User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Fact and Faith

  1. #11
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    I have discovered there is no way back. I have discovered there is no way home. Once I have left home, I can't find my way back.
    You can return to the place, but not to the time. You - like all of us - grow up.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  2. #12
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    the Nazis had 'reason'. So it's not the end of knowledge...

  3. #13
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Sure, we observe patterns and give them meaning, but some patterns are true and some aren't. For instance, for 200,000 years we observed the Sun moving across the sky, and the meaning we gave this observation was that the Sun goes round the Earth.

    In the same way, for 200,000 years we observed patterns in nature and gave them meanings. The predominent meaning we gave the patterns of nature was Animism. We knew no better tnan to ascribe agency to inanimate matter.

    And we personified the agency we thought we saw in nature. And so we explained nature in terms of the supernatural, and supernatural agents such as God.

    However in the Enlightenment in the West in the 17th and 18th Centuries, we discovered the scientific method. And so we started to look for empirical evidence of the supernatural, but found none.

    And so today in societies based on the Enlighenment, the only way we can believe in the supernatural is through blind faith.

    And today, because the supernaturalists have no intellectual integrity, they became hysterical and elevate faith to a virtue in itself.

    In fact the supernaturalists are in mourning for their God who died in the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries.

    All except the Islamists who have never experienced the Enlightenment and who naively believe Allah created the world and the species in it, including ourselves, homo sapiens.
    I really think I get what you're saying. It's just that these scientific methods as you call them are still a layer of perception on reality.

    For instance, if I hold an object and look at it, how am I understanding that object? I see it through the instrument of my eyes that interprets through what we understand as light. My brain also has to intercept that in some physical form and send me a greater message of relating what I'm seeing.

    Basically, we are limited from understanding reality fully, because we are fully apart of it, because we perceive it. But without perceiving it, reality is also meaningless. It holds no form. We could look closely at an object and see that what we thought was a 3-dimensional cube turns out to have smaller parts that all have rotating/flowing parts with their own energies. If you think about what that implies, what is that object? From a smaller perspective, it is something else, and yet smaller something else. Then what is it really? To appreciate this is to understand it has no true objective form. Because even if a God created it, that God would also have to perceive to exist and it wouldn't be capable of fully comprehending what it is then (hence it logically has no objective form).

    But yet we exist. God is an absurdity, but so is existence, and yet we exist - proof in itself. Everything we understand is an acceptance of faith, even if we don't quite fully understand that or care too. Engineering is about probability and maximizing that probability for accuracy of faith and mistakenly gives the illusion of inherent truth or fact. But it's okay if people don't realize this, since that's still the point. ;P

    IMO, once someone understands that, the Jungian functions in their complete mathematical representation start making a lot of sense by conveying each of our own subjective experiences. And the ridiculous relationships people claim about the functions cloud this; the NTs that believe thinking is about being objective will never understand Jung. That's just not what it all is about.

    Some people even have come up with the idea that light is part of the energy that all things give off during the flow of time, hence that time is directly related to light and why we may not be able to go faster than light. I doubt that will always be true, but it's interesting. Maybe one day we will even be able to find a complete connection between light and magnetism with great accuracy of perception.

    There are so many interesting ideas in physics that are yet to be explored.

    Anyway, I'm sure you get the point.

  4. #14
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    the Nazis had 'reason'. So it's not the end of knowledge...
    The Nazis were deeply influenced by the New Age. Carl Jung, a New Age guru, freely and openly supported the Nazis.

    MBTI itself is part of the New Age, and MBTI was plaigerised from Carl Jung.

  5. #15
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    I really think I get what you're saying. It's just that these scientific methods as you call them are still a layer of perception on reality.

    For instance, if I hold an object and look at it, how am I understanding that object? I see it through the instrument of my eyes that interprets through what we understand as light. My brain also has to intercept that in some physical form and send me a greater message of relating what I'm seeing.

    Basically, we are limited from understanding reality fully, because we are fully apart of it, because we perceive it. But without perceiving it, reality is also meaningless. It holds no form. We could look closely at an object and see that what we thought was a 3-dimensional cube turns out to have smaller parts that all have rotating/flowing parts with their own energies. If you think about what that implies, what is that object? From a smaller perspective, it is something else, and yet smaller something else. Then what is it really? To appreciate this is to understand it has no true objective form. Because even if a God created it, that God would also have to perceive to exist and it wouldn't be capable of fully comprehending what it is then (hence it logically has no objective form).

