"“I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.”
― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please watch this video before you read this, if you can, just so you understand the points I'm addressing in this post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orbnwkyZ2f0&feature=youtu.be
Video Response
First, I will tell you I've read your text book, so I've got a good idea of what it's telling you to be "true" and not so.
The title makes me giggle.
One thing I addressed in a blog recently was the fact that christianity, islam, and hinduism are the three major world religions. Thus, for them to claim persecution or fear of talking about their faith is simply either personal choice not to discuss it with others, or they are lying. These groups are given so much leeway in the law and in everyday life that they don't fear putting stickers on their minivans nor wearing "Soldier of God" t-shirts.
I appreciate your viewpoint as to evangelizing and have no interest in discouraging your interests; what I will say is, my fundamentalist Christian father was approached on the street by another Christian evangelizing and it angered him. His comment, which I do agree with, was "I'm glad you found Christ, sir, and I'm glad he makes a difference in your life. He makes a difference in mine too. However, I know I would appreciate not being approached by strangers to discuss what should remain a personal matter to each person. Be well."
Again, simply showing another viewpoint, but I'm not trying to change you.
Religion should, in my opinion, be private, and mean its own thing to each person. This moves into your point about "we all must believe something" and how we go about choosing religion.
Here is where I'm going to school you a bit on atheism and agnosticism, as you don't get these viewpoints from your texts.
Atheism comes from the greek word "atheos" which, broken down, means this (and only this):
a=without
theos=belief in gods
It does NOT mean atheists are nihilists by default (some are but not because of atheism), nor that we have no morals or guiding principles to live by.
It does NOT mean we don't understand the principles of truth and falsehood. It does NOT mean many of us were never church-goers (many of the most militant atheists are formerly religious, and most atheists in general have spent time reading the holy books--we are trying to understand how these things can be believed, and what people are professing to believe in--often without their knowing it).
It also does NOT, in any way, state "i believe in nothing", "i can't believe because nothing is defined", nor that truth is a relativity preventing us from believing.
Atheists believe in many things, but most of us require proof of some sort to believe the utterly unbelievable claims of the bible/quran/torah/etc...this is not yet something that has been shown to exist.
Atheists in the main also believe that we were created by forces such as the Big Bang, Nebula Theory, Gravity, and other forces and energy in space, which eventually led to water forming, single cells multiplying, evolution taking the lead via genetics/DNA/RNA/MtDNA, and after a few extinction events, humans evolving through natural selection. This is NOT "we were created from nothing"--this is "we were created from things that are so spectacular they deserve credit, not something that wasn't a part of it."
Agnosticism is somewhat different because their point of view is:
I can't know for sure that nothing exists, but I don't believe that it does.
There are many agnostic atheists I could point you to who would happily and kindly explain this viewpoint better than I am able, but essentially the agnostic admits that they have no way of knowing for certain whether any gods exist, but again, having no proof of their existence (proof is a key aspect of any debate such as this...facts from non-believers tend to come from sources anyone can find, whereas believers tend to use their holy books, which is circular...but I digress) they think it is likely that gods do not exist.
Agnostics are less certain than atheists regarding existence, but this has nothing to do with the relativity of truth.
I won't get into pantheism, but it's a little different than your understanding--it's more of a reverence for life.
People don't want to choose religion for many reasons. Often, people are spiritual and have a relationship with some kind of higher power but don't like the structure. Others simply don't agree with the teachings of their church/temple/etc. Many atheists are turned off by the heavy misogyny, homophobia, pedophilia, violence, and utter lack of humanity "god" shows throughout the holy books. People have a right to be skeptical when they are handed a book, told it's the only way to live correctly, and asked for money while being told how NOT to burn in hell.
One does not have to have religion to have morals, after all. Nor does one have to be weak not to have religion. At the end of the day, knowing you live your life without an invisible dictator telling you what to do to avoid punishment is NOT weak, nor does it require a belief system of an organized fashion.
Truth is absolutely relative. There are facts, which are provable truths, and there are scientific theories, which are also provable truths; there are also the Ten Commandments, which are taken as truths but in reality are not facts. They are not provable.
Truths are different for different people because in this life, the only absolutes are death and taxes...and many religious would take umbrage with the death part. People are different, from different places, with different ideas, parents, social settings, teachings, etc. To expect one great truth to emerge is simply wishful thinking.
An example: for you, god is the truth. For myself, god is a false deity created by man. Are both statements true? They are both true opinions. They are not facts, they are relative to the lives we live, and cannot be taken as absolutes because times change, as you noted, and so do people.
