Objective Truth Vs Subjective Truth

[fatherman]

I would put an even finer point it and include Jesus Christ in the realm of subjective truth. There is not one shred of physical evidence that I am aware of that he ever existed. I don't doubt that a man fitting the description lived during that time or even that he was killed by crucifixion. There is no reasonable or empirical evidence that he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. All the laws of physics dealing with rockets show that a human could not achieve escape velocity on his own to leave earth's atmosphere. And where would heaven be then if not up? Why are there so many religions that profess such beliefs as facts. My answer is self-delusion.

Self-delusional. For clarity's sake, are you implying that religious faith is a form of mental illness? I know there is a push for this within the APA. Perhaps that is not what you are suggesting.

Edited February 29, 2016 by fatherman

[fatherman]

I've edited my last post to remove a negative personal response I had that would not at all be helpful in this conversation. If you already read it, just know that it is immaterial here.

Edited February 29, 2016 by fatherman

[Rodge]

Fatherman,

 

I find it exciting to get into this respectful discussion of profound issues. So, let's talk about "faith." I don't think members of any denomination speak with one voice. Still, I don't know of any of them whose preachers don't present an argument based on faith. I would define "faith" as a profound conviction based on experience, learning, and inspiration. But doesn't that add up to subjective truth ("belief")? That means that it can be claimed to be true for the individual expressing it, but not that it can be claimed to be true for anyone else. Can anyone present their faith as an objective, universal truth? Can they define their faith with literal words and present a means by which a skeptic could verify the claim? I think not. They can describe, in metaphorical or poetic terms, how they experience their faith and what it means to them. It's valuable to listen to their explanations. But they can't prove that their faith is better than my very different faith.

 

That's why "faith" can't be more than subjective truth on an individual basis. Institutionally, "faith" is an even bigger problem. If personal faith is based on experience, learning, and inspiration, what is institutional faith based upon? Institutions do not have human consciousness; they cannot experience, learn, and be inspired. Individual members of an institution can do that, but not the institution itself. Institutions can issue committee reports, but they cannot testify to faith. They can have members or leaders or scholars vote about various aspects of "true faith," but that produces a political, not religious, truth. Every time a religious institution endorses a creed or issues a catechism or makes a papal pronouncement it is falsely claiming that "faith" validates what it is saying.

 

Presumably this web site is not a forum for those casually interested in religion. I am not trying to find a better denominational home for me, nor am I trying to persuade the casually interested. I am trying to rally thoughtful Christians to the possibility that the church as a whole, in its many different divisions, needs to reconsider its basic belief that its mission is to "preach the Word of God." Instead, I am arguing, the true mission given by Jesus is to call people to consider more seriously their gift of human consciousness. The Christian church can do this by providing communities where respectful discussions about subjective truths can take place.

[Rodge]

Harry,

 

The difference between the reality of God and the reality of Jesus is that God is an abstract concept and Jesus is a specific case. I'm arguing that it is futile to try to verify an abstract religious claim; there can be no evidence of causation, although there can be evidence of claimed effect. We can show that the Hebrews were victorious in a battle, but we cannot prove that God caused it. In contrast, a claim about a specific fact, that someone we call Jesus actually existed, can be examined and there is the potential for evidentiary proof. I think we all could agree that it is possible to confirm claims that Harry Truman existed, and claims about what he said and did. We have his papers, photographs, films, and accounts of those who worked with him. We don't have that much verification regarding Martin Luther, but there is ample evidence that he existed and what he said and did. We go back in time, and the record becomes more sketchy, but we have confidence that ancient political leaders, such as Julius Caesar, and philosophers, such as Aristotle, existed and what they said. Jesus is clearly a more difficult case. He wrote nothing that has been preserved, if indeed he could write. He was not a figure of political or even religious importance during his life time. But we do have circumstantial evidence in the impact he made on some of those who knew and heard him. And that circumstantial evidence provides clues to what the man may have actually done and said, and what later followers attributed to him to strengthen their advocacy. My point is that Jesus can be presented as an objective truth. We have some evidence, and we can have an informed discussion about what the evidence does or does not show. The evidence for divinity does not point back to any specific reality (as shown by the many quite different beliefs about something divine). That's why claims of objective truth about God are demonstrably false. And why the search for the authentic Jesus is different.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Rodge

[fatherman]

(to be read with smiling energy and passion...sometimes I look angry when I'm not.)

