humor and being ''WOKE''

[Gary Childress]

We can now set aside any objection that when one belief system says, "I'm right and others are wrong," that there is anything bad about that.

Can you elaborate on what you mean above. At first glace I don't see how that follows from 1 and 2.

[Immanuel Can]

We can now set aside any objection that when one belief system says, "I'm right and others are wrong," that there is anything bad about that.

Can you elaborate on what you mean above. At first glace I don't see how that follows from 1 and 2.

Well, 1 says that not all ideologies can be true simultaneously. So not everybody's right. To say so is simply to tell the necessary truth. Step 2 shows us that, in effect, EVERY ideology is saying exactly the same thing, with regard to that.

So the one completely irrational thing to insist on believing would be that everybody's right. To the extent that there are contradictions, no more than one side of any contradiction is ever going to be right; and in cases in which the two options are not exhaustive of all possibilities, it's even possible that NONE is right.

But one could be. And in cases where the options are exhaustive, one has to be. So tells us the Law of Non-Contradiction.

So now, our problem becomes one not of believing there IS a right answer, but of DETECTING the right answer if there is one.

So far, so good?

So now, let's apply the Law of Non-Contradiction to three ideological contradictions.

1. Polytheism -- there are many gods.
2. Monotheism -- there is only one God.
3. Atheism -- there are no gods, and no God.

These comprehensively and exhaustively cover all possible options, do they not? And you will find that any other attempt to speak about God will end up falling under some variety of 1, 2 or 3.

Now, if 1 is true, 2 and 3 are false; if 2 is true, 1 and 3 are false; if 3 is true, 1 and 2 are false. Since they are comprehensive, then the Law of Non-Contradiction tells us that two out of the three are false but the remaining one must be true. It can be no other way.

Again, we're operating so far with nothing but the rules of basic logic. We haven't even invoked one ideological particular to get here. And so far, we're not even saying which one is our candidate for truth. But what we know is that, for sure and for certain, there IS one.

So next: which one is true. One is. We know that. Which is it?

We'll have to decide on what heuristic method we would use to find out. That's why I ask you what you thing evidence would be, in this case.

[Gary Childress]

We can now set aside any objection that when one belief system says, "I'm right and others are wrong," that there is anything bad about that.

Can you elaborate on what you mean above? At first glance I don't see how that follows from 1 and 2.

Well, 1 says that not all ideologies can be true simultaneously. So not everybody's right. To say so is simply to tell the necessary truth. Step 2 shows us that, in effect, EVERY ideology is saying exactly the same thing, with regard to that.

Is it true that not all ideologies can be true simultaneously--that not everybody is right?

The law of non-contradiction states that if P then not the case, not the case P. Cancelling out the latter two "not the cases" makes it equivalent to if p then p, which also amounts to if ~p then ~p.

An "ideology" is not a single belief but a cluster of beliefs usually recorded by human beings who share some roughly common life experiences and therefore leading to many similarities among religions. Therefore one has to accept that if it cannot be the case that both Christianity and Islam are correct, then something special must be said in the case of similarities. For example, If one is "true" and the other is "false", then does that make the fact that both religions are monotheistic, either "true" or "false"?

I don't think we would wish to say if Islam is "false", therefore "monotheism" must also be false. So we might need to break down a religion or ideology into specific claims or "facts" and where facts are similar we need to perhaps make even finer distinctions. Or we may need to say that religions can be partially "true" and/or partially "false". Literally, ALL religions could be both partially true and partially false to whatever extent or degree. They could all be 100% false or 100% true. Or one of them could be 100% true or 100% false. One religion could be 90% true and thus "more" true than another that is only 50% true.

Let's look at the possibility of all religions being both partially true and partially false and/or more or less true than others:

If (for example) Christianity made exactly 100 independently discernable factual claims and 90 of them were correct but 10 were false, then maybe we could say Christianity is 90% true. If Islam made exactly 100 independently discernable factual claims and only 50 of them were true, maybe we could say that Islam is 50% true. But then we would need to sift through each of the 100 claims of each religion to determine which ones overlapped or were missing in the other religion that we ought to count as "errors" or "omissions"--thus detracting from their "truth".

