Searching for GOD...

[SteveH]

OC,

Subjectively yes (though as others have already said, it's a more nuanced story than that) but objectively it's entirely possible to be wrong - what you're thinking (that "souls" exist for example) could be quite wrong even though you think it entirely sincerely.

But you cannot be wrong about whether you think that souls exist. The thought may be wrong, but that you think it is not. I currently think that Jacob Ree-Smug is a hypocritical twunt. I may be wrong about that, but I am not, and cannot be, wrong in thinking that I think it.

[SteveH]

OC,

It would be helpful if you told us which post you're replying to. Thanks.

If you mean #34045 , I meant the previous two posts, from NS and Wigginhall.

[Nearly Sane]

You're showing absolutely fuck-all.

That would be leaving aside the issues with dualism implied in the self describing itself as happy, and that scientifically we can show that any knowledge of what we describe as self is partial, and that it would seem possible to feel multiple 'feelings' and that we might think of as happy at one time may not be consistent as another time?

[SteveH]

That would be leaving aside the issues with dualism implied in the self describing itself as happy, and that scientifically we can show that any knowledge of what we describe as self is partial, and that it would seem possible to feel multiple 'feelings' and that we might think of as happy at one time may not be consistent as another time?

I've just modified that post as being unnecessarily rude, but I'm sorely tempted to do a repeat performance.

[Nearly Sane]

I've just modified that post as being unnecessarily rude, but I'm sorely tempted to do a repeat performance.

It would be better if you just tried to actually with what people are saying than comment on any rudeness or not in your posts. Your whole idea is based on an extremely basic idea of the self that isn't born out by science, or indeed many people's experiences.

[wigginhall]

An interesting point concerns fake feelings, where I can put on a feeling.   But of course, this can go on without me realizing it.  So is the feeling really fake, or half-fake ?   Don't know.

[SteveH]

Oh FFS! This is so fucking simple and obvious! I am currently feeling frustrated and cross - how can I possibly be mistaken, and think that I'm feeling calm and happy?

[bluehillside Retd.]

OC,

But you cannot be wrong about whether you think that souls exist. The thought may be wrong, but that you think it is not. I currently think that Jacob Ree-Smug is a hypocritical twunt. I may be wrong about that, but I am not, and cannot be, wrong in thinking that I think it.

Yes, that's what I was saying - but that category of knowledge is entirely internal whereas knowledge mapped onto a world "out there" is a different category of of knowledge, which is the argument I was making to Gabriella. As to whether you can be wrong about believing you think something it does seem to me to be more nuanced than that - what is this "I" that thinks that, how would it process thinking several, sometimes contradictory, things at the same time etc? - but I take the point at a general level.       

[Nearly Sane]

Oh FFS! This is so fucking simple and obvious! I am currently feeling frustrated and cross - how can I possibly be mistaken, and think that I'm feeling calm and happy?

Except it doesn't really stack up with the issues that we have imperfect knowledge of what we might feel, and that what we describe as a particular feeling isn't consistent, and that philosophically and scientifically the idea of self is far from simple and obvious.

[SteveH]

BHS - snd I take your point.
NS - I give up.

[wigginhall]

I don't think the human psyche is amenable to logic.   For example, I can feel contradictory feelings, e.g., love and hate, anger and compassion, and so on.   In fact, as I've got older, this has increased, so-called ambivalence.   And there is also the issue of depth, one feeling can hide another.  This is notoriously true of depression, which might cover up anger, and that might hide sadness.   I don't know at what point we say that one of the feelings is real, they all are.

Also compartmentalization is a big issue, I can have different feelings running simultaneously, in different zones.  Quite normal, I think, and not multiple personality!

[Dicky Underpants]

I don't think the human psyche is amenable to logic.   For example, I can feel contradictory feelings, e.g., love and hate, anger and compassion, and so on.   In fact, as I've got older, this has increased, so-called ambivalence.   And there is also the issue of depth, one feeling can hide another.  This is notoriously true of depression, which might cover up anger, and that might hide sadness.   I don't know at what point we say that one of the feelings is real, they all are.

Also compartmentalization is a big issue, I can have different feelings running simultaneously, in different zones.  Quite normal, I think, and not multiple personality!