 

1. You wrote, "If personal faith is based on experience, learning, and inspiration, what is institutional faith based upon?" You cite committee reports. The way Presby USA and UMC work is that representatives from every church get together annually to propose statements of belief or change statements of belief, a consensus by way of voting. Do I support every statement? No, but I support enough of them to remain a Methodist or a Presbyterian. Some say they're dead or worthless documents, but there has to be a way of denominating those churches. I can walk into any city in the US and most likely be able to walk into one of those churches a feel a sense of solidarity with the members, feel that I can worship without the distraction of significantly conflicting beliefs or doctrine.

 

So how is national consensus gained if not by experience, learning, and inspiration? These churches are egalitarian. There are no dictates from hierarchy. It starts with people like me. So PCUSA and UMC are institutions, true, but not like a bank or a library or school. In a school, the kids don't get to decide the rules. In PCUSA and the like, the kids DO decide the rules.

 

2. "That means that it can be claimed to be true for the individual expressing it, but not that it can be claimed to be true for anyone else." Yes. No one here is arguing with this. A faith could also be defined as a collection of spiritual beliefs held by an individual, a congregation, a denomination, or a religion. I don't even belief what everyone in my congregation believes, but we stand and confess the Apostle's Creed together. We sing the hymns together. We hear the scripture together. We are bound together by certain core beliefs, if only a belief in community.

 

I know there are lot's here in Oklahoma and throughout the Bible Belt that fervently believe that there is nothing subjective about the Word of God. That will never change. That is why fundamentalists feel so compelled to change the minds and hearts of people and even the laws. To them, it is FACT, and the facts are veeeeerrry scary. Many act out of pure love. They don't want to see me burn in Hell. That is very compassionate. However, many, even in this state, are not fundamentalists. That means the interpretation of the Bible is subjective. And if the Bible is subjective, then belief is subjective and personal. All of that scary BS that the fundies thump on about is written in black and white in the scriptures. That cannot be denied. But through scholarly reading, I see it very differently. And to be honest, I flat out disagree with much which was written. I make no bones about me being a heretic. It would be rather arrogant of me to claim that I knew the TRUE message of scripture and that it all agrees with me if you all just interpret it the way I do. In another time, I would have been burned at the stake. But it is all subjective to me, to the point that I support the concept that to some it is actually 100% objective.

 

 

3. "Instead, I am arguing, the true mission given by Jesus is to call people to consider more seriously their gift of human consciousness. The Christian church can do this by providing communities where respectful discussions about subjective truths can take place."

 

I believe you are underestimating the depth of knowledge within "The Church" regarding human consciousness. Jesus's message is about changing human consciousness into a state of love, compassion, forgiveness, humility...read the Beatitudes. This is not a secret at all. This is preached from pulpits of all denominations every Sunday morning.

 

There are many many many thousands of Christian communities doing just this, "respectful discussions about subjective truths can take place" every Sunday morning.

 

I would like you to be very specific here. Please describe the faith community you actually participated in that is not these things that wish The Church were. I like hypothetical conversations, but they carry a lot more weight and are far more persuasive when they are life-tested. If you haven't already attended a number of churches, you might consider doing so before you attempt to "rally thoughtful Christians" to do anything. Christianity is not just a debate or an idea for everyone. It's a life-giving, life-saving, transformative path. Is that what you are hoping for for yourself and other "thoughtful Christians"?

[Harry]

Self-delusional. For clarity's sake, are you implying that religious faith is a form of mental illness? I know there is a push for this within the APA. Perhaps that is not what you are suggesting.

Far from it, if that were true I would be admitting that for most of my life I was mentally ill. It's like picking your expert to me. You find someone you agree with and you sing the same song to each other to reinforce your belief. It's called a faith community, We all sing to each other and agree, we don't question because that isn't acceptable and we may be shunned. It's not a sickness, it's human. I've broken free from that choir and feel much better with my humanity. I started by removing the term "I believe" from my active vocabulary by replacing it with I think.

 

This is how I learned to recognize facts and understand the difference between Rodge's objective and subjective truth. Facts are truth and truth can be verified.

 

Children believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and other myths and stories. They are not mentally ill, they are in the process of maturing. That's how I see it. Please don't be offended, I am not calling anyone a child here. We all mature at different rates and some of us never mature. I'm not mature yet either, I just think differently than I once did. I can also explain why.

