Atheism vs. Religion

[Danoff]

How can something with "no objective" be what we must measure ourselves against?

Measuring ourselves against it doesn’t mean trying to be like it. In this cases, measuring ourselves against it means measuring our accomplishment by how much of the truth we understand.

It's also human to not care. I know lot's of people who only want things to work, never think about how they work, and never will. I know there are many more.

Yup.

Explain how. I don't see it.

I believe you are asking me to explain why your statement (if I interpreted it correctly) implies that objective truth exists without humans.

Your original statement after my interpretation was:

“only the inventor has to care about truth”

The fact that the inventor has to care about the truth implies that there is a truth for the inventor to care about. It also implies that if the inventor does not care about that independent truth, the inventor will fail indicating that there is an independent truth that exists and is correct.

 

[milefile]

The fact that the inventor has to care about the truth implies that there is a truth for the inventor to care about. It also implies that if the inventor does not care about that independent truth, the inventor will fail indicating that there is an independent truth that exists and is correct.

But who cares?

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
Measuring ourselves against it doesn’t mean trying to be like it. In this cases, measuring ourselves against it means measuring our accomplishment by how much of the truth we understand.

This is flimsy to me. What would it tell us about ourselves? That we understand this "objectiveless" thing? What good is that?

Purpose, endurance, and usefulness are more important than truth.

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by milefile
Purpose, endurance, and usefulness are more important than truth.

Even if you use those three for something wrong?

 

[milefile]

Of course. Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it's unimportant.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
This is flimsy to me. What would it tell us about ourselves? That we understand this "objectiveless" thing? What good is that?

Purpose, endurance, and usefulness are more important than truth.

I don't really feel you've thought this through. It seems like you're just spinning this stuff out offhand.

1) Measuring our understanding of the Truth is a direct measurement of our ability. That's what it tells us about ourselves. We can do what we need or wish to do with an efficiency and effectiveness that is directly in proportion to our understanding of Truth, and of What Is.

2) Purpose is important to us, not to Truth. Yet the more we know of Truth the better we can serve our own purposes. The more we understand objective nature, the more effectively we can manipulate it for our own benefit. See #1 above.

3) Endurance is not directly related. But of what purpose is simple endurance, if it is not in pursuit of some goal? Some goal driven by understanding of Truth? A rock will endure for thousands of years, while a flower will not. So what?

4) Usefulness is a measure of how effectively something can help us achieve our purposes. See #1 above.

 

[milefile]

Nothing youu have said there contradicts anything I said in the post you are responding to, except the truth part . . . we come first, then truth.

And then all you did was clarify the meaning of some words.

So in other words, "yes".

 

[Danoff]

But who cares?

The inventor and you have conceded that an objective truth exists.

This is flimsy to me. What would it tell us about ourselves? That we understand this "objectiveless" thing? What good is that?

It is how well we understand the universe around us which translates into an ability to control our environment – which translates into exploration and knowledge – which translates into improved standards of living and extended longevity in addition to the satisfaction of the raw human desire to understand.

Purpose, endurance, and usefulness are more important than truth.

Wrong! Truth is paramount. Purpose, endurance and usefulness are all important but not so much that they overshadow the truth. How can one’s purpose be more important than the underlying truth of the universe. One’s purpose should conform to that truth or one is wasting their life. How can one’s endurance and usefulness be more important than that which they should be working to understand?

Of course. Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it's unimportant.

An incorrect statement has importance in that the speaker believes it and that others may. That is the only importance that can be derived from incorrect statements.

 

[Danoff]

Nothing youu have said there contradicts anything I said in the post you are responding to, except the truth part . . . we come first, then truth.

There it is!!! In raw form!


Truth comes first, then us.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
Wrong! Truth is paramount. Purpose, endurance and usefulness are all important but not so much that they overshadow the truth. How can one’s purpose be more important than the underlying truth of the universe. One’s purpose should conform to that truth or one is wasting their life. How can one’s endurance and usefulness be more important than that which they should be working to understand?

Wrong! Truth without purpose, without a human being to put it to use is totally undemonstrable!

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
There it is!!! In raw form!


Truth comes first, then us.