For example, maybe Christianity believes God's name is "Yahweh" but Islam believes God's name is "Allah". Those two truth claims may not overlap because they might be separate claims that are not duplicated in the other respective religion. Christianity does not claim that God's name is "Allah" and Islam does not claim that God's name is "Yahweh". Then we get into other complications such as those who claim that "Allah" refers to the same entity as "Yahweh" (Just as "Jehova" and "Yahweh" are different names for the same entity.) If they have different names for God, then does that mean they both worship the one true "monotheistic" God?

So let's look at the possibility that all religions could be 100% true:

What if every single factual claim in all religions just had a different name for the same idea? Would that make them "religiously" equivalent (whatever that means) in the same way that Italian and French are both equivalent ways of expressing more or less the same ideas or experiences? Or should we say that the two religions are "different" in the way that Italian and French are not the same language? Can we say that Italian is the "one true" language any more than we can say that French is the "one true" language?

THEREFORE if it is POSSIBLE that all religions are 100% true, then perhaps we might have to say that it is not the case that "not all ideologies can be true simultaneously". Perhaps all ideologies CAN (in theory) be true simultaneously. If that is the case, then we're going to need to either throw out your premise or do some fine-tuning before we can satisfactorily agree on it. I can't accept it at this point (at least not accept it and expect to be able to claim that my conclusion is a "logical" one).

[commonsense]

I’ve been following your discussion thus far, and now I’d like to ask for help with the problem I have with finding acceptable evidence.

Since the 3 beliefs are incompatible, I know that only one can be correct.

If I could see which 2 are false, I would obviously recognize the 3rd one as the one that is true. But this begs the question, how can I recognize that the false ones are false?

Though there may be other ways to go about this, the Law of Exclusion tells me that identifying 2 false beliefs would clearly identify the one that is true.

Simply because I am blind to a viable solution to my quandary, I am inclined to say that there is no evidence that I can accept.

IC, elucidate me!

Edit: I had not seen the latest post when I wrote this.

[commonsense]

Gary

I see what you’re saying about factual claims. I understand that when Christianity claims that God’s name is Jehovah, and Islam claims that God is named Allah, that these are not conflicting claims, given that these are both names for the same thing, I.e. God.

But without this additional information that both refer to God, the literal meaning of the 2 religion’s claims are at odds. Is it the freedom to employ a non-literal interpretation to the claims what makes it possible for both to be true at the same time?

[Immanuel Can]

An "ideology" is not a single belief but a cluster of beliefs usually recorded by human beings who share some roughly common life experiences and therefore leading to many similarities among religions.

Sorry, Gary...that's not correct.

An ideology is distinguished primarily not by its similarity to others, but by its distinctives. Lacking them, it fails to be a separate ideology at all. And I use the term ideology here to speak of secular dogma like Socialism or Nihilism, which for present purposes, I contrast to "religion" by way of their not having explicit appeal to any God or gods.

For example, If one is "true" and the other is "false", then does that make the fact that both religions are monotheistic, either "true" or "false"?

"Monotheism" is a collective term, and a vague one. It applies to things like Judaism, Islam, and Christianity equally. But it only clusters them together in one respect, not many.

In order to distinguish between ideologies and religions -- making, as they do, their various claims -- we have to look at the claims themselves. Monotheists harmonize on the question of the existence of one Supreme Being; but they differ as to His identity, nature and wishes, concerning which they contradict again.

...we may need to say that religions can be partially "true" and/or partially "false".

Yes, we will: but again, that will only be judged on the basis of their specific claims. It would be wrong to suppose that a belief could not be generally wrong, but right about a few things, just as it would be wrong to suppose that a belief system could be generally right but wrong on a few points.

But all this misses the important point, and tries to rush past it far too fast. There's something very important in step 3, and we must not miss it. In step 3, we have three clusters of belief systems -- some with further disagreements within them -- but our urgent point is only to see that given these three alternatives, there is no logical way to escape the realization that at least two of the three clusters must be clustered around a claim that is false.

