religious people don't care about truth

However irrespective of the often misunderstood philosophical or scientific status of the word "truth" the de facto situation regarding religion is well summed up by Pontias Pilote's famous response "What is truth ?" to Jesus' "I am the truth".

To paraphrase....

Pilote said "truth is negotiable" (The common sense answer)

Jesus said "no its not, and what am/say is "it"" (The common answer of those who claim "divine revelation")

The situation today is that "moderate" religionists are prepared to negotiate a few details, but still claim they are privy to some hazy "fundamental truth", whereas "fundamentalists" tend to negotiate nothing. Both depart from "common sense" with the fundamentalist having to shore up their position with ludicrous barricades against overwhelming scientific counter-evidence.

An alternative view, "that reality (and hence "truth") exists independent of observers" is called "naive realism" in philosophy.

Some objections to "naive realism are,

1. That perception is active not passive...."The world" doesnt impinge on our senses...we "interact" with it..."data" depend on a "perceptual need"

2. At the quantum level (and this may be the level of brain operation*Hameroff)) it has been shown that observer affects the observed. We never observe "the world" only the effects of our observation methods (Heisenberg)

3. What we call "things" are tokens for our expected interactions with them. They have no idependent existence....no observer no observed.

NB the way out of this for some religionists was to evoke "God" as "an ultimate observer".

NB the way out of this for some religionists was to evoke "God" as "an ultimate observer".

fresco wrote:
NB the way out of this for some religionists was to evoke "God" as "an ultimate observer".

Joefromchicago
And the way out for others is to rely on metaphysical nonsense to conflate the "observer" with the "observed."

In many cases, it is good that people are religious. Many people's lives are saved by coming to believe that there is a God that loves them, and stuff like that. Religion has caused wars and done harm, of course. But I see that it does lots of good for many people on a personal level. My mother, for example, would have struggled if she wasn't a Christian. She had a difficult childhood, but she's come off very well considering, and I think it's probably partly because she has faith in God and that gives her hope.

BUT, none of that means that any religious principles are actually true. Since I don't know about every religion that there is, I should probably be specific and just talk about Christianity. But what I am saying can be applied to other religions too.

To be a Christian, one needs to have faith that there is a God who loves them and who created the universe, and that an afterlife in heaven awaits them. And other things too. People don't come to believe these things based on evidence, or rationality, but they come to have faith in them. They believe these things despite the lack of any rational reason to believe in them. And I think they do this because those beliefs are very attractive.

It feels good to believe that there is a God watching over you and looking after you. But that doesn't mean it's true. I would feel good if I believed that I had got a 1st in my previous year at university. But it's not true. I got a 2:2.

Many people seem to find the belief that there is no God, and that the universe is a sort of accident, much less attractive, and I think that is why people have such a strong tendancy to be religious.

Basically, I don't think people are religious because it seems to be true that there is a God or an afterlife, etc. I think they are religious purely because they'd prefer those things to be true.

But what we want to be true isn't necessarily what is true. It's a bit like pop music. The albums that top the charts aren't necessarily the best ones. If the charts were based on some objective aesthetic standard by which to measure the goodness of an album, then they would look completely different.

If Christians were being objective about what is true, perhaps by looking at what scientific evidence points towards, they would have less conviction that there is a God that loves them.

agrote,

Solipsism questions the existence of anything outside "self". The outline above implies that "self" and "the world" are co-existent. Neither "exists" without the other. Reality resides in the interaction. "Existence" is "relationship".

Let me ask you something agrote. Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow?

hephzibah wrote:

Let me ask you something agrote. Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow?

In practice, yes I do. But I try to be agnostic about everything. I don't believe that I can be certain that it will rise, but I do believe that it probably will.

Why?

agrote wrote:

hephzibah wrote:

Let me ask you something agrote. Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow?

In practice, yes I do. But I try to be agnostic about everything. I don't believe that I can be certain that it will rise, but I do believe that it probably will.

Why?

Because to believe in something you cannot prove IS, or WILL happen is faith. So even non-christians have faith on a certain level don't you think?

What is Truth?

agrote wrote:

hephzibah wrote:

Let me ask you something agrote. Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow?

In practice, yes I do. But I try to be agnostic about everything. I don't believe that I can be certain that it will rise, but I do believe that it probably will.

Why?

Because to believe in something you cannot prove IS, or WILL happen is faith. So even non-christians have faith on a certain level don't you think?