Hi wiggi

I'm with you and NS on this, and think that Steve's attitude is altogether too simplistic. I don't know whether Camus truly perceived the complexity of these issues, but the ending to his L'Etranger seems a bit more than a 'deepity':

It was as if that great rush of anger had washed me clean, emptied me of hope, and, gazing up at the dark sky spangled with its signs and stars, for the first time, the first, I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe.
To feel it so like myself, indeed, so brotherly, made me realize that I'd been happy, and that I was happy still. For all to be accomplished, for me to feel less lonely, all that remained to hope was that on the day of my execution there should be a huge crowd of spectators and that they should greet me with howls of execration.

[wigginhall]

Great quote, Dicky.   It reminds me of quite sadistic clients I used to have, who would get furious and rant at me, about
how useless I was, and one day it dawned on me how happy they were doing this, which reluctantly they confirmed.   

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Oh FFS! This is so fucking simple and obvious! I am currently feeling frustrated and cross - how can I possibly be mistaken, and think that I'm feeling calm and happy?

Hello,

I have had the dubious pleasure of suffering from both depression and anxiety. I can assure you that it is perfectly possible to be very uncertain about what your current state of mind is. I have definitely experienced moments when I felt extreme anxiety but knew that I was perfectly safe and calm. It is a very strange feeling indeed to have a pounding heart, be sweating profusely but know that I was in perfectly safe and there was nothing to feel frightened about. So I simouoltaneoulsy experienced fear whilst at the same time felt safe.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Try the word “analogy” for starters.

Not sure why you’ve revisited the catholic document issue, but it’s so long ago that if you think it said only “knowledge of our faith beliefs” or similar you’ll have to cite it.

Ok. Here is the citation:
http://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/images/RECD_2012.pdf

Page 6

The aims of Religious Education:

• To present engagingly a comprehensive content which is the basis of knowledge and understanding of the Catholic faith;

Wrong again. You “know” that there’s an Eiffel tower in Paris because you believe you’ve been there; you “know” about the Parthenon because you believe that you’ve seen photos of it. These things are beliefs, as indeed ultimately is all knowledge – how for example would you eliminate the possibility that you’re actually just a piece of junk computer code programmed to believe these things? What we can also do with our beliefs though is to sift them probabilistically by employing the tools we (appear to) have of reason and evidence. By these means we derive working, provisional truths we can use as solutions. When by contrast our beliefs concern matters that fail or are not apt for these tests (leprechauns, “soul” etc) we can say that there are no good reasons available to us to think them probabilistically to be objectively true for anyone else.

This is basic theory of knowledge 101 by the way, and I have explained it to you before.

Yes this is all very interesting if Alan was using the philosophical terms as above. However, back to the way Alan is using words on this forum when discussing his beliefs. Alan’s belief about dualism being true is not worked probabilistically (as there is no method to calculate a probability, even if he was inclined to do so) but seems to be based on his perceptions of reality (assuming we are not all in a Matrix) and also based on his belief that the immaterial mind/ soul/ consciousness has separate properties from the physical body and is therefore not 'out there' in the sense it can be objectively proved. No one has identified the properties of the mind/soul/consciousness therefore he can’t test or justify his beliefs about these properties.

OK, now to AB. In his head, he has experienced “soul” every bit as much as you’ve experienced the Eiffel tower and pictures of the Parthenon. It’s as real to him as they are to you. So far as he’s concerned, epistemically there’s no difference at all between these narratives.

That’s something Alan would have to clarify as to whether he sees a difference between my experience of visiting the Eiffel Tower and his experience of free will.  I can take Alan to the Eiffel Tower and we can climb up it and both agree that we are experiencing the Eiffel Tower in pretty much the same way. But if Alan and I can’t agree that I am experiencing dualism or the influence of a soul the same way that he appears to be experiencing it, this would create a difference in his perception of the Eiffel Tower vs soul. He would however, continue to believe that an immaterial soul/ conscious awareness is true but without being able to show a justification that would cause me to share his belief that the soul/ conscious awareness is true.

The fact that any test of reason and evidence falsifies his claim of objective fact for “soul” is another matter, and whenever it's raised he runs away from the problem in any case.

