Living the Consequences of Another?????s Religion

[_mentalgymnast]

Maybe religionists should exercise a little more humility?

To the same degree, at least, as objectivists do.

My comments on another thread:

Are subjective impressions going to lead to a knowledge of objective reality? As humans we can have knowledge only of things as they appear in subjective experience.

Isn't the notion of there being an objective reality independent of any particular assertion about our prospects for knowing that reality in any objective sense?

I think that there needs to be a certain degree of humility as we determine in any absolute sense what "objective truths" are.

We're all assuming that we're playing on a level playing field, aren't we? It's defining that field that becomes a challenge.

What does the field REALLY look like? Isn't it rather subjective?

I think that the non-religionist tends toward a position that they are being somehow more objective than the religionist. The non-religionist has a particular assertion, that is true. But that doesn't make it objective reality. The religionists make particular assertions...Catholics vs. Mormons, for example...but that doesn't make either one true.

Religionists and non-religionists can all exercise a bit more humility.

Regards,
MG

[_Res Ipsa]

MG, I doubt that the people you are talking to are objectivists.

In the other thread, Smokey claimed that the subconscious was the source of objective truth. Themis simply asked how that could be. Given your position, you appear to agree with Themis, so I don’t understand why you think you are arguing with him.