The upshot is that no matter how one slices it, the majority of the world is wrong about God. And what tells us that? Is it some partisan view, perhaps? No. What shows us that, and takes it beyond all possibility of doubt, is the Law of Non-Contradiction itself, and nothing else.

So let's look at the possibility that all religions could be 100% true:

It's NOT possible. That's what the Law of Non-Contradiction tells us. We may not like it, but basic logic assures us of it.

With me?

[Immanuel Can]

I’ve been following your discussion thus far, and now I’d like to ask for help with the problem I have with finding acceptable evidence.

Since the 3 beliefs are incompatible, I know that only one can be correct.

Right. You've got it.

If I could see which 2 are false, I would obviously recognize the 3rd one as the one that is true. But this begs the question, how can I recognize that the false ones are false?

I'm not begging it. I'm postponing it temporarily, but only until Gary realizes the truth of what we've just both seen, because that's basic. So long as he is not aware that the Law of Non-Contradiction shows that the inclination to fudge all the religions and ideologies together is illogical and impossible, we can't really go forward to it yet.

But it's the very next question that logically follows, isn't it?

So hold on, and we'll go there.

[Gary Childress]

So let's look at the possibility that all religions could be 100% true:

It's NOT possible. That's what the Law of Non-Contradiction tells us. We may not like it, but basic logic assures us of it.

With me?

I'm "with" everyone who is here. Can I not be? If you're not here then how could I be "with" you? If you are here then how can I not be "with" you? Therefore my question to you is: are you here? I will venture my own guess as an answer to that question. I think the answer is "yes" you are here. You just posted something in the forum a short time ago. I hope you will post a response to this in the future because, if you don't, I will not get an answer to my question and I'll be left wondering (possibly even worrying) what happened to you and I'd rather you be here than not be here.

Does that make sense, IC?

[commonsense]

So let's look at the possibility that all religions could be 100% true:

It's NOT possible. That's what the Law of Non-Contradiction tells us. We may not like it, but basic logic assures us of it.

With me?

I'm "with" everyone who is here. Can I not be? If you're not here then how could I be "with" you? If you are here then how can I not be "with" you? Therefore my question to you is: are you here? I will venture my own guess as an answer to that question. I think the answer is "yes" you are here. You just posted something in the forum a short time ago. I hope you will post a response to this in the future because, if you don't, I will not get an answer to my question and I'll be left wondering (possibly even worrying) what happened to you and I'd rather you be here than not be here.

Does that make sense, IC?

Let me butt in just to say that you are correct in what you are saying, assuming “with” refers to some kind of linkage between things or people, like “I’d like ice cream with my pie” or “Tom went to the movies with Mary.”

But I think IC was using “(Are) you with me?” in the sense that one person understands what another is saying, like “Are you at the same point in your thinking where I am?” so to speak.

If I am wrong, let all the gods in premises 1 and 2 take me off the forum

[Immanuel Can]

So let's look at the possibility that all religions could be 100% true:

It's NOT possible. That's what the Law of Non-Contradiction tells us. We may not like it, but basic logic assures us of it.

With me?

I'm "with" everyone who is here.

Commonsense is correct.

No, Gary...I mean, "do you understand so far?" "Are you in agreement?" "Do you see the necessary truth of what I have offered you so far?"

[Immanuel Can]

Gary

I see what you’re saying about factual claims. I understand that when Christianity claims that God’s name is Jehovah, and Islam claims that God is named Allah, that these are not conflicting claims, given that these are both names for the same thing, I.e. God.

Not quite. They are both names for a singular alleged Supreme Being, but not for the same conception of the Supreme Being, so not for the same Supreme Being.

To illustrate, if I say that commonsense is a 6 foot 5 woman, and you know that commonsense is a 5 foot 11 man, it's quite clear that we're talking about different individuals, even if we both call them "commonsense." And our conceptions are contradictory: one cannot be a 5-11 man, and also a 6-5 woman.

