The Emergence of Theism and Solutions

[bobmax]

Regardless of what you claimed, how do you verify and justify what you claimed is 'real'?

You are asking me to verify and justify what grounds every possible verification and justification.

If what is real could be verified and justified, another reality would be needed. And so on...

Truth is self-sufficient.

And since the Truth is the same Being, and I am Being ... only from within me can the truth arise.

Hence suffering, because the search for Truth implies pain.
The pain of separating from what you are not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Regardless of what you claimed, how do you verify and justify what you claimed is 'real'?

You are asking me to verify and justify what grounds every possible verification and justification.

If what is real could be verified and justified, another reality would be needed. And so on...

Truth is self-sufficient.

And since the Truth is the same Being, and I am Being ... only from within me can the truth arise.

Hence suffering, because the search for Truth implies pain.
The pain of separating from what you are not.

I meant what is the principle needed not every possible verification and justification.

To verify and justify the reality and truth of any claim, the most effective is to subject it to a scientific test.
Example, it is it true 'water is H20' can be verified and justified scientifically.
Yes, science cannot give us certainty but what else [methods] can do better than science? [other than mathematics].

Why is that you are ignoring the above and divert to something else.

Whatever we want to speculate it must be grounded on scientific facts then reinforced with rational philosophical reasonings.

[bobmax]

I meant what is the principle needed not every possible verification and justification.

To verify and justify the reality and truth of any claim, the most effective is to subject it to a scientific test.
Example, it is it true 'water is H20' can be verified and justified scientifically.
Yes, science cannot give us certainty but what else [methods] can do better than science? [other than mathematics].

Why is that you are ignoring the above and divert to something else.

Whatever we want to speculate it must be grounded on scientific facts then reinforced with rational philosophical reasonings.

First I would like to thank you for the opportunity of this dialogue.
That enriches existence

I believe I have a certain familiarity with scientific issues, having worked a lifetime as an engineer.
And I guess I had an idea similar to yours many years ago. Then life knocked on my door.

Science, and therefore the technology that derives from it, are fundamental for our going into the world.
Science tells us how the world works. Without this understanding we would be lost.
Because we would be subjected to every superstition.

Science as it progresses sweeps away all illusions. Illusions which have been remedies for existential anguish, but which do not resist the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Therefore it is a grave mistake to demonize science.
However, it is also wrong to believe that science is the source of Truth.

For the simple reason that all the strength of science is in the renunciation of possession of the Truth.

But it is precisely by following scientific thought that we can get to where it stops.
It is the limit.

It is not known whether this limit is absolute or relative. That is, if we are faced with the authentic abyss where no reasoning will be able to access, or if we are only faced with a momentary difficulty that will sooner or later be overcome.

However, it doesn't matter if the limit is absolute or not, what matters is what happens in yourself when you find it in front of you.

[Sculptor]

Here is The Emergence of Theism and Solutions in its Evolutionary perspective,

• 1. From evolution, all humans are embedded with an inherent cognitive dissonance [CD] driven by an existential crisis, i.e. the self-awareness of mortality [not by living non-humans]. This is the fundamental psychological derivative.
  Views?

You have , as usual , fallen at the first step.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I meant what is the principle needed not every possible verification and justification.

To verify and justify the reality and truth of any claim, the most effective is to subject it to a scientific test.
Example, it is it true 'water is H20' can be verified and justified scientifically.
Yes, science cannot give us certainty but what else [methods] can do better than science? [other than mathematics].

Why is that you are ignoring the above and divert to something else.

Whatever we want to speculate it must be grounded on scientific facts then reinforced with rational philosophical reasonings.

First I would like to thank you for the opportunity of this dialogue.
That enriches existence

I believe I have a certain familiarity with scientific issues, having worked a lifetime as an engineer.
And I guess I had an idea similar to yours many years ago. Then life knocked on my door.

Science, and therefore the technology that derives from it, are fundamental for our going into the world.
Science tells us how the world works. Without this understanding we would be lost.
Because we would be subjected to every superstition.