[Rodge]

Fatherman,

 

First, regarding faith, the issue is whether or not "faith" can be objective truth, whether personal beliefs can be transformed into universal truths by a political process. A person's subjective faith cannot be challenged because we do not have access to the internal processes by which the faith was created. Therefore, I must accept the person's testimonial to his or her faith as subjectively true for that person. The institutional process is different; we can observe the disagreements and compromises that go into the final statement. The result cannot be subjective truth, because an institution does not have self-consciousness and cannot experience anything. And the result cannot be turned into objective truth by calling it "faith."

 

I suspect you would agree that some Christians say that non-believers will go to Hell because their "faith"says so. And some would say that God forgives our sins before we even ask because their "faith" says so. I'm just saying that someone's testimony to their personal faith can be helpful and even inspiring, but a person's or a church's claim that their faith is objectively true for me is offensive and ignorant.

 

Second, regarding open discussions about human consciousness. I have no doubt that such discussions take place — but in what context? They are often framed in the context of God's creation and purposes. Not always, perhaps, but usually. They tend to take the form of testimonies to the predominate "faith" of the congregation. I'm talking about having these discussions in a community that explicitly acknowledges that everyone's subjective truth is valid, and none is more valid than another. It is a community where there is no objective truth regarding religious experience, and therefore it can welcome and support testimonies to miracles, to transformations, to skepticism, to anger, to failures, and to doubt, without judgment.

 

I am trying to avoid making this a personal discussion of my personal experience. What I am saying is either generally true or it is not. But, to be specific, I belong to a liberal mainline Protestant church, one that welcomes a variety of religious opinions, and one that currently has a lead minister who is decidedly theistic but not in any way Fundamentalist about moral or social issues. It is a church that offers classes on Progressive Christians like John Shelby Spong and medieval mystics like Meister Eckhart. (Spong has even preached there, but not Eckhart.) Still, I think most members would hesitate talk about a fiery Hell or a Godless universe. As you suggest, there is a sort of consensus that includes a variety of theologies but still there are boundaries.

[Harry]

WOW! Rodge, your comment is really well put. Thank you!

[fatherman]

Rodge, s group in my city tried precisely what you are proposing. It was put on by an interfaith alliance. They hosted discussion events around topics of all sorts and with speakers. It fizzled our when the leader fizzled out which is a shame. It's possible.

 

Will ponder your response more tomorrow.

[romansh]

Romansh,

 

I lived as a materialist for many years, but I couldn't harmonize materialism with free will.

 

I have lived a relatively oblivious life, with respect to free will and materialism. But once thought entered into the matter, one had to give way ... for me it way free will. Sorry could not let go of cause and effect.

 

What were the causes that made you side with free will over cause and effect?

 

Answers on a post card on the free will thread.

Edited March 1, 2016 by romansh

[Rodge]

Romansh,

 

My view of the physical world is mechanistic, predictable. That if I press the "Y" key on on the keyboard, "Y" will appear on the computer screen. That if I heat an egg in very hot water, the liquid contents inside the shell will turn solid. That the rotation of the Earth will cause the sun to appear to rise in the East. We constantly depend of the fact that a certain cause will have a certain effect. What happens in the physical world is predetermined by what happened previously. Theoretically, every physical event today was the result of a series of fixed causes and effects since the Big Bang. Of course, some processes are so complex it is difficult to imagine that we could gather enough information for a precise, correct prediction. But I take that to be a limit of our ability to gather sufficient data instantly, rather than a failure of cause and effect. I also recognize that quantum mechanics describes a different process at the atomic and sub-atomic level, but I'm not aware that anyone has claimed that this atomic activity invalidates Newtonian laws at the scale we experience reality.

 

But I do find that my experience of life doesn't match this mechanistic view.

 

First, regarding predictability. After reading your post, I considered how to reply. I thought of one approach, then abandoned it for the approach I am now taking. And, as I type, I revise sentences and substitute new words for ones I have written. That's not how the laws of nature work. Nature doesn't correct errors and make revisions in a specific case. My toaster doesn't correct itself if the setting burns my toast. My radio doesn't correct itself if a short distorts the sound. Nature doesn't "correct" a mutant cell division. One could argue that evolution is self-correcting, but that's not because nature "fixes" a specific mistake; it's just that some causes lead to more enduring results than others. Getting "heads" five coin flips in a row is not due to nature changing anything; it is just a matter repeatedly flipping the coin enough times. When I decide this morning to have a waffle rather than an egg for breakfast, I don't think it is reasonable to believe that that choice was determined at the moment of the Big Bang. I think it is more reasonable to think my human consciousness was able to make an unpredictable choice.

