth is that if it isn't relevant to you, it isn't going to do much for you.  If it is relevant, then you should act on what you see and understand and not rely on a consensus or majority or expert to tell you what should be a matter or personal principle and conscience.

The fully detailed proofs of science are always far behind human experience.

THAT was the quote I was looking for! Bravo.

And this....

Is also spot on.  Science always seems to lag behind with what people discover themselves.  Especially recently.  That's not to say that there hasn't been an explosion of scientific discovery, just that along the lines of truth.... not much "new" has been forged.

Interesting reads throughout here... looking forward to the rest of the discussion.

One question I have for you

Can truth be found, only using science? 

The answer to this will give us a basis to work from...  Personally I am open to all forms of enlightenment, be it scientific, theological, spiritual, wherever.  An open mind is needed to funnel all the info down to its basics, and to ultimately derive truth. 

I think people searching for truth is what drives science.

Science for the sake of science is something only academics and engineers pursue.  Exploration into mysteries, searches for explanations of things observed or imagined--these are what motivate scientific investigation.

Science does not drive human endeavor or make moral choices or determine the course of events--people seeking answers bring these things about in their pursuit for truth--whether using scientific means, philosophy, exploration or storytelling.

The cult of science that some practice would have science determine human behavior and set values for human life.  People should always determine these things and science should follow.

re: boobz reply to this in #31 - Perhaps you are reading the negative here that I am not.  I actually think this is a good idea, though.  But let me reword things without any negative context. 

Why don't we each discuss the barriers we individually have to the pursuit of knowledge?

See, the wording on that opens a whole can of worms, though.  Stated like that, I think you'd need to be able to define exactly what is true and what is false - and this can cover anything from "is there a god?" to what have you.  I think we could easily proceed just by agreeing to do our best to respond honestly. 

Anyway, one of my personal barriers (I mentioned this directly before, but in a slightly different context) is the messenger.  This is likely one of the biggest barriers I have. So, the next question is why?  And I don't have time to answer that atm, so I'll jump back to it in a bit...

Maybe this would work for you then: I would be much more comfortable if we agreed to be intellectually honest from the get go. Personally, I don't have any problem proverbially shooting the messenger if they are being dishonest or are intellectually defunct.

I think we are on the same page here.... hopefully have time later to write a bit more.

Well, I had expected more takers on this topic as everyone seems to think they are so well informed and knowledgeable. I think there is some confusion between ones level of understanding and the actual knowledge necessary to substantiate their understanding in the first place. I just happen to believe that the truth is obvious to even the most casual observer and it is our own fears, inhibitions and misconceptions that complicate the issues at hand. Personally I think we have a good grasp on the truth individually and collectively … until our perceptions of the world around us are called into question. I suppose it is alright to believe anything … for any reason at all … but logic alone should dictate some rules of conduct when contemplating the truth of whatever. For the most part, I don’t see any obvious starting point on forums like JU. It is mostly one side beating the other one (and vice versa) as if there never were any opposing argument at all … or everyone just pretends they never heard of the basic arguments. So much wasted time on nothing of merit … one might ask why …

People put up barriers for the simplest of reasons and that shouldn't surprise anyone. The primeval motivator is fear but fear of what … surely not the truth??? I think the question is why put up any barriers at all? If the truth is of any value no matter how one defines it, then I fail to see why any barrier would be desired let alone condoned? And if the truth is NOT what is to be considered … then what is?

Well I had hopped this post would have lasted a while, but I being a pragmatic kind of woman, not overly interested in the psychological fields where the abstract mind is bandied about. I don’t care for absolutes be they religious or secular because we don’t know everything about anything and never will. In psychology there are no questions that go unanswered but in religion there are no answers that can be questioned (something like that). Not where I intended this post to go anyway. I am not overly concerned why or what people believe because every story is a little different and frankly is none of my business. I am trying to say that I deal with life on a day by day basis and have to deal with the good and bad, the true and false in like manner. I don’t need some PHD to explain why steeling is wrong or another one to logically justify it somehow. There is no way to kill a child here in the US and expect to get away with it, but if one was born in Iraq where they have the religious authority to do just that, well the truth could be argued. NOT in my book, period. Christianity was forced to ignore much of the word of their god because if they hadn’t it would look like modern Islam does today and be just as openly barbaric. Sorry, don’t really want to go all religious, it just blended in at the end.