What? Read it again.

 

[milefile]

What does an "undiscovered truth" do?

 

[Danoff]

Human beings are the sensor that sense the truth of the universe around us, but without us, the universe would continue and truth would still exist.

It doesn't matter that it is undemonstrable to the humans that don't exist in this scenario. It is still demonstrable to the rocks and gas the exist...

 

[Danoff]

What does an "undiscovered truth" do?

It affects the way in which we interact with the universe, we just don't understand it.

For example: Before radiation was discovered it still killed people. We just didn't know what was going on. Once we discovered the truth we had the power to do something about it.

What? Read it again.

I stand by my statement. Truth is more fundamental than humans. It comes first.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
Nothing youu have said there contradicts anything I said in the post you are responding to, except the truth part . . . we come first, then truth.

And then all you did was clarify the meaning of some words.

So in other words, "yes".

But it does. You were asking what was the importance of measuring ourselves against Truth, with the implication that there was no importance in doing so. I explained the importance, which contradicts your implication.

You then offered 3 things that you consider more important than Truth. I demonstarted why I feel that those 3 things are less important than Truth, and are meaningful only in service of our understanding. Again, this contradicts your post.

Truth exists. It has no relevance outside of its own existence. It needs none since it has no goal, no conciousness, nothing beyond its existence. Mankind is unimportant to Truth because it has no values with which to deem him important.

But man must exist within the universe that is Truth. Therefore our understanding of Truth is our most critical component, regardless of our significance to Truth itself. The tree in the forest still exists without an observer, regardless of the relevence of its falling. That does not mean that the observer is paramount over the observed; quite the opposite. The tree is only important to us when we observe it falling. Our observation is irrelevant to the Truth that the tree fell.

Again, you don't really seem to be thinking your posts through, so I'm not going to bother trying to lead you there any more.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
Human beings are the sensor that sense the truth of the universe around us, but without us, the universe would continue and truth would still exist.

It doesn't matter that it is undemonstrable to the humans that don't exist in this scenario. It is still demonstrable to the rocks and gas the exist...

What?! You can't be serious. Domonstrable to rocks?

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
What?! You can't be serious. Domonstrable to rocks?

What? You can't be serious. Demonstrably, excessively literal.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
But it does. You were asking what was the importance of measuring ourselves against Truth, with the implication that there was no importance in doing so. I explained the importance, which contradicts your implication.

You then offered 3 things that you consider more important than Truth. I demonstarted why I feel that those 3 things are less important than Truth, and are meaningful only in service of our understanding. Again, this contradicts your post.

Truth exists. It has no relevance outside of its own existence. It needs none since it has no goal, no conciousness, nothing beyond its existence. Mankind is unimportant to Truth because it has no values with which to deem him important.

But man must exist within the universe that is Truth. Therefore our understanding of Truth is our most critical component, regardless of our significance to Truth itself. The tree in the forest still exists without an observer, regardless of the relevence of its falling. That does not mean that the observer is paramount over the observed; quite the opposite. The tree is only important to us when we observe it falling. Our observation is irrelevant to the Truth that the tree fell.

Again, you don't really seem to be thinking your posts through, so I'm not going to bother trying to lead you there any more.

I like you neon, and I hope you don't take offense . . .

No. Understanding serves purpose. You are no different than Christians. Your justifications of truth are the exact same crap Christians use to justify their god. There is no difference whatsovever. Weighing emperical method against ritual is inconsequential. You have not re-thought truth, you have just changed the wording of an old description.

For you: Truth = God.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
What? You can't be serious. Demonstrably, excessively literal.

He said it, not me.

What you two are doing is called "anthropomorphizing the universe".

 

[Danoff]

What?! You can't be serious. Domonstrable to rocks?

Yup. Serious. The point is that when reality exists, truth is important.

What you are doing is called "running away from the argument". You make the claim that we are no better than religious people indicating that we have some sort of unfounded faith. You have yet to show that to be true.

You have conceded that an objective truth exists independent of humans. I think you have also conceded that religion gets us no closer to undertsanding the universe than simply saying "I don't know." So I'm going to claim you have lost the argument.