You gave the example of gravity. Did gravity exist before Newton "saw" it in action? Yes. That is a truth, because it is a provable fact. You stated that people used to believe in the theory of a flat earth. They were certain this was true, and many died because of it. Was it true in the end? No. But for hundreds of years, it was--even today, some people believe the earth is flat (I'm serious, you can google this). My point? Truth is relative. It's relative to who, where, what, why, and how a person lives, eats, drinks, thinks, learns, speaks, etc.
Views about the world changed before, so why can't they change again? This is a key element of society.
To get back to truth, you stated it is "precise or absolute" or "it creates a lie or falsity." This is a fallacy, for as I have shown, truth is relative. Truths change, and they do counteract themselves. This is not a lie being righted, it's simply a change in the thought process.
Your example of the elephant parable here, however, was a good choice to show how relative truths actually are and how they may be true only until the facts are revealed. It was also well told.
While it is definitely true we cannot comprehend every fact given to us, atheism allows for this in that we are trying to comprehend these facts, not relative human truths. The choices we make as to what we will learn or be taught do, indeed, make us ignorant to any alternate ideas.
If no one can know the whole truth, then how can truth itself possibly be "true for everyone, at all times, in all situations"? How can you possibly say that what is true for you in one situation (for example, the guy who told me I shouldn't volunteer because I'm atheist, whom you agreed with) MUST be true for me as well? It clearly isn't, nor can it be. We are two different people. Facts are true and provable. Truth is simply the way one looks at the world.
I'll pass by your assertion that truth builds toward faith, because the "evidence" part hasn't been factually proven.
Doubting religion and disbelieving that it is the truth (that the truth doesn't exist)is absolutely not false, nor is it self-defeating. It is honest. If you never question yourself, you can't know yourself. If you don't question the status quo, you wind up in servitude. To state that doubt is self-defeating assumes that there is only one answer to be had, and we both know that isn't true.
I'm not really certain why you chose to use John 18:37-38 as an example as it didn't really fit into the point you were making, but that's your choice.
To wrap up, you again stated "Truth must exist, if it exists any counteraction must be a lie."
I ask you, have you read through your bible and checked out the contradictions and half-truths held within it? Have you taken the time to learn about the times it was written--Nazareth, for example, wasn't a city until AFTER the birth of Jesus, there was no census, none of the gospels match, most of it was censored and changed...i could go on. The point is, how do you know YOUR truth is actually...true? And if it isn't, how can you posit that any denial of YOUR personal truth is a falsehood?
Please watch this video before you read this, if you can, just so you understand the points I'm addressing in this post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orbnwkyZ2f0&feature=youtu.be
Video Response
First, I will tell you I've read your text book, so I've got a good idea of what it's telling you to be "true" and not so.
The title makes me giggle.
One thing I addressed in a blog recently was the fact that christianity, islam, and hinduism are the three major world religions. Thus, for them to claim persecution or fear of talking about their faith is simply either personal choice not to discuss it with others, or they are lying. These groups are given so much leeway in the law and in everyday life that they don't fear putting stickers on their minivans nor wearing "Soldier of God" t-shirts.
I appreciate your viewpoint as to evangelizing and have no interest in discouraging your interests; what I will say is, my fundamentalist Christian father was approached on the street by another Christian evangelizing and it angered him. His comment, which I do agree with, was "I'm glad you found Christ, sir, and I'm glad he makes a difference in your life. He makes a difference in mine too. However, I know I would appreciate not being approached by strangers to discuss what should remain a personal matter to each person. Be well."
Again, simply showing another viewpoint, but I'm not trying to change you.
Religion should, in my opinion, be private, and mean its own thing to each person. This moves into your point about "we all must believe something" and how we go about choosing religion.
Here is where I'm going to school you a bit on atheism and agnosticism, as you don't get these viewpoints from your texts.
Atheism comes from the greek word "atheos" which, broken down, means this (and only this):
a=without
theos=belief in gods
It does NOT mean atheists are nihilists by default (some are but not because of atheism), nor that we have no morals or guiding principles to live by.
It does NOT mean we don't understand the principles of truth and falsehood. It does NOT mean many of us were never church-goers (many of the most militant atheists are formerly religious, and most atheists in general have spent time reading the holy books--we are trying to understand how these things can be believed, and what people are professing to believe in--often without their knowing it).
It also does NOT, in any way, state "i believe in nothing", "i can't believe because nothing is defined", nor that truth is a relativity preventing us from believing.
Atheists believe in many things, but most of us require proof of some sort to believe the utterly unbelievable claims of the bible/quran/torah/etc...this is not yet something that has been shown to exist.
Atheists in the main also believe that we were created by forces such as the Big Bang, Nebula Theory, Gravity, and other forces and energy in space, which eventually led to water forming, single cells multiplying, evolution taking the lead via genetics/DNA/RNA/MtDNA, and after a few extinction events, humans evolving through natural selection. This is NOT "we were created from nothing"--this is "we were created from things that are so spectacular they deserve credit, not something that wasn't a part of it."