Regarding Islamic outlooks--that's an oversimplification. 

In the areas where that sort of activity happens they are predominantly and traditionally for thousands of years from cultures where that sort of thing was practiced.  It was there before Islam.

Muhammad came from the same sort of culture and was allegedly appalled by a lot of its barbarism and superstition which was a big motivation for a lot of his actions.  Unfortunately, his approach was to blend and meld: aspects of Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and tribal beliefs and ethics. He complicated it and really empowered it's flaws by creating a religion that had the "divine authority of the state" built into it as a mandate.

Basically the same error Catholicism wandered into in it's heyday when they were more of a world government than any actual government.

But the root culture of the time already had harsh practices and punishments in place.  Then you throw in the "convert or die" and "if you live here you have to be" theology of Islam through it's history and you end up with the a great percentage of people as social Muslims and not spiritual ones which results in the same sort of corruption and error and abuse that was rampant in much if not most of the Catholic church's history.  Eveil men, with evil ambitions and no sincere beliefs using religion as power.

You seem to think this is a "religious" problem exclusively but it isn't a just a religious problem at all--it's a human one and it happens in every society in every sphere of power...government, finance, politics, social movements, religion--you name it.

Depots and despotic regimes don't require religion to appear and flourish, they happen all the time.  Robespierre, Napoleon, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Franco, Ortega and hundreds of other known and historical leaders  founded movements that had nothing to do with "religion" (other than a religion of state and personality) and were as brutal and insane in their actions as anything any religion (including Islam and organized Catholicism) have ever done.

All required obedience and submission from birth and punished rebellion with death and torture and all required a public acknowledgement through personal deed and behavior and speech that the state and it's leaders were over all things.

One of the big issues I have with many atheist critics is the constant rolling out of, "if religion didn't exist these things wouldn't either".  It's a complete load of bull.  

Whether you are in city government, national government, the police force, the green movement or a prison there are always people who out of greed, lust and self interest take power and abuse it for personal reasons.

People with evil motives take the power structure that is most utilitarian and accessible to them and abuse it.

Spirituality--the actual desire to have an experience with something greater than one's self--isn't the problem and religious practices who's purpose and goal is primarily this aren't either.

Jesus was very careful and specific to make clear the separation of church and state and the separation of religion from truth. He never advocated control of other people, domination of the world government and Christian punishments to those who refused to submit and neither do those who actually follow Him.

Hello David, hope all is well. I view Islam just as I do Judaism and Christianity, surely you know that. If religious folk could only look at their own religion with a modicum of introspection … using the same tests and assumptions they use to dissect everyone else’s religion (even no religion), but that just isn’t done much for obvious reasons, but it should. I can take virtually every argument you have which ‘allows’ you to see Islam for the fraud it really is … and apply them virtually verbatim to Christianity and Judaism and come up with the same conclusion.

What does root culture or folk lore (traditions) have to do with the word of god? He was obligated somehow to include the harsh human practices and their barbaric traditions … why? We are discussing religion so I was just talking religion??? Why would any large organization under any guise not have a lot of problems??? I don’t bring up “depots and despotic regimes” because they are always attributed to atheists by Christians and strangely enough, visa versa … this tells me that these things are just used to poke someone in the eye? Without the desire to look this up again, I will wager you that more people have been decimated for dogmatic religious beliefs than secular beliefs throughout recorded human history, by far.

This is difficult because I cannot start on your side, I don’t know how. Whenever I hear ‘WWJD” … I just falter, I have no answer. This is not a game to me (or you); I cannot pop him in and out just to weigh some argument. I am aware of the Christian arguments I just don’t believe them to be true in any godly sense. Many seem to think that I just got up one day and decided god was not real and to them I say; did god just pop into your head or did you do some research first?

