Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Why do people always confuse ontology with epistemology? It's such a common mistake. And why do they confuse any "-ology," any kind of human knowledge, with veracity or objective factuality?

The reason is quite simple: an *ontological* truth can be defined as one pertaining to mathematics, measurement, quantification, and the general an non-changing 'facts' best defined through material science.

No, that only works among people who already embrace "material science" as the relevant arbitor of the truth. But you won't get, say, moral truths or aesthetic truths out of "material science." You won't even get a plausible concept of consciousness or personal identity out of that source.

But "ontology" is broader than you suggest. Ontology focuses on the really-real, to put it colloquially: it answers the sorts of questions as, what are we, where are we, what's here, and what are we working with? It's the basic study of Being, broadly considered, and is not at all subordinated to questions of what we know at a given moment about what we are, where we are, and so on. Our knowledge will change -- and hopefully, continue to improve, though there are no guarantees -- but our level of knowledge about our existence will not change the facts of our situation.

So epistemology is always tentative, partial and revisable; ontology refers to what is, regardless of our knowledge. Ontology is what, in fact, makes possible the reforming of our epistemology.

I gather that your assertion is that the 'epistemological' truths on which the Christian belief-system (and all other religious systems I am aware of) is built are comparable to the 'ontological' truths about which there is no disagreement?

No, wrong. I made no such assertion. You're running wildly into suppositions I neither made nor invited.

"Disagreement" is not of the least importance to the question of truth. As I said, at one time, 100% of the people on Earth believed it was flat. 100% of them were wrong.

All of the truths which are defined through religious belief are of another order.

This is also obviously false. People who believe in a "religion" inevitably also think their religion is "true." There's no other reason for believing one; and if one doesn't believe it's "true," then does one "believe" it at all?

Try not to run wildly off track. It makes you look a bit lunatic when you surmise things that have nothing whatsoever to do with what a person actually said or would say. You might have saved yourself an entire paragraph of irrelevancies.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm a little puzzled by your response, AJ, but, drawing on what I've read of yours in the past, I think that your view is that there are no genuine metaphysical truths, merely metaphysical assertions ("impositions"). Is that sort of what you're getting at here?

It is not 'what I am getting at' but what each of us knows and without any doubt. And you know it as well.

There are physical orders of truth (the best word is fact) and these are of one sort. We all know what these are. We refer to them and we use them every day.

There are other orders of truth which are metaphysical. These truths are not agreed on. They are not 'evident to the eye'. They cannot be spoken of as 'facts'.

This is very basic stuff. And I believe that you will verify this simply by thinking it through.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Try not to run wildly off track. It makes you look a bit lunatic when you surmise things that have nothing whatsoever to do with what a person actually said or would say. You might have saved yourself an entire paragraph of irrelevancies.

In regard to you -- so we are clear -- I regard you not as a lunatic so much as a man who is deeply, and I think permanently, in thrall to an array of religious notions for which I have used the glossary term 'religious fanaticism'. I see religious fanaticism as a bad outcome. It must be overcome.

Over the course of months I have observed you operate within these confused categories. They intermingle with your rational assertions. Yet your manner, your pose as it were, is as a man of reason. Through you, through association with you, I have had to revise my entire orientation. For this reason you have been a real benefit to me.

I've not gone 'off track' and I have only stayed clearly and directly within the necessary track as I understand it. I do not have to 'surmise' irrational beliefs in you or profound confusion. You are thoroughly invested in these. They are it seems a part of your person and your personality. And this is what produces 'religious fanaticism'.

Does this make my position more clear?

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, that only works among people who already embrace "material science" as the relevant arbiter of the truth. But you won't get, say, moral truths or aesthetic truths out of "material science." You won't even get a plausible concept of consciousness or personal identity out of that source.

And I did not say that you would get moral or aesthetic truths from that order of truth I define as material. Moral and aesthetic truths are metaphysical. They are of a category that is different from those conveniently defined as material facts.

