Reality from the view point of theists

@reasoning logic,

Good night and thanks for a great thread.

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I am trying to figure out if theist have any criteria that has to be met before something can be called reality and if there is, what is the criteria needed for something to be called reality?

It seems to me that the theistic approach to understanding reality is anthropocentric. The supreme force of the universe is described by means of human qualities, and reality is primarily responded to on an emotional level. Atheists are the other way around. Their criteria are logical in nature, and reality has to be explainable and provable. However aesthetically pleasing an idea might be, if it contradicts facts it will not serve.

Very generally speaking, of course, but I believe it is a matter of individual preference and priority.

Theism and scientific cosmologies are all belief systems. They merely have different criteria of what constitutes the experience real. What is reality? If we attempt to explain it, where do we start? Is the understanding of the physical phenomena that we perceive the most important thing about it, or is it the conscious experience of it that matters most?

As far as I'm concerned, all facts are about experiences, and reality is an experience, not not a place, thing or phenomenon. We are intrinsic to our own reality, and there is no reality beyond that relationship.

3 Replies

@Cyracuz,

That really nails it. Permit me some tweaks: The presuppositions of Science have not been arrived at by scientific means. The "NATURE of Reality" is a philosophical-spiritual matter investigated solely by experiential means. I'm thinking, of course, of meditation wherein "seekers" see directly into the nature of THEIR (personal portion of) reality. To arrive at this conclusion does seem to be, as Cyracuz suggests, a mysterious "matter of individual preference and priority."
Cyracuz concludes that reality* (the character of its many forms) is AN experience. That is the foundation for the empirical character of science. We might take that principle one step further and say that Reality (i.e., human reality) IS experience, human experience or what is sometimes called "buddha mind".
* note the use of lower and upper case "r's"

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned, all facts are about experiences, and reality is an experience, not not a place, thing or phenomenon. We are intrinsic to our own reality, and there is no reality beyond that relationship.

The highlighted portion of your comment, Cyracuz, is the most important to consider when considering the totality of your post.

What you are sharing there is a SUBJECTIVE consideration about what reality MAY be...and about what the REALITY actually is.

The really funny part of this entire discussion about whether REALITY is subjective or objective...is that no matter what, it comes up OBJECTIVE.

If, by some weird set of circumstances, it could be shown that REALITY actually is ALWAYS a subjective proposition...THAT would be the objective reality of REALITY.

There is no way what IS...can possibly be "NOT OBJECTIVE"...because whatever IS...simply IS.

JL...is will deal with your agreement with Cyracuz in a separate response to you.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I am trying to figure out if theist have any criteria that has to be met before something can be called reality and if there is, what is the criteria needed for something to be called reality?

It seems to me that the theistic approach to understanding reality is anthropocentric. The supreme force of the universe is described by means of human qualities, and reality is primarily responded to on an emotional level. Atheists are the other way around. Their criteria are logical in nature, and reality has to be explainable and provable. However aesthetically pleasing an idea might be, if it contradicts facts it will not serve.

Very generally speaking, of course, but I believe it is a matter of individual preference and priority.

Theism and scientific cosmologies are all belief systems. They merely have different criteria of what constitutes the experience real. What is reality? If we attempt to explain it, where do we start? Is the understanding of the physical phenomena that we perceive the most important thing about it, or is it the conscious experience of it that matters most?

As far as I'm concerned, all facts are about experiences, and reality is an experience, not not a place, thing or phenomenon. We are intrinsic to our own reality, and there is no reality beyond that relationship.

Please let me agree with you, and try to restate it... Reality has meaning because we are there to find that meaning, and being is meaning... Whether reality loses all meaning when we are not here and alive, or whether it never had meaning to those people never born is moot... It is our own meaning and our own reality which is our true concern, and theist posit a personal sort of omnipotence behind all of reality because they do not want truth which we can all only know a part of, but instead want certainty so they can face the pain of tomorrow without resentment which is poison, and so they give to their almighty the power to command over life and death...

If you are going to live in a dream world because the real world is such ****, then in that dream world know all of reality by a few examples, have its far side like its near side, and make a good sport of your creator who will forgive your faults and transport you to life eternal in heaven when you die... They have done no more than many people in trouble have done all on their own, and hallucinated their salvation at the moment of their demise...

I simply do not think it helps... Those who believe in God are the problem, and not the solution... If they can find no better reason than God for being good and decent they are fools, and dangerous violent fools...

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

I'm thinking, of course, of meditation wherein "seekers" see directly into the nature of THEIR (personal portion of) reality.

There is no basis for saying this other than as a “belief”…an assertion you are making without foundation. You are assuming that whatever happens during meditation (I suspect it is vastly different for different individuals)…(that whatever happens) is a direct communication with their personal portion of reality.

It MAY BE a delusion. No real extraordinary happening may be occurring. The person meditating may be doing the same thing many theists do when they talk about personal communication with their gods. Something extraordinary MAY be happening in meditation…and something extraordinary MAY be happening during prayer to gods…but it is entirely possible that NOTHING extraordinary is happening…and any supposed extraordinary perspectives are just delusional.

Quote:

To arrive at this conclusion does seem to be, as Cyracuz suggests, a mysterious "matter of individual preference and priority."

That sentence could easily be written: To arrive at this conclusion does seem to be, as Cyracuz suggests, a matter of belief.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

That really nails it. Permit me some tweaks: The presuppositions of Science have not been arrived at by scientific means. The "NATURE of Reality" is a philosophical-spiritual matter investigated solely by experiential means. I'm thinking, of course, of meditation wherein "seekers" see directly into the nature of THEIR (personal portion of) reality. To arrive at this conclusion does seem to be, as Cyracuz suggests, a mysterious "matter of individual preference and priority."
Cyracuz concludes that reality* (the character of its many forms) is AN experience. That is the foundation for the empirical character of science. We might take that principle one step further and say that Reality (i.e., human reality) IS experience, human experience or what is sometimes called "buddha mind".
* note the use of lower and upper case "r's"

First of all, to apply the term nature to reality when reality is nature as we are ourselves natural, is to apply one abstraction 'nature' to another abstraction: 'Reality'.... We have a few examples of the real, and we cannot be said to understand a fraction of it... We simply notice a difference between the physical world and the spiritual and moral world...But humanity has hardly discarded the spiritual explanation for being... Who is this important to??? We presume that everything existing exists for a certain reason... What is must be... The theist are absolutly correct in believing all of reality and existence has a first cause behind it, and then what was the cause of the cause??? Even if we think we can know that this must be true, that every effect has a cause, that does not get us nearer the first cause, and dwelling upon the first cause, in effect, God, is more a waste of time and life because having that certainty, most people have all they think they need and go no further...

Second: Many of the advances of understanding, scientific or otherwise, do not themselves spring from knowledge specific, but intuition without logical explanation... We have axiom for example whose value lies in their usefulness -that exist as knowledge without exact proof... Everytime an axiom works it increases our confidence, and our confidence is our reason for relying upon the axiom... Yet, axioms are not the end of science but its beginning since what trial and error taught as truth, people could then try to disprove at their leisure...All concepts have this axiomatic truth, and they are all only as good as they arrive at truth as a utilitarian value...The Ptolemaic universe could not be correct because it needed constant correction, and when our axioms fail us it is a clue that we need to reconsider them...If we have cause and effect as an axiom, and look at reality as being out of necessity, what evidence is that, and what confidence does that give us discorse on the nature of nature, or the reality of reality??? The thought that a bit of reality might by the force of will come in time to be conscious of reality, ultimately self conscious is not weird and amazing all on its own... No!!! We need to be certain of the unknown without the benefit of knowledge...

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, all facts are about experiences, and reality is an experience, not not a place, thing or phenomenon. We are intrinsic to our own reality, and there is no reality beyond that relationship.

The highlighted portion of your comment, Cyracuz, is the most important to consider when considering the totality of your post.

What you are sharing there is a SUBJECTIVE consideration about what reality MAY be...and about what the REALITY actually is.

The really funny part of this entire discussion about whether REALITY is subjective or objective...is that no matter what, it comes up OBJECTIVE.

If, by some weird set of circumstances, it could be shown that REALITY actually is ALWAYS a subjective proposition...THAT would be the objective reality of REALITY.

There is no way what IS...can possibly be "NOT OBJECTIVE"...because whatever IS...simply IS.

JL...is will deal with your agreement with Cyracuz in a separate response to you.

Yes Frank... To say experience, which is a moral form, and itself inpossible to be objective about is to say, as is no doubt true, that all fact, meaning knowledge, meaning science is based upon moral forms... We can try, and scientist give life and labor to a more objective understanding of reality, but all they get is a more abstract understanding of reality which is itself an abstraction... There is no absolutely physical form, nor an absolutely moral form... What we have is more or less of blending of the two...Theism does not deny reality as we know it, but explains it as we do not know it and so, cannot deny it...Science has left and right denied or explained the tenant of religion, but it never denies the moral form of good for which it labors... It is nutty to have the theists say that good exists because of God, and to have science suggest that God exists because good as an idea exists, and that the ultimate good, life, is the result of material causes rather than spiritual intrigues....One explanation of life should suffice and the other fall away; but religion does not work because mankind is logical, and knowledgable, but rather because we are unreasonable, and ignorant...

Frank... We are in no sense in a possition to say what is, let alone that it is objectively... Objectivity, like reality, is a moral form... Dog, Dogs as a class is a moral form in some respects too... Dog is a definition of a finite being... In telling us specific things about Dogs, or abstraction serves a purpose... If we draw a form: Being, from what we see as real, and it does come from the Latin for: Thing; then we do know something of use... And then if we take our abstract concept of the real, or being, and then from our perspective try to say: All being is objective, then we have taken our knowledge of things within our field of vision and allied it to all beyond our vision... What your abstraction as objectification is, abstraction, does is narrow the entire view of reality down to the object level when honestly, we cannot know beyond our own experience to say what real means...Two elements of reality as we know it are time and space which are only real as we consider reality because reality of any sort is impossible to consider with out them... And they are not objects, and never constant... If it were possible to freeze all time and space, and you were able to freeze them, then only then could they be considered as constants and as objective truth... Nothing else in all of reality is constant... Change is the order, and change of such complexity cannot be conceived of... The earth and conditions on its surface give us a wharped and distorted views of reality, essentially, one where things do not move...Finding objective reality is many times worse than trying to find a fly in a cosmic soup bigger by far than the milky way...You are stacking your abstractions...Reality and object are both abstraction... You are using them to confuse your self...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido…I appreciate you taking the time to explain your take on all this. I truly do.

I disagree with you…in a major way.

There most assuredly is a REALITY. Whatever IS…IS. Whatever is going on here in what we term existence…IS HAPPENING.

Whether we can understand it or know it or define it or explain it…DOES NOT MATTER. Whatever IS…simply IS.

The unusual thing is that you are explaining what it is and is not. You are, with these explanations of yours, doing what you suggest cannot be done…to limit what existence is.

But all you are doing in actuality is…explaining what you subjectively thing it is and is not. Your notions of the limits of REALITY are just your subjective considerations of reality.

But even if you are correct in everything you say…

…that would simply mean that what you say IS THE OBJECTIVE REALITY.

You instinctively realize that REALITY is probably something a good deal more complicated than what people normally consider reality. I agree with that. But stop trying to explain what REALITY is…what it is not…what we CAN understand about it…what we CANNOT understand about it…or any of that stuff.

You wrote: “Nothing else in all of reality is constant.”

How on Earth can you possibly know that? How can you claim to know what is or what is not “constant” in Reality?

You wrote: “The earth and conditions on its surface give us a wharped and distorted views of reality.”

How can you possibly know that? How do you know that what we think of as REAL…is not actually REAL? It may not be real…and there are good and compelling reasons to suspect it may not be…but present a reasonable, logical, non-gratuitous argument that “nothing except time and space is constant”…or that “the Earth and conditions on its surfaces give us a warped and distorted view of reality.”

I do not think it can be done.

And I am absolutely sure that whatever ACTUALLY EXISTS (I have no idea of what DOES exist)…but whatever actually exists…is the objective reality of what exists.

2 Replies

lets put this objective reality another way

if the Universe and all in it , were based on a subjective imagination by the individual

hence then they would understand , of course , the whole of the Universe

they would have to , because you can't build an atom if you don't understand how the pieces fit together

therefore sciences( knowledge ) would not be needed , yet the sciences ARE needed because NOBODY has this innate understanding of EVERYTHING , OBVIOUSLY

hence the objective reality is beyond any individual or individuals , in the sense of being able to conjure up this reality by imagination alone , were are simply not anywhere near that intelligent , not even a fraction close

objective reality is independent of our existence , really

1 Reply

@north,

North, clearly objective realilty is independent of our individual existences. But I think it's better said that objective reality is not something that merely contains our--and everything else's--reality. It IS our reality (or our collective realities).

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

North, clearly objective realilty is independent of our individual existences.

absolutely

Quote:

But I think it's better said that objective reality is not something that merely contains our--and everything else's--reality. It IS our reality (or our collective realities).

it is not better said

2 Replies

@north,

By "independent of" I do not mean "separate from", I mean "larger than."

0 Replies

@north,

By "independent" I do not mean "separate from", I mean "larger than."

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

North, clearly objective realilty is independent of our individual existences.

JLNobody wrote:

By "independent" I do not mean "separate from", I mean "larger than."

so objective reality is larger than our individual existences

1 Reply

@north,

Yes, I suppose so, Reality includes my reality but also that of everything else. In THAT sense it's larger. But I also suppose that the notion of size and location at this level is problematical, not something I can intuit given my very constitution.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Yes, I suppose so, Reality includes my reality but also that of everything else.

This is where we always part company, JL.

YOUR reality???

There is REALITY...and of course, there is your interpretation and considerations of that REALITY...

...but to suppose there is your reality rather than your interpretation and considerations of reality...is a step too far.

Suppose, of instance, that YOUR REALITY were the same as a couple of people who have been contributing to this discussion--that not only is there no objective REALITY...there is no possibility of an objective REALITY.

Would that actually be the REALITY...or would that simply be (what I consider erroneous) considerations about REALITY?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

DOES NOT MATTER. Whatever IS…simply IS.

Many people over the years have been very amazed about the concept of "IS" and I will not be one to belittle it but I would like to raise a question about "IS"

Surely "IS" is what "IS" is, but more than that, "what can "IS" tell us about things like "Reality?"
Every thing IS what it is but I do not see where IS can bring out any characteristic about anything.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, please keep in mind that for me Objective Reality amounts to all subjective realities (including my particular perspective on what is at any particular moment). By "perspective" here I don't mean just a theoretical slant that someone else could share; I am referring to my concrete, immediate ideoperspectival perception of what is at this moment. THAT is subjective, concretely real in its immediacyand existentially particularistic. What we mean when we discuss "reality" theoretically is something that is not so real in its completely general abstractness. Our sharing or non-sharing at this level of abstraction refers to nomothetic "considerations of reality", as you call it,

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I suppose is more then fair to reason that you experience real "isness" concerning the characteristics of your phenomenal construction of the world...that is to say, your experience, as far as you can be a witness of whatever is the case that you judge and believe, is a real experience onto yourself once is happening to you, (just like a mirage is a real mirage)...now whether your experience is a correct interpretation of the real world or a real construction of a world, nonetheless is safe to conclude that your experience is real, at least as much as the meaning of real can be meant to really mean...and such that any rebuttal defending the non realness in the potential conceptual human meaning onto what "real" is addressing must first define what other then this real is the real we don´t have... Laughing

1 Reply

Reality from the view point of theists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know