Atheism vs. Religion

[Danoff]

Pain is bad.

This is not truth. Women undergo pain during childbirth, but reproduction is a good thing. So pain is not always bad. The illustration you gave is another good example of pain not being bad. So the phrase “pain is bad” is not truth. It’s also not a scientific fact (which makes everything hunky dory in my book).

Now that being said, I recognize that I will live longer if I lay off the french fries and stick to rabbit food… but I’m not going to do that for the same reason that I don’t want to starve myself to live longer. The “truth” that I will live longer if I stick to healthy food is not something that I use because I don’t think it is worth living longer if I can’t eat lots of good stuff. That doesn’t mean that I don’t want to be aware of what I’m giving up…

Sure it is. Being able to predict and anticipate is one of the primary uses of truth.

Sure. It is one of the primary uses of truth. But my sentence

The expectation that it will continue to freeze at that temperature is not real truth

Is correct. One cannot claim that it is true that water will continue to freeze at the same temperature. One can only claim that it is probable because science is based on deductive reasoning. One can, however, claim that past observations are true and use those (as you point out) to make educated decisions.

I think that that you are using the word “truth” in a looser way than I am.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
This is not truth.

The fact that people willingly endure pain is no evidence that pain is "good", or more specifically, desireable. Ask any woman what sucked the most about giving birth and she will say "the pain". There is an entire field of medicine called anesthesia to eradicate or minimize pain.

But we are willing to suffer for things, like having a family, winning a marathon, etc. Pain has value, is inevitable and necessary, and always avoided by normal people. Same with fear. Either, however, in and of itself, for no reason and with no payoff, is bad.

And you know that if pain could be eradicated from the earth it would be. Painless birth. Painless death.

 

[Danoff]

What about people the S&M folks that get off on pain?

Anyway the point is that harmful truths are not ignored. They're taken into consideration and sometimes the risk is worth the reward.

I'm still not quite getting the truths that go beyond scientific fact. From a basic scientific standpoint, pain is good because it gives animals negative reinforcement encouraging them to engage in safe actions so that they can reproduce.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
What about people the S&M folks that get off on pain?

Their preferences are considered transgressive, or transcendent, depending who you ask.

From a basic scientific standpoint, pain is good because it gives animals negative reinforcement encouraging them to engage in safe actions so that they can reproduce.

Just because something has value or is useful doesn't make it good or desireable. You're saying all bad things are good because, in their badness, we know to avoid them, and such avoidance is good.

 

[Danoff]

You're saying all bad things are good because, in their badness, we know to avoid them, and such avoidance is good.

It's a question of viewpoint as to whether it is good.

The person experiencing pain might think it is always bad, whereas a doctor treating a patient might think pain is good (indicating that the limb is recoverable).

So I guess you're saying that pain is always bad to the person experiencing it. I'm not sure about that either, actually, because in the same case with the doctor, I think if I'd hurt my arm badly I would want to feel some pain to know that it didn't need to be removed.

If I am a runner, I want to feel that pain in my muscles so that I know I am building muscle. If I'm eating hot salsa, I want to feel that little spicy pain on my tongue (granted, this one isn't very extreme) so that I can enjoy the kick of the snack.

Emotional pain can be good too. If I spend lots of time away from my wife, I would definitely prefer to feel a little emotional pain to not having any feeling.

I'm seeing something of a trend. I'm bringing up situations where pain is preferable to numbness (though the runner and the salsa are not in the category). I think that in many cases pain is preferable to numbness as an indication that some good is happening.

I have a feeling you're going to say I'm missing the point.

 

[milefile]

Nah. You're making a good point. You can't have one without the other. Pain and pleasure aren't mutually exclusive. If pain gives one pleasure, as we know it can, it only supports this sticky fact of life.

So how does this relate to truth?

Put nipple clamps on me and I'll say "It hurts!"
Put nipple clams on someone who's into S&M and they'll say "It hurts!"

The statements are diametrically opposed, and yet they are bothy true.

 

[Danoff]

Right! How did we get here? Luckily it's recorded above. I asked for a concrete example of a truth that is not a scientific fact. I think it's a loaded question, though, because I think that if you hold a statement to the strictest scrutiny only the most evident scientific facts will hold up. But why was I asking for a truth that is not scientific fact?

Fritz was saying that truths are illusions created by man. That they were lies that man had grown accustomed to beleiving were truths. I countered with the argument that if the basic truths that science puts forth were not actual truths, technology would not exist.