Checkmate?

 

[Danoff]

I admit, I had to look it up.

anthropomorphizing:
To ascribe human characteristics to things not human.


So the universe has human traits? This is not what I inteded with that demostrable to rocks comment, I indicated my intent in my previous post.

As to the rest of it, I really don't see how we're doing that. Perhaps you could explain.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
No. Understanding serves purpose.

Agreed. Totally, completely, and without reservation, agreed. Everything that I understand serves my purpose. I may not even know what that purpose is, yet, but that understanding is there as a tool no matter how unlikely the chance that I may need it. That's what understanding is for. Every single scrap of correct information I can ingest and retain makes me a more effective human being. Understanding serves purpose. Purpose serves me.

You are no different than Christians. Your justifications of truth are the exact same crap Christians use to justify their god. There is no difference whatsovever. Weighing emperical method against ritual is inconsequential. You have not re-thought truth, you have just changed the wording of an old description.

For you: Truth = God.

Here's where your theory falls to the ground. You're making a sweeping statement with absolutely no proof other than your own assertion. Either you just don't get it, or I'm not explaining it well enough, or both.

We're not anthropomorphising the universe. If anything, we're deanthropomorphising it. We are totally removing any human qualities from it whatsoever. It is merely the environment in which we live. Our living in it is inconsequential to Truth because it has nothing to feel consequences. It exists, as Truth, outside of us. God most likely exists only as a creation of human rituals (I say "most likely" because of the laws of proof dictate that I cannot state that God DOES NOT exist in some physical way). The scientific ritual, if you will, does not create the Truth it examines, it merely identifies it. The extent to which science does so is the measure of its quality. This makes the difference consequential.

Truth <> God. Truth = Truth. The more mankind understands Truth the more comfortable our home within Truth becomes.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
Yup. Serious. The point is that when reality exists, truth is important.

What you are doing is called "running away from the argument". You make the claim that we are no better than religious people indicating that we have some sort of unfounded faith. You have yet to show that to be true.

You say something like "reality exists" and pretend that is a plausible statement on it's own when it says nothing. If there is nobody there to point and say "that is true" or "this is real" then the point is moot. Until the advent of the human's presence there can be no saying, no discovering. There may be physical processes, stars and gasses, etc, but it is total chaos; we only understand these things as "processes" or as named entities at all after we come to them and do just that; prior to this there is no truth, only chaos. There is no order outside of the human's organization of this chaos, because in it's own form it is useless and meaningless. Any meaning or use it has is attributable to us only. Truth is organized chaos, organized to suit our purposes. We do not seek truth "just because", we do it because we need it to do something for us. We own it. Truth for truth's sake is also called god.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Agreed. Totally, completely, and without reservation, agreed. Everything that I understand serves my purpose. I may not even know what that purpose is, yet, but that understanding is there as a tool no matter how unlikely the chance that I may need it. That's what understanding is for. Every single scrap of correct information I can ingest and retain makes me a more effective human being. Understanding serves purpose. Purpose serves me.

Then how can you also say this?

You then offered 3 things that you consider more important than Truth. I demonstarted why I feel that those 3 things are less important than Truth, and are meaningful only in service of our understanding.

We're not anthropomorphising the universe. If anything, we're deanthropomorphising it. We are totally removing any human qualities from it whatsoever. It is merely the environment in which we live. Our living in it is inconsequential to Truth . . .

You had me then you lost me. Truth is simply what we call congruent things. Truth is a name for our representation of what is, it only identifies our understanding of it, and only after we understand it does it become truth, hence the two being inseparable. So when you say that truth has being a priori, that is, without undestanding, you are imposing a human characteristic on (a) non-human thing(s).

It exists, as Truth, outside of us.

It exists as meaningless chaos outside of us. It becomes truth when we see fit to make it so.

The more mankind understands Truth the more comfortable our home within Truth becomes.

Believe it or not, I like that.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
There may be physical processes, stars and gasses, etc, but it is total chaos; we only understand these things as "processes" or as named entities at all after we come to them and do just that; prior to this there is no truth, only chaos. There is no order outside of the human's organization of this chaos, because in it's own form it is useless and meaningless. Any meaning or use it has is attributable to us only. Truth is organized chaos, organized to suit our purposes. We do not seek truth "just because", we do it because we need it to do something for us. We own it. Truth for truth's sake is also called god.