Hardly surprising. He doesn't have evidence that would convince you, which means he restates his belief of what's true without being able to justify it to the satisfaction of others, presumably because one of the reasons he is on here is to evangelise. 

On the other hand, so far as I know he would not claim his beliefs and opinions about gender (or language or aesthetics, or….) to be objectively true for other people at all. That’s why, so far as he’s concerned, there’s no “dualism” at all, and it’s why your attempt at an analogy fails: to AB, “soul” is objective, factual, “out there”; gender, spit infinitives etc though are subjective, opinion, personal to the individual.

I was not comparing Alan’s belief about souls with Alan’s beliefs about gender. I was comparing Alan’s beliefs about souls and dualism with the beliefs held by some entirely separate transgender activist who does believe in dualism when it comes to gender and does see it as fact rather than an opinion. And the actual point I made was that society seems to be able to accommodate this form of dualism as fact.

Wrong again – see above. Claiming to have addressed something but being unable to tell us where you did it isn’t the same thing as addressing something.

Not yet you haven’t. Just repeating the same analogy isn’t the same as explaining why it isn’t false.

The reason it isn't false is because I am comparing 2 types of dualism, as I have explained in pretty much every post I wrote since I made the comparison.   

Fallacy of pejorative language – asking someone to be honest isn’t a “schtick”, it’s just asking someone to be honest.

You have not proved that I am not being honest so your request for honesty is just your usual irrelevant, ineffective "schtick". 

I’ve explained to you (yet) again in this reply why the analogy is false – rather than repeat it, why not try at least to tell me why the argument that shows it to be false is wrong? I know it’s hard to pin you down because you keep shifting ground (“here’s an analogy”; “it’s not an analogy”; “I’m just telling you how I treat his claims”; “OK, it’s an analogy” etc) but if we can pin you down to having tried an analogy (for the reason I explained in reply 34024) why not now either defend it or retract it?       

"Hard to pin me down"? Thanks for another example from your repertoire on here. I don't just make one point at a time, so it is possible in a single post for for me to interpret Alan's words and also tell you how I treat his claims. It does not need to be either/or. You haven't shown as false the comparison between Alan's dualism and the dualism of a transgender activist who believes gender to be innate and fact. And like I said, my point was that society seems to accommodate some forms of dualism.

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella

You said:

The reason it isn't false is because I am comparing 2 types of dualism

That's not how it has appeared to me. I have seen it as you trying  to compare two different categories in one dualism, but I'll read others' responses withinterest.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella

That's not how it has appeared to me. I have seen it as you trying  to compare two different categories in one dualism, but I'll read others' responses withinterest.

Susan - ok it's possible. Can i clarify?

I assume you mean the one dualism is mind-body dualism whereby a person thinks their conscious awareness/mind/soul/ who they are in essemce is a separate non-physical substance from their physical body?

Regarding the separate categories - if gender was initially considered a binary social construct, a concept of difference between men and women invented by us, but is now considered by some trans activists as something you are born with i.e. an innate non-physical, non-binary gender and not something constructed, I would be interested to know how an innate gender can be tested any more than a non-physical conscious awareness/ mind/ soul can?

[SteveH]

I don't think the human psyche is amenable to logic.   For example, I can feel contradictory feelings, e.g., love and hate, anger and compassion, and so on.   In fact, as I've got older, this has increased, so-called ambivalence.   And there is also the issue of depth, one feeling can hide another.  This is notoriously true of depression, which might cover up anger, and that might hide sadness.   I don't know at what point we say that one of the feelings is real, they all are.

Also compartmentalization is a big issue, I can have different feelings running simultaneously, in different zones.  Quite normal, I think, and not multiple personality!

All true, and all completely irrelevant to the point under discussion.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok. Here is the citation:
http://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/images/RECD_2012.pdf

Page 6

The aims of Religious Education:

• To present engagingly a comprehensive content which is the basis of knowledge and understanding of the Catholic faith;

I'm not entirely sure of the context of discussion here as I've not involved myself in this thread much.

