Philosophy Discussion Forums

Oh I just re-read the

God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth -- in a word, to know himself

This meant to know God not to know yourself. So that makes a little more sense. You can skip 6. and go straight to 7. where I say I never would have guessed the conclusion. It might also be worth pointing out that it is all an axiom with zero conceptual or empirical evidence. So therefore, logically, I don't believe any of it because there is no reason to.

As an aside, I'm not a fan of the style of writing and I don't feel it helps with comprehension. But that is a whole post in and of itself and there is little need to debate that, you can just chalk that up as my personal opinion.

Eduk wrote: ↑January 4th, 2018, 5:37 am As an aside, I'm not a fan of the style of writing and I don't feel it helps with comprehension.

You know the 'Faith and reason are like two wings...' is a quote from the start of an Encyclical by John Paul 2?

It is very well known; it is the sort of thing that will appear on postcards you buy when you visit the Vatican!

Here is a link to the original:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul- ... ratio.html

I am not religious myself, but I think it is better than a lot of what passes for philosophy.

You know the 'Faith and reason are like two wings...' is a quote from the start of an Encyclical by John Paul 2?

It is very well known; it is the sort of thing that will appear on postcards you buy when you visit the Vatican!

Here is a link to the original:

I already said there is little need to debate my personal opinion. But if you insist.
For evidence of the vagueness of Christian scripture I present all the many denominations of Christianity. Dark Matter is actually a very good case in point as I believe he has told me he is a Christian who does not believe God is a being.
Now of course you could argue that scripture is not vague it's just that people are people and misinterpret due to their own personal failings. Much in the same way that QM is not vague but there are many cases of its total miscomprehension and misuse. To that I would say that the experts with PHDs on QM don't make miscomprehension mistakes anywhere near as much as the general uninformed public.
Again you could reply by saying ah but the same is true of religious experts who have the proper understanding.
Now I can say ok but the scientific consensus of QM is the same the world over whereas there is no religious consensus amongst the various denominations.
Now you can say right but just because you say you are an expert doesn't mean you are an expert and that all the religious experts that disagree with you aren't actually experts.
Now I would say ok fair enough but we have computers using principles of QM built by different companies the world over, Intel, Samsung, etc. So I agree anyone can call themselves an expert but not anyone can make a semi conductor. And I know of no working semi conductor built with a theory of QM which wasn't the scientific consensus.
Now I can't say the same of religious denominations. Their claims are many and varied and often mutually exclusive but there are zero demonstrable results. There is nothing to distinguish between the Pope and myself in terms of results.

Eduk wrote: ↑January 4th, 2018, 7:24 am
I already said there is little need to debate my personal opinion. But if you insist.

No, I just thought you might be interested in it as a piece of philosophy.

Ah I see. I don't generally consider scripture to be philosophy, or to be more precise to be a good source of philosophy. I'm not saying there is no such thing as some scripture with good philosophy I'm just saying that taken as a whole it's a bad source. For example you might read mein kampf and agree with some of what is said but I don't consider mein kampf as a good source of political wisdom.

Eduk wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2018, 9:09 am

OK. So where does god fall into your proportional belief? Proof or faith?

Well depends which God you are talking about and how you define that God. I personally find God to be largely undefined and what definition there is varies wildly from person to person, even among the same religion and even among the same denomination of a given religion.
But let me try to answer your question as best I can. You should believe nothing based on faith. If you proportion your belief to the evidence and are asked to believe something without evidence then your proportional belief should be zero.

I don't disagree with your logic, though my logic system can accommodate faith as well. That is, to my mind, the two are separate entities, not competitors, necessarily.

I don't disagree with your logic, though my logic system can accommodate faith as well.

Can you give me an example in the real world, other than God of course.

Eduk wrote: ↑January 4th, 2018, 2:07 pm

I don't disagree with your logic, though my logic system can accommodate faith as well.

Can you give me an example in the real world, other than God of course.

That's the thing, faith is not for the real world, it is for the supernatural world, like gods. The real world (as you know) is best dealt with through proof/science etc.

Londoner wrote: ↑January 4th, 2018, 6:42 am

Eduk wrote: ↑January 4th, 2018, 5:37 am As an aside, I'm not a fan of the style of writing and I don't feel it helps with comprehension.