 

Second, regarding experience itself. I experience my life being full of sensations — color, sound, taste, scent, etc. And yet, none of these exist in nature. Grass may reflect electromagnetic radiation of a certain frequency, but there is no color there. Slamming a door may send shock waves through the air, but there is no sound there. We have evolved to have receptors of data about our bodies and our surroundings. But evolution has also created brains and central nervous systems that make consciousness possible, but the raw data bombarding us is useless as raw data; it must be interpreted. So where does data turn into the experience of color? Not in the rods and cones of our eyes. Not in the neurons of our brains. There is no physical locus where we can objectively show that data has been turned into the experience of color. So I conclude that experience is non-physical, and that our consciousness is affected by external stimulus, but is not totally controlled by it.

 

Hence, our consciousness enables us to choose among real options, and that's free will. Our choices are limited by physical realities, and our ability to carry out our decisions is limited by our physical location and capabilities. Free will does not, to me, mean anything supernatural, anything in violation of natural law. It is the product of natural processes that created, first, life out of non-life, then consciousness out of programmed responses, then human consciousness that permits our decisions to take into account abstract concepts.

 

So, that's what made we side with free will. But that's not a decision against cause-and-effect. It's an addition to cause-and-effect.

[fatherman]

Far from it, if that were true I would be admitting that for most of my life I was mentally ill. It's like picking your expert to me. You find someone you agree with and you sing the same song to each other to reinforce your belief. It's called a faith community, We all sing to each other and agree, we don't question because that isn't acceptable and we may be shunned. It's not a sickness, it's human. I've broken free from that choir and feel much better with my humanity. I started by removing the term "I believe" from my active vocabulary by replacing it with I think.

 

This is how I learned to recognize facts and understand the difference between Rodge's objective and subjective truth. Facts are truth and truth can be verified.

 

Children believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and other myths and stories. They are not mentally ill, they are in the process of maturing. That's how I see it. Please don't be offended, I am not calling anyone a child here. We all mature at different rates and some of us never mature. I'm not mature yet either, I just think differently than I once did. I can also explain why.

[fatherman]

Far from it, if that were true I would be admitting that for most of my life I was mentally ill. It's like picking your expert to me. You find someone you agree with and you sing the same song to each other to reinforce your belief. It's called a faith community, We all sing to each other and agree, we don't question because that isn't acceptable and we may be shunned. It's not a sickness, it's human. I've broken free from that choir and feel much better with my humanity. I started by removing the term "I believe" from my active vocabulary by replacing it with I think.

 

This is how I learned to recognize facts and understand the difference between Rodge's objective and subjective truth. Facts are truth and truth can be verified.

 

Children believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and other myths and stories. They are not mentally ill, they are in the process of maturing. That's how I see it. Please don't be offended, I am not calling anyone a child here. We all mature at different rates and some of us never mature. I'm not mature yet either, I just think differently than I once did. I can also explain why.

You've stated that those who believe in a literal ascension are self-delusional. Perhaps you are putting that in that category of fairy tale, something an immature person such as a child would believe. Am I understanding you correctly?

[Rodge]

Fatherman and Harry,

 

Here's a thought: Suppose the person who believes in the literal, physical ascension of Jesus also believes that there is a supernatural God who is capable of violating physical law at will. To say that such a belief is delusional is to apply an objective test to a subjective claim. Since there is no objective truth about God, we can't prove or disprove subjective testimony to personal experience and belief. I happen to believe that the idea of physical ascension is ridiculous, but that is my subjective truth, not something I can force on the other person. I can prove that physical ascension is not possible under physical law, but I can't prove that God can't mess with physical law. My position is tolerance for each person's subjective belief, but intolerance for attempts to impose one's subjective truth on others.