Allah is the austere "god" of the Shahadah, with Mohammed as his alleged prophet. Yahweh is the loving and holy God of the Jews, whose chief prophet is Moses. He is also the God of Christians, but His chief prophet is His Son, Jesus Christ. These three thus also present to us mutually-contradicting claims, even though all three belief systems can be clustered under the collective term "monotheism."

[commonsense]

Gary

I see what you’re saying about factual claims. I understand that when Christianity claims that God’s name is Jehovah, and Islam claims that God is named Allah, that these are not conflicting claims, given that these are both names for the same thing, I.e. God.

Not quite. They are both names for a singular alleged Supreme Being, but not for the same conception of the Supreme Being, so not for the same Supreme Being.

To illustrate, if I say that commonsense is a 6 foot 5 woman, and you know that commonsense is a 5 foot 11 man, it's quite clear that we're talking about different individuals, even if we both call them "commonsense." And our conceptions are contradictory: one cannot be a 5-11 man, and also a 6-5 woman.

Allah is the austere "god" of the Shahadah, with Mohammed as his alleged prophet. Yahweh is the loving and holy God of the Jews, whose chief prophet is Moses. He is also the God of Christians, but His chief prophet is His Son, Jesus Christ. These three thus also present to us mutually-contradicting claims, even though all three belief systems can be clustered under the collective term "monotheism."

Got it.

[Gary Childress]

It's NOT possible. That's what the Law of Non-Contradiction tells us. We may not like it, but basic logic assures us of it.

With me?

I'm "with" everyone who is here.

Commonsense is correct.

No, Gary...I mean, "do you understand so far?" "Are you in agreement?" "Do you see the necessary truth of what I have offered you so far?"

Yes. I understand you so far. I do not see the "necessary" truth that YOU have "offered" me. Do YOU understand me?

[Immanuel Can]

I do not see the "necessary" truth that YOU have "offered" me.

If you don't see the points I've shown you as neccessary, as self-evidently true now, then we should go back over them. Which point do you doubt?

So far, all have depended on nothing but the Law of Non-Contradiction. Basically, they are:

1. Mutually contradictory claims (genuine ones) cannot be true at the same time.
2. Religions all make claims that genuinely contradict each other.
3. All religions and ideologies are ultimately contradictory to others.
This was illustrated with reference to the three possible positions on the question of the existence of God: Atheism, Polytheism and Monotheism. So we have at least one very clear, concrete case proving 3 beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. More contentiously, but equally unavoidably, we saw that this proves that the majority of ideologies and religions must basically be wrong. We left open the question of whether any is basically right, because so far, we haven't gotten there. Logically, the Law of Non-Contradition tells us that one may be right, but it's possible that none is...except in cases in which the available alternatives cover all possibilities. Then, one HAS to be right.

That's the groundwork. It's all logically necessitated by the Law of Non-Contradiction itself.

What step is unclear to you?

[Gary Childress]

I do not see the "necessary" truth that YOU have "offered" me.

If you don't see the points I've shown you as neccessary, as self-evidently true now, then we should go back over them. Which point do you doubt?

So far, all have depended on nothing but the Law of Non-Contradiction. Basically, they are:

1. Mutually contradictory claims (genuine ones) cannot be true at the same time.
2. Religions all make claims that genuinely contradict each other.
3. All religions and ideologies are ultimately contradictory to others.
This was illustrated with reference to the three possible positions on the question of the existence of God: Atheism, Polytheism and Monotheism. So we have at least one very clear, concrete case proving 3 beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. More contentiously, but equally unavoidably, we saw that this proves that the majority of ideologies and religions must basically be wrong. We left open the question of whether any is basically right, because so far, we haven't gotten there. Logically, the Law of Non-Contradition tells us that one may be right, but it's possible that none is...except in cases in which the available alternatives cover all possibilities. Then, one HAS to be right.

That's the groundwork. It's all logically necessitated by the Law of Non-Contradiction itself.

What step is unclear to you?

All of the above steps are unclear to me. I'm agnostic. (edit: I've highlighted in red all the things that are problematic to me.)