But if the implication from you is that Catholic education is purely about belief and faith and the only knowledge aspect is 'knowledge of the Catholic faith' then you are entirely wrong. Further to quote one line from a 70-odd page document out of context is rather disingenuous regardless of whether you provide a link to the entire document.

So does this document imply objective truths, rather than merely subjective beliefs/faith - darned right it does. Indeed the word truth appears no less than 46 times. As far as I'm aware truth is defined as something that accords with fact or reality not something that is merely a belief or faith.

This document makes it clear time after time that the catholic faith or belief is the truth - so it goes well beyond teaching about belief/faith, beyond teaching belief/faith into the territory of teaching that catholic belief/faith is objectively true.

So, just a couple of lines below your selective quote in the list of The aims of Religious Education: we have:

'To stimulate pupils’ imagination and provoke a desire for personal meaning as revealed in the truth of the Catholic faith'

The document is littered with references to catholic faith as the truth and this isn't merely a true for us kind of subjective truth, but the clear implication is that it is objectively true for everyone, e.g. on p29 and 30:

'church has fullness of truth and totality of the means of salvation'
'While elements of truth can be found in other churches and religions, the fullness of the means of salvation subsists in the Catholic Church'

The document also implies an equivalence between the objective 'truth' based on evidence found in science with subjective belief implying each are equivalent in terms of truth.

'The church teaches how to relate truths of faith to science'
'There can be no conflict between religious truth and scientific and historical truth'
'The book reveals truth about which science and history can only speculate'

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm not entirely sure of the context of discussion here as I've not involved myself in this thread much.

But if the implication from you is that Catholic education is purely about belief and faith and the only knowledge aspect is 'knowledge of the Catholic faith' then you are entirely wrong. Further to quote one line from a 70-odd page document out of context is rather disingenuous regardless of whether you provide a link to the entire document.

So does this document imply objective truths, rather than merely subjective beliefs/faith - darned right it does. Indeed the word truth appears no less than 46 times. As far as I'm aware truth is defined as something that accords with fact or reality not something that is merely a belief or faith.

This document makes it clear time after time that the catholic faith or belief is the truth - so it goes well beyond teaching about belief/faith, beyond teaching belief/faith into the territory of teaching that catholic belief/faith is objectively true.

So, just a couple of lines below your selective quote in the list of The aims of Religious Education: we have:

'To stimulate pupils’ imagination and provoke a desire for personal meaning as revealed in the truth of the Catholic faith'

Maybe you should have familiarised yourself with the context of the discussion. It is rather bigoted of you to say I am being disingenuous by quoting one line in response to a specific request from a poster to quote that line, even after I provided context by linking to the article. Did you want me to quote the 70 page document?

It is rather hypocritical of you to then go on to quote just one line out of context yourself. If you are trying to imply that the word "truth" is used in this religious context in the same way as realists use the word "truth" i.e an interpretation of objectively verified facts, then you are wrong. Especially as you are quoting a line that says "the truth of the Catholic faith" and "faith" in the context of religion means trust and confidence in the religious doctrines based on spiritual conviction rather than objectively evidenced facts. Religious truths i.e. those that deal with faith impact our internal experiences (this could be in positive or negative ways) and I am not saying that some religious people do not try to pass off religious truths as objectively evidenced truths, but not seeing any evidence of it in this document.

As this is in the context of religious education, the following link on "truth" in the context of religious studies might help:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/rs/god/knowledgerev1.shtml
 

The document is littered with references to catholic faith as the truth and this isn't merely a true for us kind of subjective truth, but the clear implication is that it is objectively true for everyone, e.g. on p29 and 30:

'church has fullness of truth and totality of the means of salvation'
'While elements of truth can be found in other churches and religions, the fullness of the means of salvation subsists in the Catholic Church'

It is rather disingenuous of you to quote out of context from the part of the document called "Areas of Study" of the Catholic faith, specifically the section of study on "Vocation of Mission" (i.e. spreading the message of the faith) and try and pass it off as a statement of objective truth for everyone.

The document also implies an equivalence between the objective 'truth' based on evidence found in science with subjective belief implying each are equivalent in terms of truth.