 

Fatherman, For several years there was in my city an Interfaith Forum for several weeks each fall, organized by the "downtown" clergy (Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Unitarian, and Muslim). Each session featured a panel of clergy from different faiths discussing an assigned topic, followed by table talk among those of different faiths, ending with panel commentaries about questions or ideas submitted by the table-talkers. There seemed to be three informal rules that made these sessions successful: Be respectful of others; speak honestly about your faiths' position, and enjoy some good-natured kidding. This model inspires me to the possibility. But my similar idea is different in these ways: The discussions would be within an ongoing community (the church); they would be a continuing part of the weekly routine; many different lay persons, not the clergy, would be a focus of the gatherings; the gatherings would spiritually focused, and there would be enough time for a person testifying to fully develop the thought.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Rodge

[fatherman]

Romansh,

 

My view of the physical world is mechanistic, predictable. That if I press the "Y" key on on the keyboard, "Y" will appear on the computer screen. That if I heat an egg in very hot water, the liquid contents inside the shell will turn solid. That the rotation of the Earth will cause the sun to appear to rise in the East. We constantly depend of the fact that a certain cause will have a certain effect. What happens in the physical world is predetermined by what happened previously. Theoretically, every physical event today was the result of a series of fixed causes and effects since the Big Bang. Of course, some processes are so complex it is difficult to imagine that we could gather enough information for a precise, correct prediction. But I take that to be a limit of our ability to gather sufficient data instantly, rather than a failure of cause and effect. I also recognize that quantum mechanics describes a different process at the atomic and sub-atomic level, but I'm not aware that anyone has claimed that this atomic activity invalidates Newtonian laws at the scale we experience reality.

 

But I do find that my experience of life doesn't match this mechanistic view.

 

First, regarding predictability. After reading your post, I considered how to reply. I thought of one approach, then abandoned it for the approach I am now taking. And, as I type, I revise sentences and substitute new words for ones I have written. That's not how the laws of nature work. Nature doesn't correct errors and make revisions in a specific case. My toaster doesn't correct itself if the setting burns my toast. My radio doesn't correct itself if a short distorts the sound. Nature doesn't "correct" a mutant cell division. One could argue that evolution is self-correcting, but that's not because nature "fixes" a specific mistake; it's just that some causes lead to more enduring results than others. Getting "heads" five coin flips in a row is not due to nature changing anything; it is just a matter repeatedly flipping the coin enough times. When I decide this morning to have a waffle rather than an egg for breakfast, I don't think it is reasonable to believe that that choice was determined at the moment of the Big Bang. I think it is more reasonable to think my human consciousness was able to make an unpredictable choice.

 

Second, regarding experience itself. I experience my life being full of sensations — color, sound, taste, scent, etc. And yet, none of these exist in nature. Grass may reflect electromagnetic radiation of a certain frequency, but there is no color there. Slamming a door may send shock waves through the air, but there is no sound there. We have evolved to have receptors of data about our bodies and our surroundings. But evolution has also created brains and central nervous systems that make consciousness possible, but the raw data bombarding us is useless as raw data; it must be interpreted. So where does data turn into the experience of color? Not in the rods and cones of our eyes. Not in the neurons of our brains. There is no physical locus where we can objectively show that data has been turned into the experience of color. So I conclude that experience is non-physical, and that our consciousness is affected by external stimulus, but is not totally controlled by it.

 

Hence, our consciousness enables us to choose among real options, and that's free will. Our choices are limited by physical realities, and our ability to carry out our decisions is limited by our physical location and capabilities. Free will does not, to me, mean anything supernatural, anything in violation of natural law. It is the product of natural processes that created, first, life out of non-life, then consciousness out of programmed responses, then human consciousness that permits our decisions to take into account abstract concepts.

 

So, that's what made we side with free will. But that's not a decision against cause-and-effect. It's an addition to cause-and-effect.

So elegantly reasoned, Rodge. This raises the question for me, then what are we to make of the difference between our perception and the ultimate reality? I've explored this a little in a previous post. I used the scene from The Matrix when the true reality of food has been revealed to him. He has a choice to experience the illusion that his food is appealing and delicious. He chooses the reality that his food is gray and tasteless because he is training himself to live in reality. So what would he do if he had no way of knowing which was real and which was illusion? He might choose the gray stuff in case it was real. He might choose the juicy steak because it might be real. Either way, he doesn't know. We cannot choose not to experience color, although we may know it is an illusion, but we can choose to enjoy it or not even though it is an illusion.

 

In some philosophies, it is suggested that the living in reality is a higher state of consciousness. But what of matters of spirituality? We don't know if God is a factual reality. Should we then live as if it is or live as if it isn't? Harry is very self aware. He has acknowledged that God's reality is a flip of the coin, and finds peace in living as if God does not exist. I accept the same thing, but I choose to live as if God does exist. I'd rather have the juicy steak in other words.

