Both science and truth are such wide open areas. I think it is worth narrowing the matter down to the more specific. It might be worth you spelling out the actual questions you think are the underlying ones relating to truth. — Jack Cummins
I see getting a job just as a way of supporting myself financially in order to do the more important 'work' of art, writing and philosophy. — Jack Cummins
Yesterday, I was reading a book, 'The Death of Truth,' by Michiko Katutani(2018). He argues that relativism has been rising since the 1960s, originally adopted by the left wing, and later by some right wing ones, leading to the idea 'that there are no universal truths, only smaller personal truths_ perceptions shaped by the cultural and social forces of one's day. — Jack Cummins
It is the cultural process whereby we demonstrate or prove to each other our reasons for believing what we believe. — Metaphysician Undercover
Of course, views may change at different times in our lives depending on how the facts present themselves to us. — Jack Cummins
But in my own authentic understanding I often look at matters, especially in the area of religion and can see the arguments on both sides, with my own opinions tipping from one direction to another from time to time. The question on which I hover on the point of uncertainty most is the subject of my previous thread, the question of life after death. I tend to go around in circles. Most people tend to think yes, or no, but in this respect, there must be a real answer, so obviously some are wrong, but perhaps it doesn't matter really. — Jack Cummins
I think one other issue can sway subjective truth is what we wish the truth to be. It is easy to filter beliefs according to what we wish the truth to be.
Or, in my case, I sometimes think of the worst possibilities, especially if I am in a negative state of mind. Then, building up my fears, I then have to convince myself that is not true. — Jack Cummins
In the past, we had myth and religion to process the justification for what we believe. While knowing the truth has always been important, only in modern times has that meant science. The US never did develop a strong relationship with philosophy because of reliance on religion, and perhaps today that is a problem? — Athena
The US never did develop a strong relationship with philosophy because of reliance on religion, and perhaps today that is a problem?
— Athena
The problem is that science doesn't really give us truth, as per my discussion with Jack above. What gives us truth is a particular attitude of honesty, and it is probably the case that religion would be better suited toward culturing this attitude. — Metaphysician Undercover
but truth being associated with correspondence, involves how we employ those principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
We seem to have a cultural divide between those who rely on religion and those who rely on science, and science lacks the qualities of cultivating culture, right? Without history and philosophy, I fear we are in deep trouble. — Athena
The principles of religion, and for my point it’s Christianity, were and still are, if chosen, still as relevant as philosophy is in its relationship to science. I guess I’m saying I still see religion and philosophy as one compared to science. — Brett
I think the appeal of Science (Engineering; Technology) is primarily to those who think Abstractly & Reductively, while the appeal of Mysticism (Spiritualism, Religion) is to those who think Concretely & Holistically. That may be an over-simplification of a complex topic, but it helps me to understand how & why reasonable people can hold such divergent worldviews.I have to admit that even though I try to hold onto the objectivity of science the poetry of mysticism is my real language. — Jack Cummins
True. Typically, scientists don't claim to reveal absolute Truths, but merely useful facts that we can rely on for practical applications. But many Western religions make bold assertions of divine revelations of Eternal Truth. That is the root of the Science vs Religion controversy. I agree that religions would be less socially divisive, if they promoted the character trait of honest appraisal (self-skepticism) of one's own beliefs, with as much enthusiasm as they promote skepticism toward the unorthodox doctrines of other sects. :smile:The problem is that science doesn't really give us truth, as per my discussion with Jack above. What gives us truth is a particular attitude of honesty, and it is probably the case that religion would be better suited toward culturing this attitude. Science gives us useful principles, hypotheses, but truth being associated with correspondence, involves how we employ those principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
don't think it is correct to class religion and philosophy together, and separate science from these two. — Metaphysician Undercover
What separates religion from philosophy, is that religion is always structured, as an institution. — Metaphysician Undercover
The individual will need to turn to philosophy in order to develop the means for making an informed judgement. — Metaphysician Undercover
In the beginning I don’t think that’s necessarily true. It’s definitely become structured and as a consequence a little irrelevant. But don’t you think that despite philosophy’s openness to questioning it largely falls back on logic and reason, which is about as structured as you can get. And the same with science. — Brett
I certainly value the need for making informed judgements or choices. But it seems to me that some choices can only be made on the basis of either religion, philosophy or science. Are all philosophical choices correct? Or science? Or religion? What was the decision to drop a bomb on Hiroshima based on? — Brett
The reason I do believe that it was education that gave me a whole load of clashing is that I know that many people I went to school with have struggled with the contradictions too. In fact, two of the friends I am in touch with from school have had psychotic breakdowns, in which the context is of a religious nature, involving ideas such as the devil and the fallen angels. — Jack Cummins
I do think that if I had not read like I do, ideas in the social sciences, as well as philosophy, I think that rather than just spending time contemplating ideas, I could have become psychotic. — Jack Cummins
The problem is that science doesn't really give us truth, as per my discussion with Jack above. What gives us truth is a particular attitude of honesty, and it is probably the case that religion would be better suited toward culturing this attitude. Science gives us useful principles, hypotheses, but truth being associated with correspondence, involves how we employ those principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think the relationship the US had with religion is not so removed from philosophy as Athena might think. It seems to me that religion was a way of contemplating the world and consequently the idea of reality. It as the truth.
I don’t think myth and religion was used, as suggested by Athena, to process the justification for what people believed, I think it was what they believed, what else did they have? But somehow I don’t think religion can go back to what it was and by that I means particular attitude. Of course people will claim that religion was always a lie. But in time philosophical and scientific ideas are proven wrong, which doesn’t necessarily mean they were a lie. — Brett
When my exploration found that Theosophy was mostly Sophistry, I abandoned that path, and went-on to explore more fruitful concepts. Blavatsky & Steiner were very convincing to those who were Mystically inclined. But I'm more Practically inclined --- more like an engineer than an artist. :cool:I was interested that you explored the area of theosophy. — Jack Cummins
Yes. Capra's synthesis of Western Science and Eastern Philosophy was more suitable to my taste. I've read several of his books. He may be considered fringey by some of his peers, but his ideas are more practical than most mystical notions. My personal worldview is intended to be a "Systems View" of life :smile:I find the systems view of life, advocated by Fritjof Capra to be extremely helpful as it is holistic and a good basis for drawing upon a variety of other, divergent perspectives. — Jack Cummins
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.