What consciousness is, and what 'personal identity' are, all involve metaphysics and metaphysical concepts. There are no fixed definitions in these realms. Thus again these are notions that pertain to another order of knowing.

[Harry Baird]

I'm a little puzzled by your response, AJ, but, drawing on what I've read of yours in the past, I think that your view is that there are no genuine metaphysical truths, merely metaphysical assertions ("impositions"). Is that sort of what you're getting at here?

It is not 'what I am getting at' but what each of us knows and without any doubt. And you know it as well.

There are physical orders of truth (the best word is fact) and these are of one sort. We all know what these are. We refer to them and we use them every day.

There are other orders of truth which are metaphysical. These truths are not agreed on. They are not 'evident to the eye'. They cannot be spoken of as 'facts'.

This is very basic stuff. And I believe that you will verify this simply by thinking it through.

I might agree with you to an extent, depending on what you take to be "metaphysical". It is a word with different senses.

In the sense of "the ontological reality/realities that lie beyond our physical reality", I think that there are genuine metaphysical truths. That is to say that it is a matter of fact (of the same order as those to which you refer as "physical") whether there are or are not such realities, and, equally, if there are such realities, there are genuine matters of fact as to their natures/qualities/etc. Of course, whether we can know those truths is a different matter. This is one sense of "metaphysical" in which I'd disagree with your view [ETA: but only as far as you might deny that there are genuine metaphysical facts in this sense - we are in agreement that, whatever they are, they are not widely known and there is no consensus on them].

Another sense of metaphysical truth in which I'd disagree with your view is as "the necessary/absolute truths of logic and reasoning (broadly conceived)". Logic is, after all, a discipline of metaphysics. It is a genuine matter of fact, and even more incontrovertible than the physical orders of truth, that logical propositions such as "A or not A" are necessarily true.

In the sense, though, of "principles and values - beyond the physical - such as those of morality, ethics, and justice", I agree with you to the extent that these are not always quite as matter of fact and incontrovertible (objective) as the physical or logical orders of truth, but nor are they totally arbitrary (subjective) either, and some are much more objective than others. That's where we have some common ground.

So, there are three types of "metaphysical" truths for you. Pick which one(s) you're working with or stipulate your own!

[Alexis Jacobi]

So epistemology is always tentative, partial and revisable; ontology refers to what is, regardless of our knowledge. Ontology is what, in fact, makes possible the reforming of our epistemology.

Knock off the didactic pose. You have expressed belief in a range of thoroughly irrational -- unbelievable -- things. Those things that you believe -- place them any damned category you wish to -- is the stuff of religious fanaticism and nuttery. You are invested in these things. When you assert such things you reveal your own investiture in irrational categories. This is all that I point out.

Any assertions I make about your won stance only hinge out of these observations which I regard as throughly true. In this sense you are a modern problem and you are part of a modern problem. That modern problem can be talked about with benefit to all.

[Immanuel Can]

Try not to run wildly off track. It makes you look a bit lunatic when you surmise things that have nothing whatsoever to do with what a person actually said or would say. You might have saved yourself an entire paragraph of irrelevancies.

In regard to you

Ad hominem. Stick to the facts, chum. Don't deflect, project, lie or mislead.

Nothing you attributed to me was anything I said.

[Harry Baird]

[To Immanuel Can:] Does this make my position more clear?

I know that this was directed to IC, but, for what it's worth, your position is clear to me, and has been for many pages of this thread. It includes an assertion that IC has irrational beliefs because he interprets the Bible literally. This seems to me to be a factual assertion, however, I don't recall reading any posts in which IC has been directly questioned on this and offered up definitive answers, so, I hope you both won't mind me butting in here to try to gain clarity, by posing a direct question to IC, for which, if he sees fit to engage, I might afterwards have some follow-ups:

IC, is your belief in the Bible literal? That is to say, do you generally (or universally?) think that when it is written in the Bible that "so and so did such and such", that is generally (always?) a factually accurate reference to an actual historical character in an actual historical event? If only generally, and not universally/always, how do you distinguish between those which are and those which aren't?

