I've noticed many of us on these forums use certain words without actually understanding their usage and concepts. Instead of rehashing my thoughts on the subject every time I see an example I'm going to condense the entire subject in this thread for future reference.
Concepts such as:
- Correct, Definate, Evidence, Fact, Know, Proof, Truth.
Whilst these words can be used in reference to faith, their meanings are unequivocal in terms of conceptualisation. For example:
First off, when taken at face value the person stating the above has likely never been to space nor circumnavigated the globe to provide reference for themselves. But even if they have, there is a chance they could be hallucinating, having an outer body experience, dreaming, dreaming from birth, living in a parallel universe, etc...
Which would by direct extension mean that they don't know. That there is no irrefutable proof, only reference in which to base a belief.
Therefore the second quote, whilst seemingly ambiguous at first would - rather ironically - be a far more accurate use of language and concepts. I hope this has clarified a seemingly murky area for many users.
Of course, I wouldn't expect someone to be so pedantic about these concepts when going about their day to day lives, but in a philosophical and/or religious debate accuracy is of paramount importance.
Now, on to these concepts:
- Logic, Rationale.
The two are, like absolutely everything we as humans perceive, subjective.
That doesn't necessarily mean a religion is what you want it to be, but it does mean that we as humans do not have the ability to discern fact from fiction, truth from false, reality from fantasy.
That means I cannot call someone's behaviour "irrational" nor "illogical" as a definate. The following examples should cover this scenario.
- Belief, Reference.
Belief is based on reference. Without reference, belief cannot exist.
When you were pulled from your mother's womb, assuming you didn't have a C Sec or were birthed in another way, your senses provided you with the reference to see the world and indeed believe in the world around you.
You Saw, Tasted, Smelt, Heard and Felt - and so you based your belief. But you are still blind, because you are not all knowing. For example:
- If you see a man walk into a room, you don't know he walked into a room, you believe he did based on the reference your eyes have provided you with.
Similarly, if you have theorised something you decide whether or not to believe in it based on the reference you provide yourself with.
This thread was conceived because I was tired of hearing the same argument from different people. I was tired of hearing these concepts bashed into the ground by those who would ironically believe they were in a position to impart knowledge based on their own beliefs. I am aware that the same irony would seem to ring true here, but I needed to vent and I needed this thread to stockpile my argument the next time I see someone fall into the perceived fallacies I've listed above.
Long story short, humans as we are lack the ability to know.
What are your views on the concepts I've listed above?
Cheers.
Concepts such as:
- Correct, Definate, Evidence, Fact, Know, Proof, Truth.
Whilst these words can be used in reference to faith, their meanings are unequivocal in terms of conceptualisation. For example:
The first is a flawed statement. Whilst it would seem I am being overly pedantic about their usage, I believe for this statement to be true, the person would need an infinite knowledge and would therefore need to be infinity, for to have an infinite knowledge one would have to encompass everything.
First off, when taken at face value the person stating the above has likely never been to space nor circumnavigated the globe to provide reference for themselves. But even if they have, there is a chance they could be hallucinating, having an outer body experience, dreaming, dreaming from birth, living in a parallel universe, etc...
Which would by direct extension mean that they don't know. That there is no irrefutable proof, only reference in which to base a belief.
Therefore the second quote, whilst seemingly ambiguous at first would - rather ironically - be a far more accurate use of language and concepts. I hope this has clarified a seemingly murky area for many users.
Of course, I wouldn't expect someone to be so pedantic about these concepts when going about their day to day lives, but in a philosophical and/or religious debate accuracy is of paramount importance.
-----
Now, on to these concepts:
- Logic, Rationale.
The two are, like absolutely everything we as humans perceive, subjective.
That doesn't necessarily mean a religion is what you want it to be, but it does mean that we as humans do not have the ability to discern fact from fiction, truth from false, reality from fantasy.
That means I cannot call someone's behaviour "irrational" nor "illogical" as a definate. The following examples should cover this scenario.
One can only see from one's own viewpoint. As explained earlier in the thread I believe none of us have infinite knowledge, therefore we cannot ascertain anything unequivocally. The first falls into this fallacy, affirming the subject's rationale and logic as misguided. The second is subjective, which I believe is an accurate way of expressing one's opinion whilst remaining true to the concept of reference and belief - as explained below.
-----
- Belief, Reference.
Belief is based on reference. Without reference, belief cannot exist.
When you were pulled from your mother's womb, assuming you didn't have a C Sec or were birthed in another way, your senses provided you with the reference to see the world and indeed believe in the world around you.
You Saw, Tasted, Smelt, Heard and Felt - and so you based your belief. But you are still blind, because you are not all knowing. For example:
- If you see a man walk into a room, you don't know he walked into a room, you believe he did based on the reference your eyes have provided you with.
Similarly, if you have theorised something you decide whether or not to believe in it based on the reference you provide yourself with.
-----
This thread was conceived because I was tired of hearing the same argument from different people. I was tired of hearing these concepts bashed into the ground by those who would ironically believe they were in a position to impart knowledge based on their own beliefs. I am aware that the same irony would seem to ring true here, but I needed to vent and I needed this thread to stockpile my argument the next time I see someone fall into the perceived fallacies I've listed above.
Long story short, humans as we are lack the ability to know.
What are your views on the concepts I've listed above?
Cheers.
)
)