'The church teaches how to relate truths of faith to science'
'There can be no conflict between religious truth and scientific and historical truth'
'The book reveals truth about which science and history can only speculate'

What page is that? It is rather disingenuous of you to quote a line out of context and give us your interpretation, without giving a page number. Also, since "truths of faith" are not the same as truths obtained from objective evidence, why would you think teaching how the two relate to each other implies equivalence?

Are you arguing that religions should not be allowed to use the word "truth"?

[ProfessorDavey]

Also, since "truths of faith" are not the same as truths obtained from objective evidence, why would you think teaching how the two relate to each other implies equivalence?

I do not accept that there is a special, bespoke, definition of the word truth that somehow applies only to religious faith. The truth is something which accords with fact or reality - that definition is exactly the same whether applied in a scientific, historical or religious context. You cannot simply demand to re-define a word for your own special purposes.

The only appropriate use of the words 'truth' or 'true' in relation to faith, belief or opinion (whether religious or otherwise) are purely subjective ones - in effect 'true for me'.

Religions regularly play fast and loose in misappropriating the words truth and true when in reality all they mean is belief, faith and opinion.

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you arguing that religions should not be allowed to use the word "truth"?

Only when it accords with its definition.

As such it is fine to use truth in a subjective sense - true for me - about belief or faith. In other words 'it is the truth that I believe in god'.

It is not correct to use it in a objective manner - true for everyone - when it is merely a belief or opinion. So it is no appropriate to say 'it is the truth that god is great', than it is to say 'is it the truth that One Direction are the greatest musicians the world have ever seen'. Both are a belief or opinion - they are subjective, they are not objective truths. Yet religions routinely portray subjective beliefs and opinions as objective truths. That is wrong in my view (note that is a subjective opinion and it would be wrong for me to claim that as an objective truth).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do not accept that there is a special, bespoke, definition of the word truth that somehow applies only to religious faith. The truth is something which accords with fact or reality - that definition is exactly the same whether applied in a scientific, historical or religious context. You cannot simply demand to re-define a word for your own special purposes.

The only appropriate use of the words 'truth' or 'true' in relation to faith, belief or opinion (whether religious or otherwise) are purely subjective ones - in effect 'true for me'.

Religions regularly play fast and loose in misappropriating the words truth and true when in reality all they mean is belief, faith and opinion.

Religions appropriated these words long before scientists and mathematians who tend to reduce everything to their own fields. It was not always thus.....it kind of appears with Lord Russell.

True for me thinking from antitheists is itself a reduction to everything aside from science being a matter of taste.

Science is available to everyone but it is limited and not an ontology. what you have Mr Dave seems to be scientism which is.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I do not accept that there is a special, bespoke, definition of the word truth that somehow applies only to religious faith. The truth is something which accords with fact or reality - that definition is exactly the same whether applied in a scientific, historical or religious context. You cannot simply demand to re-define a word for your own special purposes.

The only appropriate use of the words 'truth' or 'true' in relation to faith, belief or opinion (whether religious or otherwise) are purely subjective ones - in effect 'true for me'.

Religions regularly play fast and loose in misappropriating the words truth and true when in reality all they mean is belief, faith and opinion.

It's your right to accept or not accept as you see fit. What you might find a bit more difficult is to dictate to other people or convince them that your view is the correct one. What you might be etter of doing is to find out how they are using the word "truth" rather than making assumptions from your limited perspective.

Were you planning on taking this up with the people who are responsible for the BBC GCSE Bitesize  website?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Only when it accords with its definition.

As such it is fine to use truth in a subjective sense - true for me - about belief or faith. In other words 'it is the truth that I believe in god'.

Good luck with convincing everyone else to accept your view.

It is not correct to use it in a objective manner - true for everyone - when it is merely a belief or opinion. So it is no appropriate to say 'it is the truth that god is great', than it is to say 'is it the truth that One Direction are the greatest musicians the world have ever seen'. Both are a belief or opinion - they are subjective, they are not objective truths. Yet religions routinely portray subjective beliefs and opinions as objective truths. That is wrong in my view (note that is a subjective opinion and it would be wrong for me to claim that as an objective truth).

As far as I know religious faith is based on your own internal convictions of what is spiritually true. Not sure how you plan on the word "truth" being used in that context.