[Nick_A]

The more acceptable associations a person exhibits, the more knowledge he is said to have.

Who decides what is acceptable?

For you, the computer is the ultimate expression of knowledge.

This kinda illustrates why people get fed up with you. Most people will fill blanks in the canvas to create an image of who they are talking to, but how can anyone have a sensible conversation with someone who is talking to their own fictional character? I don't believe the computer is the ultimate expression of knowledge, and if you are going to insist I do, there is fuck all point continuing.

I learned that the realities expressed in the cave analogy are too disruptive to tolerate.

Far from being disruptive Plato's Cave is part of the furniture. Any student of philosophy will be familiar with its influence on epistemology, it being an expression the fact that we don't see reality as it is, and its influence on Christianity, given Plato's conjecture that the source of the 'shadows' of our perception is a more lovely and perfect world outside.
What is disruptive is your refusal to accept that the reason people disagree with you is that they have their own equally coherent narrative. That's the thing about your knowledge, very few people find your associations acceptable. So by your own criterion, you don't know much.

Uwot

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 12:41 pmI learned that the realities expressed in the cave analogy are too disruptive to tolerate.

Far from being disruptive Plato's Cave is part of the furniture. Any student of philosophy will be familiar with its influence on epistemology, it being an expression the fact that we don't see reality as it is, and its influence on Christianity, given Plato's conjecture that the source of the 'shadows' of our perception is a more lovely and perfect world outside.

What is disruptive is your refusal to accept that the reason people disagree with you is that they have their own equally coherent narrative. That's the thing about your knowledge, very few people find your associations acceptable. So by your own criterion, you don't know much.

Of course people have their own ideas and conclusions and willing to fight and defend them in the most vile ways.

I am looking for those who have gone beyond fighting duality and the shadows on the wall begun to realize why they cannot do it.

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

You want to brag about what you know but the true person of wisdom has come to experience they know nothing and contemplate why they don’t. That is the secret of escaping the prison of Plato’s cave, the goal of philosophy, but is also the most offensive idea for the human ego as has been proven here.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It includes an assertion that IC has irrational beliefs because he interprets the Bible literally.

Despite appearances any issue I have is not with IC as such. The best way to go forward (for those inclined in these directions) is by understanding that we, we moderns, are living in a strange world where two very distinct epitemes operate simultaneously. One seems to be fading out of existence while another has not fully come into being.

For me Immanuel Can is a sort of bit-player in what I see as social and cultural enactments. You will notice that he tends to describe my somewhat harsh assessments as ad hominem. He wishes to assert that some of the notions in which he has stated that he definitely believes (I use the Garden of Eden as a core example) can be discussed 'rationally'. That is, that they can be discussed as if, potentially or possibly, they are perhaps true in an historical sense but we just don't have a way to understand how they are true. He has referred to apologetic and rhetorical edifices (a list of tomes that had to be read) that, he asserts, prove the reality of these fanciful beliefs, but has never himself made any case for them (except to refer to Adam & Eve as 'an original mating pair').

He has ventured into extraordinary diversionary rhetorical territory trying to defend the possibility of these absurd, and even ridiculous, beliefs. But this is what (some) Christians (and many religious) do though, right? They build theme-parks where you can visit with the family and where the *truth* of the inerrancy of the Bible narratives will be proved. I am more interested in how it is that we tend to hold certain ideas in our minds which upon analysis we know, beyond doubt, are fanciful and imaginary (mythic) while in other areas we are 'realist' and insist on realistic assertion. We are amphibious in this odd sense.

As you know I do not see the Stories as being 'real'. I mean obviously so many of them that I hardly need to list them. But that does not mean that I negate the truths to which they refer! If those truths are real, and I regard many truths of this sort as having immense power and relevancy ipso facto, I believe we need to see them and understand them in a different way.