You countered with the argument that the truths that Nietzsche was talking about go beyond science to other basic human beliefs. I would say that I do not think that those are truths. I think that means that I partially agree with Nietzsche... He claims that "truths" are lies. I claim that some of these "truths" (non-scientific) are not actually truths and that others (scientific) are not lies.

 

[milefile]

You're making a distinction between scientific truth and non-scientific truth. And there certainly is a difference. Science is mathematical, which is not to say always having to do with numerals, but rather refering to the way of perceiving and interpreting the world. But giving scientific/mathematical truth more value than any other kind, say, kinds having to do with physical or emotional pain, is arbitrary and just a preference of yours. I point you toward the renaissance man, who to this day is revered as the human manifestation of truth and it's pursuit. He gave no preferential consideration to science over anything else. In fact science was seen as thoroughly imbedded among every other possible truth.

Man did not conduct a scientific experiment to determine if science was necessary and valuable, and yet it sprang forth from us like every other essential characteristic we are. The truths of pain, of love, of science . . . all of them are estimations of value.

 

[Danoff]

The truths of pain, of love, of science . . . all of them are estimations of value.

and all of them are

"A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins"???

I'm still looking for examples of truths outside of science.

kinds having to do with physical or emotional pain

This is not a fundamental truth either. I'm willing to bet that it would be possible to shelter a child from physical and emotional pain. Furthermore, I am not willing to bet that anyone can prove that no child to date has not had to deal with physical or emotional pain. However, if one could prove this, I would call it scientific.

 

[milefile]

You seem to believe that truth is only truth when it is the same forever, for everybody. I would call that mathematical correctness. But that is only one kind of truth. You seem to have no recognition of the individual's subjective preception and interpretation of the world, his world, and nobody else's, and that these individual worlds overlap in limited ways, in science for instance.

I have another essay to suggest if you are so inclined. The entire bound collection it comes from, Basic Writings, is applicable, but in particular I am thinking of Martin Heidegger's On The Essence of Truth. Another example of my passing the buck to someone who can write much better than me, and who's life's work was the question of truth and Being. It's longer than Truth and Lie, but I recommend it to anyone who wants to, or thinks they do, understand Truth with a capital "T", and all the little truths we think give us access to it.

Incedentally, Heidegger was a doctor of mathematics and became a philosopher later, but early enough to be more known for it than mathematics.

 

[Danoff]

http://www.msu.org/e&r/content_e&r/texts/heidegger/heidegger_et.html

I skipped the part about untruth.

Whence does the presentative statement receive the directive to conform to the object and to accord by way of correctness? Why is this accord involved in determining the essence of truth? How can something like the accomplishment of a pregiven directedness occur? And how can the initiation into an accord occur? Only if this pregiving has already entered freely into an open region for something opened up which prevails there and which binds every presenting. To free oneself for a binding directedness is possible only by being free for what is opened up in an open region. Such being free points to the heretofore uncomprehended essence of freedom. The openness of comportment as the inner condition of the possibility of correctness is grounded in freedom. The essence of truth is freedom.

I diagree. I do not think the essence of truth is freedom (which appears to be his thesis here). That would imply that truth is subject to the being asserting the (I'll use his words) accordance of two things. I do not think that truth is subject to any being. Truth has been demonstrated to me throughout my existance to be not malleable - independent of beings (see lightbulb example for justification).

I'm attempting to remove the underpinnings of his argument here. He says that the "initiation into an accord" can occur only when the pregiving has entered freely... I do not agree. The initiation into an accord happens at the most basic of levels when two entities contain the same qualities. Perhaps a person can claim that those entities are in accord only when that person is free... but I think that the person does not even have to be completely free to make the assertion. This is beside the point, though, the person has nothing to do with it. The qualities of the entities are either in accordance or not depending on the observation, and the observation must be exhaustive.

I'm certain that I'm making a mess out of this, but it is because his argument is a mess in my mind. It does seem to rely on this "the essense truth is freedom" assertion which I completely disagree with.

Can you help me understand why he thinks he can make this claim?

 

[milefile]

I think it's because your idea of truth is particular and specific. Heidegger is saying that truth is not an idea, but that from which all ideas come: Human Beings, or, Dasein (there-being, or, being there), to put in Heidegger's terms. Individual ideas are particular things that can be correct or incorrect, useful or detrimental. They can be relied upon, to an extent, but are always subject to anihilation. Truth is the openess to allow a thing be what it is, in and of itself, and to behold it. This is the premise of phenomenolgy. Once a true thing is apprehended any number of things may be done with it... or is it doing something with us? I think it's both.