Science as it progresses sweeps away all illusions. Illusions which have been remedies for existential anguish, but which do not resist the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Therefore it is a grave mistake to demonize science.
However, it is also wrong to believe that science is the source of Truth.

For the simple reason that all the strength of science is in the renunciation of possession of the Truth.

But it is precisely by following scientific thought that we can get to where it stops.
It is the limit.

It is not known whether this limit is absolute or relative. That is, if we are faced with the authentic abyss where no reasoning will be able to access, or if we are only faced with a momentary difficulty that will sooner or later be overcome.

However, it doesn't matter if the limit is absolute or not, what matters is what happens in yourself when you find it in front of you.

I have always states, all scientific facts [in one perspective] are at best merely polished conjectures. This is to prevent Scientism.
But science [also mathematics] AT PRESENT is the best and most credible to present the truths, facts and knowledge.
What other mode of approach to truth is more credible than science or mathematic?

To put truth in perspective, note this;

In his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell explain the function of "philosophy" as follows:

Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.
Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable;
but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science;
all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.

But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.
Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. (p. xiii)

From the above you will note Russell stated science provide basic truth.
As such one must ground one's knowledge of science before stepping into No Man’s Land and invoking philosophy.

This mean that you cannot leap beyond No Man’s Land to jump into conclusion like theology.
What one need in No Man’s Land is sound philosophical reasoning [grounded on science] which you are not doing above.

[bobmax]

I have always states, all scientific facts [in one perspective] are at best merely polished conjectures. This is to prevent Scientism.
But science [also mathematics] AT PRESENT is the best and most credible to present the truths, facts and knowledge.
What other mode of approach to truth is more credible than science or mathematic?

To put truth in perspective, note this;

In his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell explain the function of "philosophy" as follows:

Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.
Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable;
but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science;
all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.

But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.
Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. (p. xiii)

From the above you will note Russell stated science provide basic truth.
As such one must ground one's knowledge of science before stepping into No Man’s Land and invoking philosophy.

This mean that you cannot leap beyond No Man’s Land to jump into conclusion like theology.
What one need in No Man’s Land is sound philosophical reasoning [grounded on science] which you are not doing above.

I think I understand your intentions. The premises are correct, but then your own interpretation of Russel is wrong.

Russell says that all definite knowledge belongs to science.
But that doesn't mean science provides basic truth!
It is the definite knowledge that is provided by science.
Pay attention to that "defined"!

There is no basic truth provided by science.
In fact, in No Man's Land there is no truth.
On the one hand we have the definite knowledge that science provides, and on the other the spiritual impetus of theology.
Both when considered sources of "truth" inevitably fall into superstition.

Religions are steeped in superstition, although they still retain a spiritual heart.
Science is often understood as a source of truth, as you implicitly do even if you deny scientism, and so it too becomes superstition.

You would like to base yourself on science alone, but this is impossible, because the impulse of faith is unavoidable.

You have to risk!

The probability of the shipwreck is very high. But you have to take a risk.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have always states, all scientific facts [in one perspective] are at best merely polished conjectures. This is to prevent Scientism.
But science [also mathematics] AT PRESENT is the best and most credible to present the truths, facts and knowledge.
What other mode of approach to truth is more credible than science or mathematic?

To put truth in perspective, note this;

In his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell explain the function of "philosophy" as follows:

Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.
Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable;
but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science;
all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.

But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.
Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries.
-Bertrand Russell - The History of Western Philosophy. (1945), Introductory, p. xiii.

From the above you will note Russell stated science provide basic truth.
As such one must ground one's knowledge of science before stepping into No Man’s Land and invoking philosophy.

This mean that you cannot leap beyond No Man’s Land to jump into conclusion like theology.
What one need in No Man’s Land is sound philosophical reasoning [grounded on science] which you are not doing above.

I think I understand your intentions. The premises are correct, but then your own interpretation of Russel is wrong.