If I remember my church history right, prior to the Muslim invasion of Spain the Catholic church was a church.  Then, when it was reclaimed for the Catholic countries, the ruler of the time borrowed the 'you must be this faith or die' creed from Islam and suddenly, the church was populated with non-believers.  Afterwards, it was ineffective as a church and became the ruling body as you said, which prompted some in touch with reality to rebel against it.

Hi GFT---going good and I hope the same for you.

A Christian, in the truest meaning of the word, is nothing more or less than, "a follower of Christ".  To the "if I can't touch or see it it doesn't exist" crowd that's just lunacy and has to be nothing more than mere religion or personal delusion--which is exactly what Jesus said it would be seen as by those who could not accept it.  Nothing new or surprising there and I completely understand when someone feels that way.

When you step into religion as a Christian, you are already a step removed from your internal experience with Christ--even though some aspects and elements of church do compliment Christian belief.  It's akin to my telling someone what I feel as opposed to them really knowing as i do.  No matter how sincere, there is no way for them to directly see any intimacy I have with God.  All they can see are the apparent symptoms  and effects or those things as I present as that.

So within church you have a figurative million different people all coming together with an internal belief/concept/experience of God that they want to share with others.  Within that multitude are those people that routinely get blasted by skeptics (rightly so) who have merely superstitious or mimicked beliefs.

There is a ton of biblical commentary in both the Old and New Testaments that talk specifically about those professing or having the appearance of belief but who internally are completely devoid of the substance of it.  In the NT in particular there are some very specific categories of such people identified and even defined with cautions not to follow after them.  There are also warnings that there will always be people who for a time can seem committed and authentic but later will be revealed for what and who they truly are.

These are all things for a Christian to be concerned with and not specifically anything of value to those outside but the bible defines true "church" as the collective of those who have an authentic relationship with God and states that God alone knows who they are.  "Churches" are nothing more or less than collections of people claiming to be the real thing but their claims don't make it so or mean that every one of them really is.  

But going back to the above, my point isn't that there aren't corrupt religious sects and movements--in fact, most are corrupted--again, in the truest meaning of the word.  But in those cases you are not talking ab out a divine experince that's been corrupted you are talking about people who have corrupted the idea of what a genuine divine experience is and are unaware of it themselves.

That's a human failing that centers around religious ideas.  Lenin created a "church of state" that was meant to be the idyllic solution to all men's problems and it was corrupted horribly by him  and those who followed them.  The United States was formed around lofty ideals yet today we can't prune dishonest and criminal politicians out faster than they appear. The French Revolution and Russian Revolutions came about to a great extent to throw off tyrants who claimed a divine and religiously enforced right to be despots--yet look at the hell that followed them.

Communism in it's simplest ideal has many virtues...the Founding Fathers of the United States were not all lying and dishonest criminals...The French and Russian populaces had real grievances with the abuse of religious and political power.

Movements get corrupted by people.  That's why Jesus made it clear that "the kingdom is within".  Islam says it is within and should also run everything without.  There;'s no comparison betwen those core ideals--they are diametrically opposed to one another.

You can take the examples I gave above and the causes of corruption are the same--just the methods and issues vary.  It's still people caught up in the lust to have or be in control of others.  It's a human condition.

P.S.

Yes Jytheir...I think that's a good example of what happened.

I don't know how to interpret "A Christian, in the truest meaning of the word…" to mean anything besides whatever you personally think it means. I don’t have a real problem with that (I don't care) but you are assuming you are correct. Experience has taught us that most (many) Christians think otherwise too. To me though, this means any Christian who takes the bible verbatim, as the word of god, no questions asked. This is a dictate promoted by Christendom for centuries; I don't know how to recant that view just because it is inconvenient in a modern world???

Sorry, I will get back to you tomorrow David; my Mother was admitted to the ER today (possible renal failure, bummer that) and I need to get some rest … tomorrow is going to be tiring to say the least.

