Myers-Briggs and atheism

[lilpixieofterror]

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/than.html

If you can win by logic, try attacking errors in grammar.

[firstfloor]

If you can win by logic, try attacking errors in grammar.

It is a very minor fault but you keep repeating it. Just want to help where I can. And, “can” should be cannot, I suppose. You are maybe just rushing a bit because you are annoyed with me.

I am not sure what part of the explanation I have already given is troubling you.

Incidentally, I find the apologetic method of jigsaw fashion Bible reading wholly unconvincing because it sure wasn’t written that way.

[lilpixieofterror]

It is a very minor fault but you keep repeating it. Just want to help where I can. And, “can” should be cannot, I suppose. You are maybe just rushing a bit because you are annoyed with me.

Or because I mix up similar sound words and similar looking letters. Nah, that can't be the answer. The answer you like is that I must be 'annoyed' with you, so that is the one you choose.

I am not sure what part of the explanation I have already given is troubling you.

Incidentally, I find the apologetic method of jigsaw fashion Bible reading wholly unconvincing because it sure wasn’t written that way.

Don't try to be a mind reader, you suck at it. Come back when you have an actual argument.

[One Bad Pig]

Christian theology is a tangled mess. It has been over analysed to the point of nonsense.
http://triangulations.wordpress.com/...-of-certainty/

Oh, the irony. . . .

[Teallaura]

What I am suggesting is that truth is related to and relies on consistency and repeatability across time. Nothing very interesting would emerge from a system that decays like the goats and the lions. Your calculator would not be able to produce the same answer to the same problem every time.

Religions play with two ideas, roughly being perfection, good, eternal and so on in opposition to corruption, decay, sin, death and the like. What I am suggesting is that arithmetic, life and everything could not exist in a system that is fundamentally corrupted. That is telling us that there are mistakes in those two religious categories.

You skipped about a hundred steps in this. Let's start over - what is truth, in your opinion?

[firstfloor]

Or because I mix up similar sound words and similar looking letters. Nah, that can't be the answer. The answer you like is that I must be 'annoyed' with you, so that is the one you choose.

Okay. That is a more interesting explanation altogether. I hope you don’t mind if I ask you if it helps to have things pointed out or not.

[firstfloor]

You skipped about a hundred steps in this. Let's start over - what is truth, in your opinion?

That is not an easy question to answer. ‘Truth’ is a bit cloudy.

The ordinary dictionary definition seems to be reasonable: that which comports with reality or is accepted as true. The second part of that definition is at odds with the first because it refers to beliefs rather than facts; but it is the type of truth that is most commonly encountered.

The truth that exactly comports with reality might not be available to us but we can approximate it very closely by using scientific methods and in everyday situations there is plenty that can be done to establish practical truths by sifting through various evidences. For example, a jury can decide on the ‘facts’ (fingerprints and the like) if something is ‘true’ enough to put a person to death.

[firstfloor]

Oh, the irony. . . .

Tangled mess hardly begins to describe it:
In religions, we have the idea that God created everything (for us). Everything being ‘made’ means that only God’s eternal ‘Universe’ (wherever it is that He resides) is natural and permanent. Our universe is artificial with respect to God’s natural universe. We tend to think of it backwardly and pretend that we are natural and He is super-natural. [We can put this confusion down to gravity – it being difficult to go up] If anything, if we assume a natural standpoint ourselves then God is sub-natural.

What is greater – the artist or his art? Does art worship or love its artist? If God loves the world, is it not just because He loves His art? But a sculptor does not expect his sculpture to love him back? It seems to me that the function of a work of art is to inspire in other people the same emotions that inspired it. It copies ideas. It seems therefore a very odd thing to think of ourselves as being both the creation and the purpose of creation.

In fact, we have very selfish reasons for thinking that and being so entangled in these strange concepts. We worship God because we want something from Him – the elixir of immortality; the magical potion that gives eternal life and eternal youth. Religions are an expression of this very ancient quest. If we ever succeed, it will be achieved through science, not religion. In that case, with any luck, we should hope to have the wisdom to refuse the gift offered us.

[Teallaura]

That is not an easy question to answer. ‘Truth’ is a bit cloudy.

The ordinary dictionary definition seems to be reasonable: that which comports with reality or is accepted as true. The second part of that definition is at odds with the first because it refers to beliefs rather than facts; but it is the type of truth that is most commonly encountered.

The truth that exactly comports with reality might not be available to us but we can approximate it very closely by using scientific methods and in everyday situations there is plenty that can be done to establish practical truths by sifting through various evidences. For example, a jury can decide on the ‘facts’ (fingerprints and the like) if something is ‘true’ enough to put a person to death.