    But yet we exist. God is an absurdity, but so is existence, and yet we exist - proof in itself. Everything we understand is an acceptance of faith, even if we don't quite fully understand that or care too. Engineering is about probability and maximizing that probability for accuracy of faith and mistakenly gives the illusion of inherent truth or fact. But it's okay if people don't realize this, since that's still the point. ;P

    IMO, once someone understands that, the Jungian functions in their complete mathematical representation start making a lot of sense by conveying each of our own subjective experiences. And the ridiculous relationships people claim about the functions cloud this; the NTs that believe thinking is about being objective will never understand Jung. That's just not what it all is about.

    Some people even have come up with the idea that light is part of the energy that all things give off during the flow of time, hence that time is directly related to light and why we may not be able to go faster than light. I doubt that will always be true, but it's interesting. Maybe one day we will even be able to find a complete connection between light and magnetism with great accuracy of perception.

    There are so many interesting ideas in physics that are yet to be explored.

    Anyway, I'm sure you get the point.
    We perceive by making distinctions and if we don't make clear distinctions, such as the distinction between fact and faith, we don't see clearly.

  6. #16
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    We perceive by making distinctions and if we don't make clear distinctions, such as the distinction between fact and faith, we don't see clearly.
    But how do we form a demarcation between fact and faith?

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    And if everyone has faith there is no way to distinguish between those with faith and those without. And so the statement, everyone has faith, is indistinguishable from, no one has faith.

    So to say, everyone has faith is the same as saying, no one has faith.
    Yes, the Tu-quoque argument that I was leading into.

    So what is the solution Dear Victor?

  7. #17
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catbert View Post
    But how do we form a demarcation between fact and faith?

    Yes, the Tu-quoque argument that I was leading into.

    So what is the solution Dear Victor?
    Depends where we start from. If you accept my premise that we perceive by making distinctions, then we can see.

    But I can imagine you questioning me further, and asking how can we make distinctions, and indeed how do distinctions make perceptions possible?

    In the first case we are physiologically set up to only respond to distinctions. So you are right in that we don't directly perceive the world.

    In the second case I refer you to a lovely little book of mathematics called, "The Laws of Form", by George Spencer Brown. In it, his premise is that all of mathematics is based on the injunction, "Make a distinction", and then he goes on to show this is the case.

    This is as far as I have got. Perhaps you would like to take it further.

  8. #18
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Depends where we start from. If you accept my premise that we perceive by making distinctions, then we can see.
    We certainly communicate by making distinctions, but I'm not sure about applying that to perception as a whole. We are certainly limited in the respect that we can only observe and experience a particular part of reality and I guess in this sense distinctions can be made.

    I wonder though, do we trap ourselves by limiting our thought and perceptions on what we can ultimately communicate (both with ourselves and others)?

    Formal decision making certainly relies on these distinctions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    In the second case I refer you to a lovely little book of mathematics called, "The Laws of Form", by George Spencer Brown. In it, his premise is that all of mathematics is based on the injunction, "Make a distinction", and then he goes on to show this is the case.
    But mathematics isn't really analogous as formal systems only have tautological truths and distinctions. These truths might be difficult for a human to prove or even guess, but they are still truths by definition.

    But we don't know the rules of our reality, so how do we know the rules that we have discovered are actually true? This has been long sought in the field of epistemology and you probably are familiar with the story of the logical positivists.

    The error lies in making the distinctions. If we were able to perceive the whole, then there would be no need to make demarcations.

    But if we are to make these distinctions, how are we to do so consistently, how do we know for sure (in more sophisticated examples) that certain things are actually distinct?

    Leave it to the individual? Philosophers/Scientists/"experts"? Democracy? Assume that these demarcations don't really exist? Or assume they exist, but...

Similar Threads

  1. Mentally disabled and faith
    By sleuthiness in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-15-2013, 02:38 PM
  2. Historicity and Faith
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-04-2012, 12:52 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-12-2011, 04:33 PM
  4. Evaluating sources of science facts and what is the current scientific viewpoint
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-14-2008, 08:00 PM
  5. Derail from "On Spiritual Gifts": Determining faith-fact from faith-fiction
    By sassafrassquatch in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-28-2007, 03:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO