Reality from the view point of theists

@Frank Apisa,

Much of what you call "pontificating" is deemed to be functionally axiomatic or self evident by philosophers of science. Don't take my word on the matter. Pick up any textbook on the subject and see for yourself. I might admit to an idiosyncratic view on the word "existence", but all else has been well argued by the guys paid to write books on these issues. Nobody finds this stuff easy because it clashes with many preconceptions and stretches our mental capacity to the limit.

A claim which I make on this thread is that only a few of us have actually addressed the question of "reality from the point of view of theists". My introduction of the Pope-Galileo scenario is the sort of material which I hope illustrates the issue.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

It may be interesting but I do not know how accurate it is as I am seeing other information that shines a different light on the subject.

It is interesting to me, RL.

Fresco has a vested intellectual interest in supposing there is no "independent reality" against which to measure "theories." In his last post, he even called the notion "begging the question."

All of his "proclamations" are examples of him "begging the question" of no independent reality...or no OBJECTIVE REALITY.

He will not acknowledge or even deal with the "if there is no OBJECTIVE REALITY"...then "no objective reality", becomes the objective reality.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Much of what you call "pontificating" is deemed to be functionally axiomatic or self evident by philosophers of science. Don't take my word on the matter. Pick up any textbook on the subject and see for yourself. I might admit to an idiosyncratic view on the word "existence", but all else has been well argued by the guys paid to write books on these issues. Nobody finds this stuff easy because it clashes with many preconceptions and stretches our mental capacity to the limit.

An appeal to authority done in many words is just as much an appeal to authority as one done in only a few words.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Deal with the question of "no objective reality."

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

No Frank, because you are in an infinite regress. My only criterion on the meaning of the word "reality" is its usage outside of a philosophy seminar. I have attempted to show how that usage has gravitated to an assumption of an "independent world". You want "reality" to be transcendent of that usage, but as JLN has often pointed out, such a transcendent position is ineffable (beyond the use of words) and requires a holistic, time independent coalescence of "self" with "not self".

As for the "appeal to authority", consider it rather to be an appeal to get out of the golf club unless you are playing golf.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

No Frank, because you are in an infinite regress. My only criterion on the meaning of the word "reality" is its usage outside of a philosophy seminar. I have attempted to show how that usage has gravitated to an assumption of an "independent world". You want "reality" to be transcendent of that usage, but as JLN has often pointed out, such a transcendent position is ineffable (beyond the use of words) and requires a holistic, time independent coalescence of "self" with "not self".

I see. So you are saying that all this is so…because you are saying it is so. And I will acknowledge that you say it very nicely…using lots of words most people do not use.

I’m impressed.

But Fresco…there is a REALITY. What exists…exists. You may not be able to know it; to describe it; or to transmit any ideas about it to anyone else…but what exists—EXISTS.

What IS…IS.

Whatever is stopping you from seeing (or acknowledging) this is formidable…and apparently cannot be (more likely, will not be) set aside.

I understand. Not trying to be patronizing here, but just as I have sympathy with the position in which Christians sometimes find themselves…I am sympathetic to the bind in which you are now wrapped.

I would, in any case, be interested in you addressing the “build a stone so heavy he cannot lift it” aspect of the issue. If the REALITY is that there is no OBJECTIVE REALITY…why would that not be the objective reality…making the assertion incorrect?

Quote:

As for the "appeal to authority", consider it rather to be an appeal to get out of the golf club unless you are playing golf.

Most appeals to authority have a hint of "this is beyond the ability of people like you to understand" about them. Your "hint" here rises above that level. I am just not sure whether I should consider that a compliment of sorts...or a further insult. Gotta think about it, because it could be either.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I thought your post was a bit more well thought out than usual RL, and I know why, your post is remarkably similar to this article.
http://www.thesierraleonetelegraph.com/archives/articles/100499.htm

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I'll let you think about this one Frank.

What's the difference (if any) between the questions:
1. What is the distance from New York to Chicago ?
2. What is the real distance from New York to Chicago ?

