Christianity

[Age]

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?

Of course it is NOT 'logically' impossible.

But the Fact remains that NOT EVERY one would agree on some thing as being true or right, if there was a possibility that that thing could be false or wrong.

If so, what's your argument for that logical impossibility?

Moot

[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.

Hi, Harry.

That's the right point to make. Truth is not a matter of consensus. Opinion polls do not make gravity work upwards, or mercury not poisonous, or the Sun revolve around Pluto. Reality is reality. Truth is truth. Human knowledge and opinions are only as good as they relate to the objective truth of any situation; to the extent they depart from it, they're just some measure of delusion.

Talk about completely and utterly MISSING the point and mark here.

As well as being completely and utterly BLIND here.

Let us KNOW when you are READY to LEARN and UNDERSTAND.

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?

[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?

Of course it is NOT 'logically' impossible.

But the Fact remains that NOT EVERY one would agree on some thing as being true or right, if there was a possibility that that thing could be false or wrong.

The latter (which I've coloured red) is still a modal statement (with a predicate), which can be strictly reformulated as: "It is impossible for everybody to agree on some thing as true or right if that thing is possibly not true or right". You affirm, however, (in that which I've coloured blue) that the type of impossibility referred to in this statement is not logical impossibility. So, you must have some other sense of possibility in mind. What is it?

Maybe you mean something much looser like "pragmatic" impossibility?

If so, I'm not really interested in that sort of looseness of modality. If we are talking about knowing the One Truth, then I am interested in knowing for sure and incontrovertibly, so, something like "pragmatic" certainty isn't rigorous enough for me. Maybe it is or would be for others. And, as I wrote in a previous post, a (pragmatic) consensus - whether based on incontrovertible knowing or not - would at least be useful for socio-political stability.

[Immanuel Can]

Truth is not a matter of consensus.

Truth is indeed created by consensus

Nope, sorry...reality won't change with anybody's opinion. But keep trying.

[Harry Baird]

Truth is not a matter of consensus.

Truth is indeed created by consensus

Nope, sorry...reality won't change with anybody's opinion. But keep trying.

Ah, dude (yep, I'm butting in again). It's responses like this that make me sympathetic to the claims of folk who allege that you take quotes out of context and construct strawmen, and thus fail to respond honestly.

I say this because it seems clear to me in context that what Dubious meant is that (merely) purported (religious) truth is created by consensus (of religious authorities), which then becomes dogma that persists through the ages - but not that actual truth owes anything to consensus. This is especially clear given that Dubious later refers to "discovering" truth rather than "creating" it, and thus seems to be affirming that "discovered" truth is the real truth, owing nothing to consensus, and that "created" truth is the merely purported truth (by consensus).

Am I missing something?

[Dubious]

Truth is indeed created by consensus

Nope, sorry...reality won't change with anybody's opinion. But keep trying.

Ah, dude (yep, I'm butting in again). It's responses like this that make me sympathetic to the claims of folk who allege that you take quotes out of context and construct strawmen, and thus fail to respond honestly.

I say this because it seems clear to me in context that what Dubious meant is that (merely) purported (religious) truth is created by consensus (of religious authorities), which then becomes dogma that persists through the ages - but not that actual truth owes anything to consensus. This is especially clear given that Dubious later refers to "discovering" truth rather than "creating" it, and thus seems to be affirming that "discovered" truth is the real truth, owing nothing to consensus, and that "created" truth is the merely purported truth (by consensus).

Am I missing something?

You're not missing anything. IC has been doing this for a lot of years on this forum and been constantly reminded of it. But it's no use, exactly as expected. This is merely one of the methods in how he replies when he doesn't know what to say. The other main deflection is to consistently claim ad homs even if there weren't any.

People who haven't communicated with him much will obviously give him a degree of credibility which soon begins to vanish after when one realizes his age-old debating habits. There is no doubt that on a strictly moderated forum he would have been kicked-out a long time ago.

Your interpretation is correct. Having said that, I never measure anything in terms of actual truth but in degrees of probability often being so high that claiming truth seems unavoidable...at least for the time being until the next upgrade or downgrade which can take a day or a millennium to happen.

Nice to know there are still people around who try to read honestly or if uncertain inquire!

[Immanuel Can]

Truth is indeed created by consensus

Nope, sorry...reality won't change with anybody's opinion. But keep trying.

Ah, dude (yep, I'm butting in again). It's responses like this that make me sympathetic to the claims of folk who allege that you take quotes out of context and construct strawmen, and thus fail to respond honestly.

I say this because it seems clear to me in context that what Dubious meant is that (merely) purported (religious) truth is created by consensus (of religious authorities),

That's still wrong, and for the same reason. When are you going to get to something problematic?

Am I missing something?

Apparently. "Religious truth" is not some special category, distinct from "objective truth." Religions can be as false as any other kind of claim, or as true as reality itself. "Consensus" means nothing whatsoever in scientific questions: it also means nothing whatsoever in religious ones, which are subject to the same standard: conformity to reality.

[Harry Baird]

(A combined response).

You're not missing anything.

OK. Good. Thanks. I didn't think I was.

IC has been doing this for a lot of years on this forum and been constantly reminded of it. But it's no use, exactly as expected. This is merely one of the methods in how he replies when he doesn't know what to say. The other main deflection is to consistently claim ad homs even if there weren't any.