David, I don’t care what someone else wants to believe in because I have no control over their thoughts and it is their right. My problem is with organizations that preach to the rest of the world that the reason we have strife in it is just because the rest of the world will not unquestionably capitulate to whatever they want to believe in (in its entirety), and that their own Church masters’ are the only people ‘qualified’ to speak god’s mind for him (in his absence) and that no other belief system is possible because they (of course) are all based on the wrong magic. I have tried to tell religious folk that their battle is with the misbelievers who promote their own infallible everything, not those who think of all magic in the same light, equally, disbelievingly. But all the church masters know that all the gods and all their miracles are based on the same (if worded slightly differently) irrational foundation and are equally untenable … and they all count on this concept to promote their own unquestionable business. When you talk about the ‘truest’ meaning of the word of god, you are really saying ‘in your opinion’ which of course isn’t my opinion too and I am under no obligation to accept or run with them … it is just magic to me is all. BS is still BS no matter how candy coated it it??? Lenin has nothing to do with the ‘god’ debate and I am no more interested in his irrationality than that of any other human misfit we have been cursed to have to live through. Every revolution in history was the result of someone’s idea of personal gain or because of a fracture between the rule makers (be they religious or secular) and the people who are always the ones to suffer the most. There is nothing unnatural about human failings just because we are all humans and we are all stranded on planet earth and have no options other than to exist governed by universal constraints at all times. Other than magicians and gullible people, magic has no place in the real modern world, practically speaking. I at least congratulate you on your ability to separate your spirituality from the main stream religious organizations who insist on doing your thinking for you, are the only ones qualified to interpret gods mind and who demand absolute authority over their flock (and everyone else in or out of this world) just because they know best and are (but of course) incorruptible themselves.

You talk often of human corruption and you even apply it to the church masters … but you don’t seem to apply it to the unknowns who compiled, corrected, translated, modified (to broach reality)scripture and then announce that this document contains only the infallible word of their god. If there was a period in our history when humans were perfect, it surely wouldn’t have been in the first (+/-) century where brutality, ignorance and superstitions ruled the day. A time when all the players involved were illiterate shepherds and fishermen (and carpenters) who to a man believed in blood sacrifices and burning witches (in America as little as 250 years ago). None of god’s creations seem to be perfect from the haughty angels to the live forever human called Adam. For all those who think they are going to heaven, I would point out that all Adam did was eat some fruit that Eve gave him: and that act so offended this benevolent loving god so much, that he stripped Adam of all his rights and condemned all of mankind forever more because of this egregious act. Lucifer and Adam were perfect designs of this god and they failed miserably. What chance does a modern materialistic and frail fallible human have of getting there ... or of staying there???

What I would like to discuss with you though is why Jesus and why the Christian bible? I have my thoughts on this but I don’t want to presume anything and would hear you thoughts on the matter first.

PS – Mother is doing a lot better; her kidneys are starting to function so it appears that they caught this in time to prevent complete renal failure. At least for now anyway, dialysis in not in the immediate future.

PSS - This is the actual problem IMO: Faith – the ability to pretend knowing things that you don’t know.

Glad your mother is doing better, GFTess.

That's it, now you've got it.  Nobody can get to heaven at all.  That's why Christianity is the only religion that makes sense - it's the only one that says, "You can't do it."  All the other religions say, "You need to do such and such to go to the good place."  Christianity says, "This is the standard you need to live by.  But you can't do it."

That's why Jesus, the savior, had to come to Earth - to pay the penalty for what we have done wrong.  The penalty that God, in his justice, must apply to all who have sinned, which is all.  Except Jesus.  But Jesus says, I'll take that penalty for you, if you'll let me.   Jesus takes the penalty, and we are left looking, to God, like... Jesus.  The Sinless One.  So we can get to heaven with God.  That is the only way.  Don't let anyone tell you that doing good will get you there, GFTess, because they're a liar.  The worst kind of liar.

Think how it works in the court system.  If someone is given a fine to pay, they must pay that fine.  That's justice.  But if someone pays the fine for them... then they can go free.  Same thing here.

God is just, but God is so merciful, too, that he sent His perfect, sinless Son to die on the cross to take that death penalty off of us and onto himself.  But it only works for you if you accept it.  And the most grievious sin you can commit against God, is to have let His Son die in vain... so should you not accept Him, you are judged according to all you have done instead.

At least, if you believe what the Bible actually says, instead of what people say the Bible says.