 

Again, I love what you've written here. There is a free will thread where this would be a valuable contribution. Maybe you've already written there. this notion of human consciousness "I think it is more reasonable to think my human consciousness was able to make an unpredictable choice". I agree with this. This, perhaps, is something uniquely human, though it is a matter of elevating consciousness. It's easy to be predictable. Our genes determine far more than we realize. I saw a picture of my deceased grandmother sitting precisely the way my daughter sits. My daughter never met her. Imagine that. The way she sits was predetermined at her birth. It makes one question free will altogether, but I believe that we are capable of determining our fate.

[fatherman]

Fatherman and Harry,

 

Here's a thought: Suppose the person who believes in the literal, physical ascension of Jesus also believes that there is a supernatural God who is capable of violating physical law at will. To say that such a belief is delusional is to apply an objective test to a subjective claim. Since there is no objective truth about God, we can't prove or disprove subjective testimony to personal experience and belief. I happen to believe that the idea of physical ascension is ridiculous, but that is my subjective truth, not something I can force on the other person. I can prove that physical ascension is not possible under physical law, but I can't prove that God can't mess with physical law. My position is tolerance for each person's subjective belief, but intolerance for attempts to impose one's subjective truth on others.

You've identified a hierarchy of belief. Because I believe this, it allows me to believe in this, this, this, and this. The argument of whether ascension is possible starts with the belief that God is supernatural and "is capable of violating physical law at will." There is no point debating the ascension. There is only debating the nature of God, and as you've said, our beliefs about the nature of God are entirely subjective. Well, you may say, most people believe in a supernatural God so how can they all be self-delusional? That is bad logic, but it might have some truth to it. Why do so many people believe in a supernatural God? Are most people too stupid to know better? Most people know little of quantum mechanics and such. So is there no hope for the dumb masses? Does proper faith require a high IQ and exhaustive scientific study?

 

Well that question has a flaw as well. I don't need to know how my smart phone works to use and enjoy it. Perhaps we should put all of our faith in the scientist just as we have in the engineers. Maybe that's what we are actually debating. In their ignorance, who do the dumb masses trust? (dumb masses sounds ugly, but that is an inference we can make from the nature of our discussions on tcpc) Ultimately, for me, it comes down to how we want to live, not how or who we want to believe.

 

When I meditate, something quantifiable happens to my nervous system that produces the effect I am seeking. This is recent knowledge. All we knew before is that it works. Would it not be arrogant to assume that other things we do which work or not work will be supported in a quantifiable way in the near future? When a consensus of scientists agree on something, it becomes something objective, something that was perhaps before subjective. Are we done then? Understand, I am no scientist. The collective scientific knowledge of this board is extraordinary, and I would never enter into a debate on scientific matters. But I have learned a lot about spiritual matters through many years of experience and practice. What spiritual people are doing is causing their brain to work in a certain way that can be very positive, like isometrics. I contract my muscles as if there were a weight in my hand. The muscle grows regardless.

[Harry]

You've stated that those who believe in a literal ascension are self-delusional. Perhaps you are putting that in that category of fairy tale, something an immature person such as a child would believe. Am I understanding you correctly?

We must start with a definition of delusional. Having false or unrealistic beliefs. You can be delusional without being mentally ill. Then maturity is as important to define. We can be mentally mature, emotionally mature, physically mature or even spiritually mature. I think believing the literal truth of bible stories about talking snakes and bushes or ascending into heaven is unrealistic just as believing there is a castle in the clouds at the top of the beanstalk. I don't think mature people believe those things unless they delude themselves to do so.

[fatherman]

We must start with a definition of delusional. Having false or unrealistic beliefs. You can be delusional without being mentally ill. Then maturity is as important to define. We can be mentally mature, emotionally mature, physically mature or even spiritually mature. I think believing the literal truth of bible stories about talking snakes and bushes or ascending into heaven is unrealistic just as believing there is a castle in the clouds at the top of the beanstalk. I don't think mature people believe those things unless they delude themselves to do so.

There is no positive use in arguing with that. If that is working for you, then I whole-heartedly recommend you continue esteeming maturity with that measurement.