I disagree. Those processes occur in an organized way, in and of themselves. We did not organize gravity. It existed and functioned. We organized the Law of Gravitaition and the numbers ascribed to it so it could be used as a tool to predict the motion of bodies in space. But the solar system was organized as an entity long before humans populated it. It was a system, not chaos.

Agreed, "meaning" is assigned by humans. Note that the universe does not seem to be questioning the meaning of its own existence. You are one step away from having it correct.

You see a tree and say that the tree is chaos until humans identify the system by which it grows. It is not chaos. It is still a system. It acquires "meaning" when a human encounters the tree and either sits under it pondering, burns it for warmth, or cuts it up into boards to make a shelter.

But from that you cannot assert that Truth = God. It still doesn't follow. You are still ascribing "meaning" to it when you call it "God". You are still one step away from recognizing it as something immutable and self-organized.

 

[Danoff]

Truth does exist without humans. It existed as it is now well before we were here and will continue to exist when we are gone. It is true that only humans make it meaningful, but it exists. Order exists outside of the human mind, the laws of physics exist outside of the human mind. That’s why our planet formed nearly spherically and why life existed on this planet before we did. Reality existed before we did, we can measure that during our existence.

You are correct when you say that “until the advent of the human's presence there can be no saying, no discovering”. That doesn’t mean that there is nothing to be discovered, it simply means that it will not be understood. You say that matter “in it's own form it is useless and meaningless”, this is also true. That doesn’t mean that its form is any less pure, that it doesn’t hold truths about the universe without the need for perception.

We do not seek truth "just because", we do it because we need it to do something for us. We own it. Truth for truth's sake is also called god.

Ah but we do. Lots of people pursue truth for truth’s sake only, even when it goes directly against our purposes. Think of the scientists that were executed because their studies were in direct opposition to the church and you’ll see what I’m saying. Lies were more useful to their purposes, but they went with truth for its sake only.

There are, of course, fundamental biological reasons why humans will seek out truth for their purposes and for truth’s sake only. There is no god required and I do not understand why you call truth for truth’s sake god.

Truth is a name for our representation of what is

Nope. Truth is a name for what is. It is independent of our representation. Truth is not mutable as you suggest.

So when you say that truth has being a priori, that is, without undestanding, you are imposing a human characteristic on (a) non-human thing(s).

How? I don’t see it.

It exists as meaningless chaos outside of us. It becomes truth when we see fit to make it so.

It exists as truth outside of us. We understand it when we are ready. My light bulb example illustrates this.

 

[Danoff]

Duke,

Our last two posts are a little scary in how similar they are. We even used some of the same words...

 

[milefile]

I admit it is more comforting to believe that truth is not the character of human's being in the world, but rather something that is imposed from outside; it really takes the responsibility for it away from us and gets us off the hook in certain ways. All evidence shows me that truth is the interaction between human and world, no one part of the equation takes precedence: remove one and truth is gone. Any ideas of systems and organization are names for ways of understanding. I doubt I'll ever be able to say what I've been saying any better than I already have.

Luckily for me I don't require corroberation, and being the scientific type myself, I'm not bothered by the fact that I could be wrong, but I haven't been convinced otherwise yet.

 

[Danoff]

All evidence shows me that truth is the interaction between human and world

Care to share some of the evidence?

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
I admit it is more comforting to believe that truth is not the character of human's being in the world, but rather something that is imposed from outside; it really takes the responsibility for it away from us and gets us off the hook in certain ways.

But it doesn't take any responsibility away from us at all. It is 100% our responsibility to understand it, or die from the lack of understanding our environment. That relieves us of nothing, which is perfectly fine, since I ask to be relieved of nothing. I don't see how it seems "comforting" to imagine that the Truth is indifferent to our presence. "Comforting" to me would imply the belief that a God created us, loves us, and will make everything all right in the end. But that particular belief just isn't terribly comforting to me and others who I am like.