That's sad, because IC is obviously intelligent and well-read, and capable of rational discourse. Oddly, though, we have stuff from him like this:

I say this because it seems clear to me in context that what Dubious meant is that (merely) purported (religious) truth is created by consensus (of religious authorities),

That's still wrong, and for the same reason. When are you going to get to something problematic?

IC, by your own admission - i.e., paraphrased, "All of the religions other than Christianity are wrong" - there exist purported religious truths which are not actual truths, and which are sustained as (merely) purported truths by the consensus of religious authorities, so you're contradicting yourself when you say that what Dubious wrote is "still" wrong. What you mean by "for the same reason" is anybody's guess.

Your interpretation is correct. Having said that, I never measure anything in terms of actual truth but in degrees of probability often being so high that claiming truth seems unavoidable...at least for the time being until the next upgrade or downgrade which can take a day or a millennium to happen.

I like that approach to epistemology. I have a similar approach, in which there is a rough gradation in which (claims to) "suspicion", "conjecture", "opinion", "belief", and "knowledge" indicate merely increasing levels of confidence in the correctness of the claim/proposition at issue, with the kind of awkward caveat that genuine knowledge must be (genuinely) true to count as such.

Nice to know there are still people around who try to read honestly or if uncertain inquire!

Happy to try to be one of them!

[Nick_A]

I C

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.

True, but it never will be accepted with philosophy students who know everything and classifies theoretical knowledge as epistemology. What the Oracle said about Socrates was deemed ridiculous. "For the only thing I have wisdom of is that I know nothing. However, knowing this allows me to experience the world as it truly is.” It was then that the Socrates finally understood what the Oracle meant. “I know nothing except the fact that I know nothing, and that is what makes me the wisest man of all.”

What do we understand on the ontology of being? Nothing. But who admits it? Why don't we experience the world as it is? Yet the Oracle told a friend Socrates was the wisest man in Athens since he knew nothing

[Immanuel Can]

...we have stuff from him like this:

Wrong again, Harry. This was my original message, in its entirety:

Hi, Harry.

That's the right point to make. Truth is not a matter of consensus. Opinion polls do not make gravity work upwards, or mercury not poisonous, or the Sun revolve around Pluto. Reality is reality. Truth is truth. Human knowledge and opinions are only as good as they relate to the objective truth of any situation; to the extent they depart from it, they're just some measure of delusion.

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?

Please point to the content of that message that invited Dube to go into a completely irrelevant spiral about "religion." He was just wildly off base.

IC, by your own admission - i.e., paraphrased, "All of the religions other than Christianity are wrong"

Point me to where I said this. You'll find I never did. I never say that "religions" are totally false. They may be false in ultimate consequence, and still have some true statements. I've never said anything else. And I still insist that reality is the determinant of the veracity of both religion and science.

So Dube has misrepresented both my original message, and then added things I never said...and now you've done likewise. I'm not expecting an apology, because that would be a vain hope. But a little honest dealing going forward would be nice. I'm not all optimistic about that, either.

[Harry Baird]

Please point to the content of that message that invited Dube to go into a completely irrelevant spiral about "religion." He was just wildly off base.

I get it: Dubious was having what at face value was an irrelevant go at religious belief, and in particular yours, so I understand your (presumably reflexive) gainsaying reply to him - but, regardless of relevance, you misrepresented what he said.

I never say that "religions" are totally false.

I didn't say you did: you added the qualifier "totally", which wasn't in my original.

In any case: that's not the point. The point is that it is implicit in your general position that you think that there are some purported (religious) truths (of religions other than Christianity) that are false, and thus affirm the point that Dubious made: that some so-called (religious) truths are (merely) purported (ETA: and persist via the consensus of religious authorities) rather than actual.

Do you accept this?

So Dube has misrepresented both my original message

He responded with an irrelevancy which was important to him and annoying to you. I wouldn't call that a "misrepresentation", but you're entitled to your view.

and then added things I never said...

Oh? Are you saying that he attributed to you words that you never wrote? Which words in particular (exact quotes, please)?

and now you've done likewise.

Oh? Are you saying that I've attributed to you words that you never wrote? Which words in particular (exact quotes, please)?

I'm not expecting an apology, because that would be a vain hope.

It really would, because it's in no way deserved.

But a little honest dealing going forward would be nice. I'm not all optimistic about that, either.

Yes, honest dealing would be nice. In that regard, I ask you kindly not to add qualifiers like "totally" to my contentions.

[henry quirk]

IC, by your own admission - i.e., paraphrased, "All of the religions other than Christianity are wrong"

Point me to where I said this. You'll find I never did. I never say that "religions" are totally false.

I didn't say you did: you added the qualifier "totally", which wasn't in my original.

So I guess we have five or ten pages of hair splittin' ahead of us.

[Harry Baird]

So I guess we have five or ten pages of hair splittin' ahead of us.

Oh ye of little faith. I know when to cut my losses.

[henry quirk]

So I guess we have five or ten pages of hair splittin' ahead of us.

Oh ye of little *faith. I know when to cut my losses.

*Mine is finite; I'm stingy with it, yes.

[Harry Baird]

So I guess we have five or ten pages of hair splittin' ahead of us.

Oh ye of little *faith. I know when to cut my losses.

*Mine is finite; I'm stingy with it, yes.

Understood, and fair enough, so, hopefully, you'll extend me a little more of your finitude when (if) the hair-splitting doesn't go on for more than a little bit - just enough to clarify what's what and draw a line under it.