Reality from the view point of theists

@reasoning logic,

As social animals we agree on "things"all the time. Where we disagree usually involves conflict of purpose or group allegiance. For example, we might disagree on the "reality of global warming", depending on whether we had a vested interest in continued carbon emissions or otherwise,which would lead to selective citation of statistics. But no doubt theists could also argue either way citing either "God will solve it" or "God is punishing us" for their angle on the argument.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Honestly, I don't think so. There is at least the possibility we cannot, because everything we suppose we see and know...may be an illusion.

Now if you want to play that hand then I am not sure if I want to be a part of your reality.

Do you think that you are a part of reality?

We could have everyone in the world measure you, your height, weight, blood pressure, determine your skin color,hair color how many fillings you have in your teeth or count how many teeth you have left, but regardless I think that we could all conclude that you are a part of reality and the ones that cant we can send them away.

1 Reply

@fresco,

You do always have good points. I would like to know what criteria you demand from something before being considered a part of reality. I would also like to hear what some theist say.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Do you think that you are a part of reality?

I am sure I am part of reality...but it is the only thing I am sure of. I am not sure you are...or anyone else--and I am not sure about a lot of things involved in this thing I call "me." . You and all the other stuff...may be an illusion of what I refer to as "me" or "my mind." I am not saying you are...but you may be.

(Where is JL when I need him!)

Quote:

Now if you want to play that hand then I am not sure if I want to be a part of your reality.

If you are a part of reality (or of my reality)...you are whether you want to be or not...unless the reality is that you must agree to be part of it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I am sure I am part of reality...but it is the only thing I am sure of. I am not sure you are...or anyone else--and I am not sure about a lot of things involved in this thing I call "me." . You and all the other stuff...may be an illusion of what I refer to as "me" or "my mind." I am not saying you are...but you may be.

Hey guys.... Hey guys, "We have another crazy talker here. You keep thinking like that and you might have people looking at you, the way you look at others that have grandiose ideas, that you consider to be way out there.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

You are missing the key issue that the issue of "reality" only arises when there is disagreement about subsequent action. There are no general criteria for "reality", there is only context specific negotiation. Take for example whether human flesh is really "food", or whether a one month old foetus is really "human". In both cases context determines subsequent action.

3 Replies

@fresco,

I agree with Fresco that what each of us takes for reality is neither objective nor subjective in nature. It is cultural which means its nature is mostly inter-subjective, agreed-upon or negotiated interpretations. But consensus is not the whole of what culture is about. Cultures are all complex phenomena, meaning that agreement is rarely, if ever, complete. Individuals both share and disagree within single negotiated interpretations of the world. Perspective--as Nietzsche informed us--IS universal. This means that our perspectives which reflect our interests and values contain objects (like God and absolute truths) or it does not. My particular perspective on reality contains no Gods and no absolute truths. I am comfortable in a world that is inherently ambiguous, always changing and tentative. In this way I think that ontology (what exists in the world) and psychology (my particular perspective(s), or system of interersts, values, drives and interpretations are intimately connected. My world needs no God, my brother's (the minister's) perspective on the world critically rests on the assumption of a God.
It is relative, this relationship between ontology and psychology.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

whether human flesh is really "food"

I really do not see a problem there because if something is eating it and digesting it then it is food.

Quote:

whether a one month old foetus is really "human"

Again a one month old fetus is a one month old human fetus.
Now we are talking about morality which seems to be a whole other field than reality.

I do kind of like what Frank suggested about objective and subjective because it is when we seem to disagree that it is subjective and when we all agree it seems objective. It also seems that when we do not know, we treat it as if it were subjective rather than just stating that we do not know.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Hey guys.... Hey guys, "We have another crazy talker here.

Sorry you think I am a "crazy talker", RL. You asked me a question and I answered it truthfully. Everything MAY BE an illusion. Really no way I can tell...and that is all I have said.

Do you know it is not an illusion?

Quote:

You keep thinking like that and you might have people looking at you, the way you look at others that have grandiose ideas, that you consider to be way out there.

Not sure what you mean by that. If you could give me a specific instance of what you mean, I will respond.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

I agree with Fresco that what each of us takes for reality is neither objective nor subjective in nature.

But we are not talking about what any of us "takes for reality"...we are talking about "reality."

"Reality" MAY BE totally independent of what any of us thinks about it. Of course, it is also possible that the "reality" is "what anyone takes it to be."

No way of knowing that I can think of, JL. Is there some way you know?

And do you assert that what "we take for reality" IS the reality?

If "yes"...why? Are you saying it is impossible for Reality to be something other than what any of us takes it to be?

0 Replies

@fresco,

Fresco...have we had an argument that I do not remember?

Are you avoiding dealing with the questions I asked you...or do you have me on "ignore?" If you do not want me to address you...I will refrain from doing so.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Do you know it is not an illusion?

Sure I can prove to you that I am not an allusion. I will show you a trick that you may not know about and I promise you will never forget it.
Are you ready to try it?

I could come and show you the trick in person but once you try it yourself you will realize that I am real and not a figment of your imagination.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

.I do kind of like what Frank suggested about objective and subjective because it is when we seem to disagree that it is subjective and when we all agree it seems objective.

Thank you, RL.

Quote:

It also seems that when we do not know, we treat it as if it were subjective rather than just stating that we do not know

I have no problem whatever in simply stating I do not know...as you can see from what I have written here.

0 Replies

I find it ludicrous to suggest that anyone's definition of what constitutes reality will be conditioned by religious superstition, or the lack of it. Certainly the details of what is or is not reality would be so conditioned, but not the mere perception of what reality is.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Sure I can prove to you that I am not an allusion. I will show you a trick that you may not know about and I promise you will never forget it.
Are you ready to try it?

I could come and show you the trick in person but once you try it yourself you will realize that I am real and not a figment of your imagination.

I didn't say you were a figment of my imagination. I said you may be an illusion.

I am willing to listen to your trick and give it a fair chance. If your trick can prove to me that you cannot possibly be an illusion, I will be very surprised...but I will immediately acknowledge it.

1 Reply

Oops, wife just called. I may be away for an hour or so. Will be back to respond and to deal with your "trick", RL.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I am willing to listen to your trick and give it a fair chance. If your trick can prove to me that you cannot possibly be an illusion, I will be very surprised...but I will immediately acknowledge it.

Find yourself a cigarette lighter, take off your shoe and hold a flame to the bottom of your heel until you can not bear it, then quickly remove the flame and then I will tell you the rest.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Wife just wanted to watch the tape of tonight's Jeopardy! I'm back.

Quote:

Find yourself a cigarette lighter, take off your shoe and hold a flame to the bottom of your heel until you can not bear it, then quickly remove the flame and then I will tell you the rest.

That would be silly.

And are you of the opinion that my not being willing to do so somehow proves that you cannot be an illusion?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

That would be silly.

And are you of the opinion that my not being willing to do so somehow proves that you cannot be an illusion?

Kind of but if you did it, I think that you would have had much stronger words for me, instead of silly

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Find yourself a cigarette lighter, take off your shoe and hold a flame to the bottom of your heel until you can not bear it, then quickly remove the flame and then I will tell you the rest.

I bet that when someone first said that to you, you did it.

1 Reply

Reality from the view point of theists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know