If what I say is true -- and I did try to present this idea -- then there are certain truths (about life, about being) that are potentially universally true, in this and all possible worlds. That is how I understand logos. But logos preceded the theatre of enactment, or the specific story, and thus of some of the religious stories that encase or ensconce meaning & value. So what is logos? Ideas that are metaphysical to the manifestation which are, yet, part-and-parcel of it.

But meaning & value are 'things' (what is the right word here?) that while they certainly exist and are real are 'invisible'. They are intelligible though but to those who have accepted a range of predicates. Usually, religious truths are truths preached to the converted. But here is the problem: When religious teaching involves reference to impossible Story, and must take religious Story as factually and historically true, a territory of obscuration and in a real sense of deceit is entered.

[Harry Baird]

As you know I do not see the Stories as being 'real'.

Yes, you're right: I do know that, and I tend to a similar view as you on this.

I mean obviously so many of them that I hardly need to list them. But that does not mean that I negate the truths to which they refer! If those truths are real, and I regard many truths of this sort as having immense power and relevancy ipso facto, I believe we need to see them and understand them in a different way.

If what I say is true -- and I did try to present this idea -- then there are certain truths (about life, about being) that are potentially universally true, in this and all possible worlds. That is how I understand logos. But logos preceded the theatre of enactment, or the specific story, and thus of some of the religious stories that encase or ensconce meaning & value. So what is logos? Ideas that are metaphysical to the manifestation which are, yet, part-and-parcel of it.

That's all fine, and you've said it more than once before, perhaps because you feel you don't get any traction and thus that you need to repeat it until you do get traction. OK. No problem. I'm interested though in how you progress from there given an understanding that you do have traction, or at least in how you would propose to progress a potential dialogue on this theme assuming traction.

What I mean is that on this theme you seem to talk exclusively in generalities: about "certain truths" which lie behind Christian (and other religious) "Stories". What are those truths though? I understand that you are in movement in this respect and that you don't necessarily have anything definitive or immutable to say, but if the dialogue is to progress, then surely you can't be content with mere generalities, and ought to be interested in laying down some at least potential specifics?

In an earlier post I prompted you in a similar vein to share your list of positive affirmations about Christianity.

I have on past occasions over the years made similar prompts and even direct requests, always to be rebuffed. Perhaps this will be yet another occasion, but if so, I leave you with this thought: how, if not by getting into details, do you propose to progress the conversation you seem to want to have?

[Dubious]

Truth is not a matter of consensus.

Truth is indeed created by consensus established in the form of dogma. If it lasts long enough it develops a genealogy granting credibility for itself which allows it to persist for centuries. The biblical bullshit centered in Christianity is far less interesting than the history it provides of how dogma may eventually assert itself as credenda creating in its wake a legal obligation to believe as the one and only truth.

That's one reason why discovering truth, instead of creating it, has been anathema to the church or any institution which depends on manufactured truths to operate.

[Age]

AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE WITH, and BY, EVERY one.

Just to be clear: you're saying that we'll know we've found "the One Truth" when we have a candidate truth which everybody agrees is "the One Truth"?

If so: I don't think that that's sufficient as a criterion. We might all be wrong.

Are you under some sort of illusion that absolutely EVERY one would, or even could, agree on some thing that was actually wrong?

[Harry Baird]

Are you under some sort of illusion that absolutely EVERY one would, or even could, agree on some thing that was actually wrong?

Are you under some sort of illusion that such a state (everybody agreeing on something that's actually wrong) is logically impossible? If so, what's your argument for that logical impossibility?

[Harry Baird]

Uwot, you will be pleased to know that despite involving myself more extensively in this thread than I'd planned to, I continue to make progress on my coding project. Yes. I know. Your congratulations are very welcome. Turns out that one can procrastinate and get work done, so long as one interweaves the two enthusiastically enough.