I believe in the resurrection and second coming of Jesus. I realized long ago that there were people smarter than I am but also that I am not dumb.
Christianity, or any other religion, has always had smart adherents. That's undeniable.
The question, however, is whether they are applying the fullness of their brainpower to all subjects, or just the subjects that don't interfere with their cherished beliefs. Wanting to believe something creates a barrier to rational, clear thinking in even the most intelligent people.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.
I believe in the resurrection and second coming of Jesus. I realized long ago that there were people smarter than I am but also that I am not dumb.
Christianity, or any other religion, has always had smart adherents. That's undeniable.
The question, however, is whether they are applying the fullness of their brainpower to all subjects, or just the subjects that don't interfere with their cherished beliefs. Wanting to believe something creates a barrier to rational, clear thinking in even the most intelligent people.
some schmo
I suppose it might and in other instances might not. I reconsider my views from time to time. It causes me to notice my understanding to be less than perfect.
///
adding, I think my considerations of things that might interfere with my faith is pretty good. I find them interesting and important.
Ironically, I agree with this. The only difference here is that the people suppressing the truth are theists. But yes, what can be known about god, nothing, is plain to see.
It seems to me that you agree that there is absolute truth. Are you agreeing that men are unrighteous? In my thinking maybe not, because if there is no God/Jesus, then there would no standard of righteousness, and we’d likely then compare ourselves to one another.
Msnobody, to push for clarification,
I think people all over the world have legal systems consisting of standards of righteousness. It is true these should be considered imperfect because they vary and people make adjustements to them hoping to improve them.
Now law is not a path for full righteousness but one of sufficient importance that God insisted on it at Sinai
You should stick with that, and insist on a definition of absolute truth that doesn't trivially circle back to "God".
When most people say "absolute truth" they have no idea what they are talking about.
Very good point. When Schmo said he believes in objective truth I find myself translating that into his believing there is an objective basis for reality from which our observations are derived and give it a pass. But that dodges the issue of truth being a statement about our knowledge rather than about the fundamental nature of the universe.
You should stick with that, and insist on a definition of absolute truth that doesn't trivially circle back to "God".
When most people say "absolute truth" they have no idea what they are talking about.
Very good point. When Schmo said he believes in objective truth I find myself translating that into his believing there is an objective basis for reality from which our observations are derived and give it a pass. But that dodges the issue of truth being a statement about our knowledge rather than about the fundamental nature of the universe.
I had to stop watching Donald Hoffman interviews; it was damned me up too much. I guess the caveman in me is satisfied with the sun come up and the sun go down.
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Very good point. When Schmo said he believes in objective truth I find myself translating that into his believing there is an objective basis for reality from which our observations are derived and give it a pass. But that dodges the issue of truth being a statement about our knowledge rather than about the fundamental nature of the universe.
I had to stop watching Donald Hoffman interviews; it was damned me up too much. I guess the caveman in me is satisfied with the sun come up and the sun go down.
- Doc
I kinda think that's where we have to end up to avoid absurdism, nihilism, existentialism, or whatever. It's why I am such a fan of that video I shared a while back on metamodernism.
That said, I think pushing through is different than retreating back to the modernist view.
You should stick with that, and insist on a definition of absolute truth that doesn't trivially circle back to "God".
When most people say "absolute truth" they have no idea what they are talking about.
Very good point. When Schmo said he believes in objective truth I find myself translating that into his believing there is an objective basis for reality from which our observations are derived and give it a pass. But that dodges the issue of truth being a statement about our knowledge rather than about the fundamental nature of the universe.
I don't think it dodges anything. Just because I think there's an objective truth doesn't mean I'm saying anything specific about the nature of human access to that truth. I recognize that our perception is flawed. It's so trivial and obvious as to not mention it.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.
Very good point. When Schmo said he believes in objective truth I find myself translating that into his believing there is an objective basis for reality from which our observations are derived and give it a pass. But that dodges the issue of truth being a statement about our knowledge rather than about the fundamental nature of the universe.
I don't think it dodges anything. Just because I think there's an objective truth doesn't mean I'm saying anything specific about the nature of human access to that truth. I recognize that our perception is flawed. It's so trivial and obvious as to not mention it.
Fair enough. I suspect for many folks there is limited distance between what they believe to be true and what they believe to be objectively true. I find acknowledging our access to what "IS" can only be as accurate as our senses and systems allow to be a good counterbalance to certitude. But that's also my other bias showing.
ETA: To add, the typical online scenario where it's discussed usually involves tension between foundations for determining who has things right. Such as religious folks and whoever they happen to be arguing with or criticizing for not believing in God - based truth. The question regarding where absolute truth resides is fundamental to said debate. Trick is how to argue for absolute truth that isn't it's own form of "what I think it is".