The poet attempts, in words, to pin down an experience. It seems inaccessible, but words pour out and reveals the invisible world to everybody who cares to know it. The scientist, in numbers, calculates how long light from the sun takes to arrive on earth. It seems inaccessible, but numbers pour out and reveal this invisible thing for anyone who cares to know it. There is little difference in qualitative or quantitative terms. Different people are attuned to different ways of conceptualizing the world, and it is only natural, I suppose, that they should hold biases favoring their own inclinations; it would be perverse not to. But claiming one aspect of human life has the monopoly on truth is not free. Science is important, and yet it is the newest, most inexperienced, and unknown part of our existence and our world. Our absolute and utter blindness to this, and ourr total lack of historical understanding, is a condition of our time, but not all times.

Those who want to know truth want to know what "is". Once we know that all we can do with it is something . . . what we need to do, what we want to do. If knowing the speed of light makes life better then it must be true. If knowing the speed of light were unknown it couldn't possibly be true because there are no miles, no hours in "the universe", only for us, here on earth, does truth matter in the slightest.

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Klostrophobic
So you think babies are born when God comes down from the heavens and places a fetus in a woman's womb? That's what it looks like from reading your post.

----

Gullibility will cause the downfall of humanity. No, not really.I just wanted to say something that sounded profound. Blah.

No, don't take Religion so critically. What i meant was that humanity and birth are amazing experiences. Since would could never understand everything about life, it seems nice to be able to have at least a general understanding of why it happens: a greater being. And knowing everything would only lead to eternal boredom! So why not leave a little bit unknown? The unknown is what lets us thrive and do awesome things.

Religion has nothing to do with gullibility (whether you meant that statement or not - refer to the red). It's about being a more interesting person and finding ways to connect with other people.

If you are an Atheist, you couldn't really appreciate life fully. You see everything on Earth, and just think science. Nothing exciting there...

And i'm sorry if i accidently dug up this thread's grave.

 

[Max Powers]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
No, don't take Religion so critically. What i meant was that humanity and birth are amazing experiences. Since would could never understand everything about life, it seems nice to be able to have at least a general understanding of why it happens: a greater being. And knowing everything would only lead to eternal boredom! So why not leave a little bit unknown? The unknown is what lets us thrive and do awesome things.

Religion has nothing to do with gullibility (whether you meant that statement or not - refer to the red). It's about being a more interesting person and finding ways to connect with other people.

If you are an Atheist, you couldn't really appreciate life fully. You see everything on Earth, and just think science. Nothing exciting there...

And i'm sorry if i accidently dug up this thread's grave.

Just because you don't believe in a higher power means you can't fully appreciate life?

I don't believe in God, but I'm grateful every day that I was born into a comfortable living situation. I appreciate my life just as much as somebody who believes in God, I just don't accredit it to one being.

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by SublimeDood10
Just because you don't believe in a higher power means you can't fully appreciate life?

You're right, it doesn't make sense.

I guess i can't really say what i mean.. I don't frown upon Atheism or anything like that.

 

[240Z freak]

Erm... Wow... Decisiveness...

 

[Danoff]

Mile,

It is true that a poet can describe a scene or thoughts or feelings in different ways than science can - and that is something that makes life rich. It is true that an artist can capture more feeling in a painting than mere paints and colors would indicate - and that is something that makes life rich.

I do not know how you can argue that these works contain absolute truths. They contain relative truths. Meaning, they contain what is percieved by the artist. They contain truths relative to the artist, which, only when the relation is included in the statement can it be considered to be absolute truth. Science is this way sometimes as well, some scientific truths are relative to the measuring instrument or time of day or conditions. Others are not. The purest are the fundamental logical and mathematical truths of our reality like 1+1=2 or true & not true = false.

But I think I could classify the realtive truth of a poet's description of a feeling as scientific. Doesn't it feel scientific to you? No relativitiy just fact.

"Poet X wrote about what he described as feeling Y on date Q in poem R."

That would be historical.

"Poet X wrote the following poem describing his feelings about the forest: 'in the forest I dance and sing and (blah blah happy joy)...' "

Scientific. Pure. Not relative.