You know the 'Faith and reason are like two wings...' is a quote from the start of an Encyclical by John Paul 2?

It is very well known; it is the sort of thing that will appear on postcards you buy when you visit the Vatican!

Here is a link to the original:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul- ... ratio.html

I am not religious myself, but I think it is better than a lot of what passes for philosophy.

Ah, you recognized it's source. Good. I quoted it to emphasize that faith is not what most people think. It's not just belief in a body of unsubstantiated ideas. Faith sees the world as it is without excluding science from its apprehension, adds to that personal experience and takes the further step of reasoning towards a highest ideal.

It is not correct to say "the scientific consensus of QM is the same the world over." It is, in fact, much debated inscience, especially its implications. Many would argue it can have a profound effect on of religious concepts.

That's the thing, faith is not for the real world, it is for the supernatural world, like gods. The real world (as you know) is best dealt with through proof/science etc.

This is an example of someone talking about something about which they know nothing except what they have been told by ill-informed sources.

I am not religious myself, but I think it is better than a lot of what passes for philosophy.

What passes for philosophy nowadays, especially in forums like this, is little more than the purveyance of perceived "facts." Real philosophy, philosophy in the spirit of the love and pursuit of wisdom, is shoved aside in contemporary society as meaningless. It comes as little surprise, then, that the opening lines of Fides et Ratio would simply be dismissed along with all the rest of it.

In both East and West, we may trace a journey which has led humanity down the centuries to meet and engage truth more and more deeply. It is a journey which has unfolded—as it must—within the horizon of personal self-consciousness: the more human beings know reality and the world, the more they know themselves in their uniqueness, with the question of the meaning of things and of their very existence becoming ever more pressing. This is why all that is the object of our knowledge becomes a part of our life. The admonition Know yourself was carved on the temple portal at Delphi, as testimony to a basic truth to be adopted as a minimal norm by those who seek to set themselves apart from the rest of creation as “human beings”, that is as those who “know themselves”.

Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives.

These are hardly the words of a philosophical dummy, words that can be dismissed simply because a Pope wrote them. Someone reading the treatise might actually learn something about the nature and purpose of real philosophy. But I doubt that's going to happen.

And BTW, who confuses an encyclical letter with scripture?

Dark Matter wrote: ↑January 4th, 2018, 3:42 pm

That's the thing, faith is not for the real world, it is for the supernatural world, like gods. The real world (as you know) is best dealt with through proof/science etc.

This is an example of someone talking about something about which they know nothing except what they have been told by ill-informed sources.

An opinion unencumbered by data.

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 4th, 2018, 7:15 pm

Dark Matter wrote: ↑January 4th, 2018, 3:42 pm

This is an example of someone talking about something about which they know nothing except what they have been told by ill-informed sources.

An opinion unencumbered by data.

Thank you for proving the validity of my last post.

Dark Matter wrote: ↑January 4th, 2018, 7:48 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 4th, 2018, 7:15 pm

An opinion unencumbered by data.

Thank you for proving the validity of my last post.

You're welcome, though for completeness you should add that while I know nothing on the subject matter, neither does anyone else. Thus my knowledge is statistically average (as is everyone else's).

Dark Matter wrote: ↑January 4th, 2018, 7:08 pm ..., that the opening lines of Fides et Ratio would simply be dismissed along with all the rest of it.

In both East and West, we may trace a journey which has led humanity down the centuries to meet and engage truth more and more deeply. It is a journey which has unfolded—as it must—within the horizon of personal self-consciousness: the more human beings know reality and the world, the more they know themselves in their uniqueness, with the question of the meaning of things and of their very existence becoming ever more pressing. This is why all that is the object of our knowledge becomes a part of our life. The admonition Know yourself was carved on the temple portal at Delphi, as testimony to a basic truth to be adopted as a minimal norm by those who seek to set themselves apart from the rest of creation as “human beings”, that is as those who “know themselves”.

Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life:

• 1. Who am I?
  2. Where have I come from and where am I going?
  3. Why is there evil?
  4. What is there after this life?

These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives.

That Pope got his information from ill-informed sources.
Confucius did not involve himself with question 1 and 2. His focus was more on Ethics and Politics.

The Buddha also avoided Question 1 and 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unans ... sava-Sutta