Okay, so the problem is that you cannot distinguish between truth and uncertainty. Truth is not affected by our ability to ascertain it. Whether or not 2 + 2 = 4 remains unchanged whether Bob the mathematician or Billy the goat is asking. Bob is more likely to arrive at the correct answer than Billy who is more likely to eat the paper than anything else, BUT the truth of the statement remains unaltered - 2+2 is still four, even while Billy munches on the arithmetic book.

Our ability to know that something is or is not true is affected but other factors - level of ability, comprehension, ability to gather data, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera... Because we seldom have a perfect ability to ascertain knowledge there is always a degree of uncertainty. That degree may be very very small - such as the degree of uncertainty that unsupported objects fall, especially when a vulnerable toe is nearby; or very large - such as the degree of uncertainty that unicorns exist. In both cases we proceed from the assumption of truth - and wear steel toed boots as appropriate while not bothering to hunt for unicorns. In neither case is certainty 100% although we generally regard both statements as true (gravity exists; unicorns don't).

But here's the thing - uncertainty has no effect on truth. A thing is true or not true whether or not we are certain. Gravity may not exist - might just be an elaborate cosmic hoax - but if it does exist, then it is always true that gravity exists. No matter how uncertain we might be (try being submerged in the dark and see how sure you are about gravity right then) gravity either exists or it doesn't. Uncertainty does not impact truth. Uncertainty is only a factor in learning and understanding truth.

The existence of uncertainty doesn't make everything uncertain in the colloquial sense, like you seem to be using it. And science itself is but a tool in the arsenal of epistemology - and not always the best one (really stinks at determining beauty, style, and whether or not to watch Bonanza or I Love Lucy). Nor is uncertainty a determinant factor in relativism (relativism makes all things equal - including equally uncertain, if we applied it, which we shouldn't) although that seems to be the gist of your argument. You strike me as a relativist who is trying to use uncertainty to extend the relativism argument into the philosophic and physical - could be wrong but that's what it sounds like.

The dictionary had it right.

[firstfloor]

Truth is not affected by our ability to ascertain it.

The thing that you call ‘truth’ I call reality. It is that which “cannot be fooled” to quote Feynman.

Our ability to know that something is or is not true is affected but other factors - level of ability, comprehension, ability to gather data, et cetera,

“True” is being used differently here to mean our understanding of reality per the ordinary definition.

But here's the thing - uncertainty has no effect on truth. A thing is true or not true whether or not we are certain.

Again, the thing that you call ‘truth’ I call reality.

You strike me as a relativist who is trying to use uncertainty to extend the relativism argument into the philosophic and physical - could be wrong but that's what it sounds like.

I do not think that all points of view are equally valid. Ordinary senses are hugely augmented by scientific methods and instruments.

[Jedidiah]

ff, would you say that truth (as you use the term) is only applicable to the physical realm? Is it totally inapplicable to use it in a spiritual sense?

[firstfloor]

ff, would you say that truth (as you use the term) is only applicable to the physical realm? Is it totally inapplicable to use it in a spiritual sense?

I would say that reality, because it is testable, is the only thing that we can say true things about. There may be “spiritual truths” as well but I think these tend to be about human beings, their emotions, rituals, traditions, wonder about the world, the mysteries of procreation and death – human centred questions. They are different but they tend to get muddled up with the truths about reality and cause much confusion.

[Teallaura]

The thing that you call ‘truth’ I call reality. It is that which “cannot be fooled” to quote Feynman.

“True” is being used differently here to mean our understanding of reality per the ordinary definition.

Again, the thing that you call ‘truth’ I call reality.

So you don't know the difference between truth and reality? Seriously?

Basically, you just tossed your entire argument. Truth comports to reality, remember? Your entire lions/goats nonsense goes out the window.

I do not think that all points of view are equally valid. Ordinary senses are hugely augmented by scientific methods and instruments.

The first point we agree on. The second is utter nonsense in this context - so what? Augmented senses don't necessarily perform better (try telling colors apart with night vision goggles) and even when they do, don't necessarily result in a different outcome than expected.

[firstfloor]

So you don't know the difference between truth and reality? Seriously?

Truth is something we say about reality. I think it is always an approximation; there is always a small gap between what we believe reality to be and what it actually is. Nevertheless, the gap is typically small enough that we do not notice it as we go about our daily lives and therefore we do agree that truth does indeed comport with reality. By augmented senses I was thinking about mathematics, telescopes and particle accelerators.

I will come back to this later. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy the holiday.

[Pentecost]

I haven't posted in this thread since it was on topic, but did firstfloor deny the ability to discern truth? Firstfloot would you call yourself a relativist?

And I hope you are having a nice Winter.