Russell says that all definite knowledge belongs to science.
But that doesn't mean science provides basic truth!
It is the definite knowledge that is provided by science.
Pay attention to that "defined"!

There is no basic truth provided by science.
In fact, in No Man's Land there is no truth.
On the one hand we have the definite knowledge that science provides, and on the other the spiritual impetus of theology.
Both when considered sources of "truth" inevitably fall into superstition.

Religions are steeped in superstition, although they still retain a spiritual heart.
Science is often understood as a source of truth, as you implicitly do even if you deny scientism, and so it too becomes superstition.

You would like to base yourself on science alone, but this is impossible, because the impulse of faith is unavoidable.

You have to risk!

The probability of the shipwreck is very high. But you have to take a risk.

I did not state I would like to base on science alone.

What I am proposing is, one has to risk but must ground [with one leg on solid ground] our basic knowledge on science and therefrom stretch out [the other leg] to test waters in the no-mans-land.
This is what Russell had stated where the stretched out leg is 'Philosophy' but it must be grounded on science [mathematics, etc.].
This is the top-down approach to understand reality.

In contrast, theology jumps with both feet off the ground across the no-mans-land into la-la-land [God].
This the the bottom-up approach with God as the origin of all based on blind-faith, thus the OP.

Thus my point, when you philosophize on 'existence', your must ground it on science and other credible knowledge.
You cannot jump to the conclusion 'God is' or 'Existence is.'

[bobmax]

What I am proposing is, one has to risk but must ground [with one leg on solid ground] our basic knowledge on science and therefrom stretch out [the other leg] to test waters in the no-mans-land.

I agree on the importance of science. But not because it provides a "solid ground".

Rather, because with its progress it cancels all illusions.
Without, however, providing any ground for the search for Truth.

The leg that you would like to rest on the "solid ground" actually rests on nothing.

It is the meaningless nothingness, the desert of existence, which is provided by science.

And this nothing is important if it allows you to transcend.

Instead by holding on to your FSK you miss the opportunity.
Convinced that you have one leg on solid ground, you move the other uselessly into the void.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What I am proposing is, one has to risk but must ground [with one leg on solid ground] our basic knowledge on science and therefrom stretch out [the other leg] to test waters in the no-mans-land.

I agree on the importance of science. But not because it provides a "solid ground".

Rather, because with its progress it cancels all illusions.
Without, however, providing any ground for the search for Truth.

The leg that you would like to rest on the "solid ground" actually rests on nothing.

It is the meaningless nothingness, the desert of existence, which is provided by science.

And this nothing is important if it allows you to transcend.

Instead by holding on to your FSK you miss the opportunity.
Convinced that you have one leg on solid ground, you move the other uselessly into the void.

If you insist science is not the best 'solid' leg we have on truths, facts and knowledge AT PRESENT, what sort of more 'solid' leg [ground] are you proposing to get to the truth?

[bobmax]

If you insist science is not the best 'solid' leg we have on truths, facts and knowledge AT PRESENT, what sort of more 'solid' leg [ground] are you proposing to get to the truth?

Yourself, only yourself.

Truth needs you.
In fact you are the Truth!

What else would you be...?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you insist science is not the best 'solid' leg we have on truths, facts and knowledge AT PRESENT, what sort of more 'solid' leg [ground] are you proposing to get to the truth?

Yourself, only yourself.

Truth needs you.
In fact you are the Truth!

What else would you be...?

What IF MY Truth is that my God commands me to kill you as a non-believer?
This is what is happening with the Islamic God commanding Muslims to do as a duty in exchange for soteriological rewards [72 virgins, etc.].

Do you accept that?
or rather you would prefer me to justify the reality of my claim.
In that case, surely you would want me to prove it scientifically [at least as one solid leg] and not on blind faith.

[bobmax]

If you insist science is not the best 'solid' leg we have on truths, facts and knowledge AT PRESENT, what sort of more 'solid' leg [ground] are you proposing to get to the truth?

Yourself, only yourself.