Edited March 1, 2016 by fatherman

[Harry]

There is no positive use in arguing with that. If that is working for you, then I whole-heartedly recommend you continue esteeming maturity with that measurement.

Ok here's the thing, who knows how many religions there are in the world. They all claim to know the truth. Ultimately they were almost all started by a "prophet" with an ideology and went from there. I could list many examples from history before Christianity and after. Here is one that is a good example of how people can be self-delusional.

 

"Following an anonymous tip, police enter a mansion in Rancho Santa Fe, an exclusive suburb of San Diego, California, and discover 39 victims of a mass suicide. The deceased–21 women and 18 men of varying ages–were all found lying peaceably in matching dark clothes and Nike sneakers and had no noticeable signs of blood or trauma. It was later revealed that the men and women were members of the “Heaven’s Gate” religious cult, whose leaders preached that suicide would allow them to leave their bodily “containers” and enter an alien spacecraft hidden behind the Hale-Bopp comet."

 

For additional information visit: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/heavens-gate-cult-members-found-dead

 

I rest my case.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Harry

[Rodge]

I can't comment on the role of mental illness because I'm not qualified. But I agree that subjective truths can contain claims of objective truth. To the extent that they do, those objective claims can be challenged and tested with evidence. But that won't work if the subjective claim includes an exemption from physical laws. But going that route also removes the possibility of claiming that the truth applies to anyone else.

 

Also, I am skeptical of the idea that science will one day make all subjective claims objectively testable. There is admittedly a trend line in that direction. But I'm inclined to think the trend reflects the church's tendency to pretend that subjective claims (that the sun moves overhead in the Firmament, for example) are objectively true. It may be that science will eventually reach an impenetrable barrier between the physical and the spiritual. We just don't know.

[Rodge]

Harry,

 

And how do we know that their spirits aren't cruising the the shadow of Hale-Bopp?

[fatherman]

I can't comment on the role of mental illness because I'm not qualified. But I agree that subjective truths can contain claims of objective truth. To the extent that they do, those objective claims can be challenged and tested with evidence. But that won't work if the subjective claim includes an exemption from physical laws. But going that route also removes the possibility of claiming that the truth applies to anyone else.

 

Also, I am skeptical of the idea that science will one day make all subjective claims objectively testable. There is admittedly a trend line in that direction. But I'm inclined to think the trend reflects the church's tendency to pretend that subjective claims (that the sun moves overhead in the Firmament, for example) are objectively true. It may be that science will eventually reach an impenetrable barrier between the physical and the spiritual. We just don't know.

I deleted part of the last post to which you may be referring because I needed to rethink my example a bit. I think, though, I'm just going to let it be. Perhaps science will reach a limit in objectifying the Universe. I toy with the idea from time to time but ultimately abandon it. One of the reasons I abandon it is that although science may not ever be able to disprove God and all that might come with it, it's just a tiny bit conceivable to me that science could isolate an intelligent non-material force in the world. If that happened, then what are the consequences? Now, rather than having faith, we will have a choice: put your trust into God or go it alone; whereas now, the first choice is to believe if there even is a God. Until you take a step of faith, you'll never have to consider the choice you will have if God is quantifiably true. Would knowing God existed be good for humanity? That's really the question I come to. It might be worth working through.

[Harry]

Harry,

 

And how do we know that their spirits aren't cruising the the shadow of Hale-Bopp?

What are spirits? You are kidding me of course

[fatherman]

What are spirits? You are kidding me of course

I've had my fair share of spirits on a cruise before. Costly.

[Harry]

I can't comment on the role of mental illness because I'm not qualified. But I agree that subjective truths can contain claims of objective truth. To the extent that they do, those objective claims can be challenged and tested with evidence. But that won't work if the subjective claim includes an exemption from physical laws. But going that route also removes the possibility of claiming that the truth applies to anyone else.

 

Also, I am skeptical of the idea that science will one day make all subjective claims objectively testable. There is admittedly a trend line in that direction. But I'm inclined to think the trend reflects the church's tendency to pretend that subjective claims (that the sun moves overhead in the Firmament, for example) are objectively true. It may be that science will eventually reach an impenetrable barrier between the physical and the spiritual. We just don't know.

I am a skeptic and I try my very best to use the power of reason. I have a step daughter who makes a good living as a psychic. She knows I don't think she can read minds, predict futures or channel messages from dead people. I still love her and don't call her mentally ill. I do think she is delusional.