Agnosticism is somewhat different because their point of view is:
I can't know for sure that nothing exists, but I don't believe that it does.
There are many agnostic atheists I could point you to who would happily and kindly explain this viewpoint better than I am able, but essentially the agnostic admits that they have no way of knowing for certain whether any gods exist, but again, having no proof of their existence (proof is a key aspect of any debate such as this...facts from non-believers tend to come from sources anyone can find, whereas believers tend to use their holy books, which is circular...but I digress) they think it is likely that gods do not exist.
Agnostics are less certain than atheists regarding existence, but this has nothing to do with the relativity of truth.
I won't get into pantheism, but it's a little different than your understanding--it's more of a reverence for life.
People don't want to choose religion for many reasons. Often, people are spiritual and have a relationship with some kind of higher power but don't like the structure. Others simply don't agree with the teachings of their church/temple/etc. Many atheists are turned off by the heavy misogyny, homophobia, pedophilia, violence, and utter lack of humanity "god" shows throughout the holy books. People have a right to be skeptical when they are handed a book, told it's the only way to live correctly, and asked for money while being told how NOT to burn in hell.
One does not have to have religion to have morals, after all. Nor does one have to be weak not to have religion. At the end of the day, knowing you live your life without an invisible dictator telling you what to do to avoid punishment is NOT weak, nor does it require a belief system of an organized fashion.
Truth is absolutely relative. There are facts, which are provable truths, and there are scientific theories, which are also provable truths; there are also the Ten Commandments, which are taken as truths but in reality are not facts. They are not provable.
Truths are different for different people because in this life, the only absolutes are death and taxes...and many religious would take umbrage with the death part. People are different, from different places, with different ideas, parents, social settings, teachings, etc. To expect one great truth to emerge is simply wishful thinking.
An example: for you, god is the truth. For myself, god is a false deity created by man. Are both statements true? They are both true opinions. They are not facts, they are relative to the lives we live, and cannot be taken as absolutes because times change, as you noted, and so do people.
You gave the example of gravity. Did gravity exist before Newton "saw" it in action? Yes. That is a truth, because it is a provable fact. You stated that people used to believe in the theory of a flat earth. They were certain this was true, and many died because of it. Was it true in the end? No. But for hundreds of years, it was--even today, some people believe the earth is flat (I'm serious, you can google this). My point? Truth is relative. It's relative to who, where, what, why, and how a person lives, eats, drinks, thinks, learns, speaks, etc.
Views about the world changed before, so why can't they change again? This is a key element of society.
To get back to truth, you stated it is "precise or absolute" or "it creates a lie or falsity." This is a fallacy, for as I have shown, truth is relative. Truths change, and they do counteract themselves. This is not a lie being righted, it's simply a change in the thought process.
Your example of the elephant parable here, however, was a good choice to show how relative truths actually are and how they may be true only until the facts are revealed. It was also well told.
While it is definitely true we cannot comprehend every fact given to us, atheism allows for this in that we are trying to comprehend these facts, not relative human truths. The choices we make as to what we will learn or be taught do, indeed, make us ignorant to any alternate ideas.
If no one can know the whole truth, then how can truth itself possibly be "true for everyone, at all times, in all situations"? How can you possibly say that what is true for you in one situation (for example, the guy who told me I shouldn't volunteer because I'm atheist, whom you agreed with) MUST be true for me as well? It clearly isn't, nor can it be. We are two different people. Facts are true and provable. Truth is simply the way one looks at the world.
I'll pass by your assertion that truth builds toward faith, because the "evidence" part hasn't been factually proven.
Doubting religion and disbelieving that it is the truth (that the truth doesn't exist)is absolutely not false, nor is it self-defeating. It is honest. If you never question yourself, you can't know yourself. If you don't question the status quo, you wind up in servitude. To state that doubt is self-defeating assumes that there is only one answer to be had, and we both know that isn't true.
I'm not really certain why you chose to use John 18:37-38 as an example as it didn't really fit into the point you were making, but that's your choice.
To wrap up, you again stated "Truth must exist, if it exists any counteraction must be a lie."
I ask you, have you read through your bible and checked out the contradictions and half-truths held within it? Have you taken the time to learn about the times it was written--Nazareth, for example, wasn't a city until AFTER the birth of Jesus, there was no census, none of the gospels match, most of it was censored and changed...i could go on. The point is, how do you know YOUR truth is actually...true? And if it isn't, how can you posit that any denial of YOUR personal truth is a falsehood?
No comments:
Post a Comment