Truth needs you.
In fact you are the Truth!

What else would you be...?

What IF MY Truth is that my God commands me to kill you as a non-believer?
This is what is happening with the Islamic God commanding Muslims to do as a duty in exchange for soteriological rewards [72 virgins, etc.].

Do you accept that?
or rather you would prefer me to justify the reality of my claim.
In that case, surely you would want me to prove it scientifically [at least as one solid leg] and not on blind faith.

In the search for Truth you are at stake yourself.
It is therefore necessary to change the paradigm.

What's out there can help because that's all there is.
But you can never get the answer except from yourself.

Why don't I accept Islamic terrorism?
What is the real reason?

I'll never find it out there.
There is not.
While science only deals exclusively with what is there.

If you follow science, you may find that you don't accept terrorism because some of your neurons are arranged in a certain way.
While in the terrorist the same neurons are arranged differently, or do not even exist.

But all this discovery absolutely does not affect the immeasurability of good and evil!

Evil is what pushes you, rejecting it, towards yourself.

If instead you rely on science, convinced that it will be able to explain all ethics, then your destiny will be nihilism.
Of those who lose themselves in being worldly, losing the opportunity to transcend.

For the simple reason that you will have overlooked what really matters in this life.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yourself, only yourself.

Truth needs you.
In fact you are the Truth!

What else would you be...?

What IF MY Truth is that my God commands me to kill you as a non-believer?
This is what is happening with the Islamic God commanding Muslims to do as a duty in exchange for soteriological rewards [72 virgins, etc.].

Do you accept that?
or rather you would prefer me to justify the reality of my claim.
In that case, surely you would want me to prove it scientifically [at least as one solid leg] and not on blind faith.

In the search for Truth you are at stake yourself.
It is therefore necessary to change the paradigm.

What's out there can help because that's all there is.
But you can never get the answer except from yourself.

Why don't I accept Islamic terrorism?
What is the real reason?

I'll never find it out there.
There is not.
While science only deals exclusively with what is there.

If you follow science, you may find that you don't accept terrorism because some of your neurons are arranged in a certain way.
While in the terrorist the same neurons are arranged differently, or do not even exist.

But all this discovery absolutely does not affect the immeasurability of good and evil!

Evil is what pushes you, rejecting it, towards yourself.

If instead you rely on science, convinced that it will be able to explain all ethics, then your destiny will be nihilism.
Of those who lose themselves in being worldly, losing the opportunity to transcend.

For the simple reason that you will have overlooked what really matters in this life.

There is no absolute Truth with capital 'T".
Can you prove that such absolute 'Truth' exists?
Absolute Truth with capital 'T" is claimed to exists when one leaped across 'no man's land' to la la land.

Btw, I am not relying totally on science [if I do, that is Scientism ] and I have not claimed that science can explain all ethics or everything.

However if we are rely to act or think rationally based on the best science can offer, we need to reinforce it with 'philosophy' i.e. metaphysics, logic, ethics, epistemology, critical thinking, etc. This include the study of Morality, Ethics, good and evil, meaning of life and the likes, which must be grounded with at least one leg on science.

In order to do 'philosophy' effectively we need to stabilize one leg on the solid ground of science while we use the other free leg to feel around no-man's land.

[Phil8659]

Complete Nonsense.
Have you even studied Plato, or the Bible? How about biology?
Ask your computer how many parts of speech is required to formulate any grammar system.
Try this, a mind is one of a group of life support systems of a living organism, now try to impose your nonsense on each of them and see if you can do it.

[Walker]

In order to do 'philosophy' effectively we need to stabilize one leg on the solid ground of science while we use the other free leg to feel around no-man's land.

The third leg is the third rail of philosophy for those who separate philosophy from the physical, except for the thoughtful Epicureans who do the separating.

"I Am Is True. All Else Is Inference."

The heart beats. The lungs breathe. The stomach digests. The brain infers. The body knows. None of these Am I; I am all of these, however not these souly.