Specifically, I challenge you to come up with an answer without reference to the context in which either question is asked.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Are we talking New York America or New York Tyne and Wear?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Foul ! That's an appeal to context !

1 Reply

I don't know why you're wasting your time, Frank. Fresco does not intend to answer any questions, all the while insisting on getting answers to his own questions. Balked of the arguments he would like to refute, he resorts to the straw man of introducing "the big bang," and then supplying a claim about "before the big bang" so that he can argue against that.

I've asked him two simple questions--he won't respond. I've pointed out again and again that he has failed to address Farmerman's post--he remains silent. He wants to control the debate, and will not engage any points other than those which he supplies.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I'm only saying because the one in Tyne and Wear is more real to me, I've been there, I've not been to the big apple.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

more real to me

Well spotted ! Smile

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

I don't know why you're wasting your time, Frank. Fresco does not intend to answer any questions...

I realize you are correct here, Set...but hope springs eternal.

In any case, the point I am trying to make by getting him to answer is probably being made by his unwillingness to answer.

I think you are making the same point about him...using the same method.

We'll see where this heads.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

I'll let you think about this one Frank.

What's the difference (if any) between the questions:
1. What is the distance from New York to Chicago ?
2. What is the real distance from New York to Chicago ?

Specifically, I challenge you to come up with an answer without reference to the context in which either question is asked.

And how will my answer impact what we are discussing, Fresco?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Ignore the "sour grapes flak" Frank and try to stick with it. All "questions" have been indeed been answered including the FM point (by my reference to common physiology). If you don't understand that, you may not understand the significance of my current question about usage of the word "real". That would be a pity since such "learning opportunities" are commonly utilized in elementary philosophy classes.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Ignore the "sour grapes flak" Frank and try to stick with it.

I am sticking with it better than you, Fresco. Really! Try your own advice here. Stick with it...and maybe we can make some progress.

Quote:

All "questions" have been indeed been answered including the FM point (by my reference to common physiology).

Not even close. You avoid questions and discussions of anything that might cast doubt on your dogma as though they are the plague.

You are making this into a religion, Fresco...and you are too intelligent for that. Move away from it now, while you can still do so with some grace.

Quote:

If you don't understand that, you may not understand the significance of my current question about usage of the word "real".

We can deal with that easily enough. Just answer my last question.

Quote:

That would be a pity since such "learning opportunities" are commonly utilized in elementary philosophy classes.

The college I went to required me to have a major in philosophy and religion as well as my chosen major of economics. Been a long time since college, however.

So answer my last question...and let's see where that takes us.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Okay the significance of the question is

either the questions are equivalent, and the word "real" has no significance because the context (driving, flying, through the earth, what points in each city etc etc) is taken as understood,

or the second question is a demand for a specification of context..

In both cases context is either covert or overt. That analysis should bring home the point that when there is no "dispute" we do not use the word "reality", and when we do use it we do so to resolve relative reference terms.

In the dynamic praxis of living as opposed to the philosophy seminar,"reality" is about continuation of the interactive contextual flow and NOT about subjectivity or objectivity, or an "independent reality".

So having answered your question, please do me the courtesy of reading the answer thoroughly, and perhaps go back and re-read some of my other contributions in the light of anything which has now "clicked" with you.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Fresco...I am hoping you are not truly going to equate the word "real" in the question you asked me...with the word "REALITY" as it has been used consistently throughout this discussion.

There is no "clicking in" to be done my me...you are the one not quite getting it.

I do have to acknowledge that I was not prepared for that to be your point.

But please tell me you are not stretching so far for release from where you have dug yourself that you are not going to try to make the connection I mentioned above.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Well Frank, I am merely following Wittgenstein's method of showing that by examining actual usage, many so-called philosophical questions like "what is objective or independent reality ?" turn out to be pseudo-problems. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with such analysis. It follows by Occam's Razor, if nothing else, that if the terms "objective" or "independent" have nothing pragmatic to add to the normal usage of the term "reality" then it is a waste of time trying to justify them.
That's the "clicking point" but I cannot help you any further to lubricate your switches.

1 Reply

Reality from the view point of theists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know