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by 240Z freak
Erm... Wow... Decisiveness...

Awesome.

 

[Danoff]

Mile? Whaddya think?

 

[milefile]

I think you are describing correctness, not truth. All scientific truths have, at some prior time, been untrue. And it is no secret that many of the great scientific discoveries came to their doscoverers in dreams or other ecstatic states. The fact that some things cannot be reinterpreted as often as others, primarily because there is no advantage in it, is no proof of permanence.

Your mathematical examples, i.e. 1+1=2, are correct. But there are no "ones" in the world. There are objects that sit alone and give us an opportunity to say "there is one of those things there", but prior to the human who names the lone being as "one", is is just a thing. In fact, to say there is one it has to be one of... some kind of thing. Think of Heir Nietzsche's tree example. We all know what a tree is, and if somebody called a bush a tree we'd know they are incorrect, even though every tree is absolutely unique and there is no tree at hand to compare it to.

Enter, the poet, who writes a poem about a tree that the reader will not see, and yet is still able to experience and know in a more unique and just as complete way than any correct comparison or agreement between static ideas.

There is nothing new in that post. And I can't put it any better than Heidegger or Nietzsche. You fundementally disagree with two of the greatest thinkers in modern times (and of course not only you). I won't be able to convince you.

 

[Danoff]

All scientific truths have, at some prior time, been untrue.

This is not true. All real scientific truths have always been true. F=ma even if we aren't here. I don't see how that statement can be incorrect. Ignore the units invovled, just think about the concepts of force, mass and acceleration. They are coupled in nature and always will be. The relationship is there without people to know it.

We all know what a tree is, and if somebody called a bush a tree we'd know they are incorrect, even though every tree is absolutely unique and there is no tree at hand to compare it to.

We have the ability to abstact and extrapolate forms. We typically sepearte objects spacially and temporally (more often spacially). In that respect, we can count objects that fit into our abstract form and use the purely mathematical models of addition on these abstract forms. That doesn't invalidate mathematics, rather, science and invention has proven that this ability for abstraction is key to understanding our environment.

You fundementally disagree with two of the greatest thinkers in modern times (and of course not only you).

This does not bother me. I will agree with you that they were great thinkers. I think they asked important questions, I just don't like their conclusions.

I won't be able to convince you.

I'd like to think that I am convinceable. I understand that the attempt would probably take too much of your time. Thanks for hanging in there, thanks for referring me to the literature. Feel free to comment on what I have written.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
We have the ability to abstact and extrapolate forms.

Truth is not abstract.

This does not bother me.

I know. Me neither.

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by milefile
Truth is not abstract.

Truth can be abstract.

So how's this thread doing? I haven't read all 100+ posts, has it been a meaty discussion?

 

[emad]

Damn I wish I had time to get involved in this one. If I go through and read it, I'll be tempted to respond and judging by what most of you have to say in terms of quantity, I don't have that much free time

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Pako
Truth can be abstract.

No. Correct agreement between subject and object is. Truth is always only essential.

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by milefile
No. Correct agreement between subject and object is. Truth is always only essential.

Mathematics is the first abstract truth that comes to mind.

Example:

5x17=85, we know this because 5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5=85. We also know that 5 = .5*10. Given mathematical rules, we can say that 5x17 is also equal 10*.5x17. We also know that any number multiplied by 10 is it's numerator with the decimal place moved one place to the right, i.e. 10x17.0 = 170. With that we can conclude that 17x5 is also equal to .5*16*10+5 or 80+5.

With this logic we can conclude that any number multiplied by 5 is half of itself with the decimal moved one place to the right, and finally, if the number is even, then a zero is placed in the new decimal digit, else a 5 is replaced.

Example: Following that thinking you have:

5x167 can be thought of {(166/2) = 83[5]} where 167 is odd, we place a [5] in the tenths place. If it were 5x166 we would put a [0] in the tenth place.

This is a truth and it is abstract.

 

[Danoff]

Truth can be abstract.

In fact I would argue that quite possibly most truth is abstract.

 

[Event]

wow. questions like this on message boards ALWAYS make people write essays trying to impose their religion on others. Religion is stupid. there is no god(s).

 

[Zrow]

Originally posted by Event Horizon
wow. questions like this on message boards ALWAYS make people write essays trying to impose their religion on others. Religion is stupid. there is no god(s).

Well, at least somebody here has given this a lot of thought.