Greetings and peace to you, again, dear Goph' (by the way, did I ever say "Welcome back, you were missed"? If not... consider it said!). Alrighty, then... in the spirit of trying to understand one another (I certainly am, as well as trying to be understood)...
I see you introduced the word "truth" here as a synonym for facts. Personally I wish we could just stick to the word "facts" as it is the title of this thread. "Truth" just sounds like a collection of facts that align to a philosophy or religion. I know I'm imposing a meaning onto it, but I'm a bit sensitive to the religious nature of the word 'truth' and I'm sure you understand why.
I do understand. And I would 'cept s'not me what's got an issue there. I say "truth"... and others start throwing around the word "fact." For THEM, it's not truth if it's not a verified fact. I personally don't believe they are necessarily one and the same and that the problem comes in when the words "verified/verifiable" are added. Again, I think truth IS verifiable, just not perhaps at the time in question. Not necessarily verified... YET. But verifiable at some point, yes.
Reality to me does not include faith.
Yes, I understand. But one definition is "the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." And I have found that to be the true definition. So, while I get that it does not mean that to YOU... you must understand that it absolutely means that to ME.
I don't mean to demean you or anyone who is a person of faith. However faith can take on so many shades and colors, depending on culture and even family background.
No, truly, it doesn't. Not the TRUE definition of it. It is all of the erroneous interpretations that give it all of those shades/colors. Now, sure, I can say all day long the interpretation I now understand is the TRUE one. I'm not asking anyone to believe ME, though, not at all. I'm just saying that anyone who truly WANTS to can receive the same definition as I did... from the same Source that I did. S'all I'm sayin'. If one DOESN'T want to... absolute NO skin off MY teeth, none at all. I don't leave this board thinking, "Goats! They should be listening to ME and what I say about faith!" Nope. Not even. I leave saying, "Okay, puppies... time for candy then nite-nite!" or "Honey, you got a clean shirt for tomorrow?" or something like that.
Faith is belief in the unseen, and I aver that it is definitely outside the realm of provable fact.
So, something MUST be seen in order to be proveable?
Facts are either provable or falsifiable. Nobody living on earth can definitely prove there is or isn't a deity, and if there is nobody can prove which one is the right one. It all gets hazy and murky when you mix in faith with facts.
Nobody living on earth at this time, no... but that was not the case in the past and won't be in the future. As to either, whether there is/isn't a God... or which is the right One. You folks here are not the first to have called for proof. Pharaoh called for proof some 3-4 millenia ago. And some before him did so, too. As did some after him. And proof was provided each time. Sure, it may not happen often... but who's to say you're not living in the time of such proof again, now? You won't know it until you see it, of course, but not everyone has that need.
To you, your faith may be real. To others, their different faith may be real. I don't deny that people think things are real.
Do you mean my faith is real (it is)... or what I receive as a result of it?
Me: "what you claim here as to religion... I see you as being as dogmatic about THEM as many proponents of religion are about SCIENCE."
You: Yes I'm bringing a point of view when I say religions tend to believe they have the facts and are not interested in searching for knowledge. The major religions have always said you must believe their way or else you are doomed for eternity. Since you are not a major defender of religion, I didn't think you would have any problem with my saying that.
I don't have a problem, at all. But again, don't many proponents of religion say the same thing as to science? Albeit not religious, couldn't I say the same... that some of the proponents of science here believe THEY have all the facts and so aren't interested in searching for knowledge, either? True, it may not be knowledge as to the physical world... but do such ones TRULY have the facts as to the spirit world?
Throughout the centuries it has been the world of science rather than theologists who have worked hard to explore and develop new facts about the universe.
Are you sure it hasn't been a bit of both?
It seems to me that any search for information by religions has been chiefly to confirm their existing belief system. I hope I'm not "dogmatic" in this assessment and am open to learn if religions have brought forth amazing new discoveries.
I dunno. I mean, religion has fostered MANY universities and centers for learning... as well as taken the lead in a LOT of medical/nursing areas. They own a LOT of hospitals and fund a LOT of medical research, archeological endeavors, etc. I mean, I've never actually researched it, but I think that is the case.
I perceive that you are pointing to a grouping of all "truth" with an overlap between religion and science. I don't see it like that. I see religion and science as totally separate disciplines, with their own goals and possible benefits. Science is there to document what is provable, to the extent possible, about the known world. Religion is there to document what is believable, to the leaders and/or adherents of a given faith system, about the unknown world. In my view a thick, dark line exists between the two disciplines (religion and science).
I wasn't really trying to overlap science and "religion"... at least not as religion is largely manifest in this world... but religion as that applies to things of the spirit realm, including faith, etc. I actually HATE that term... but I understood what was meant here and just didn't want to deviate into a lesson on the difference between religion and the spiritual. But let's go with religion and science: I do see them as totally separate disciplines. Rather than see a thick, dark line, though... I have learned to see a kind of Venn diagram, albeit not one with three equal parts overlapping.
Science constantly works to observe and measure the known universe, and this process has only accelerated in the past century due to amazing advances in technology.
Yes! Yet, we know all there so much NOW... that we absolutely must rule out from being true, factual, or existing ANYTHING we can't explain... or verify... NOW. Right? Yet, if somehow we develop the tools/means to consider something we don't believe exists now at some FUTURE time, well, then, doo-dah... NOW that thing exists. Yes? Yet, the FACT is that it was there all along. How do you reconcile that?
True science means that which is verifiable and holds up to repeated observation and/or experimentation.
Okay. But again, if the earth's circumference isn't verifiable NOW... because the means TO repeatedly observe/experiment don't yet exist... is it not ROUND... NOW?
Fraudulent ideas like "cold fusion" have been exposed as hollow and have been sent to the wayside. The scientific process is self-correcting as it is exposed to constant peer reviews and re-evaluation.
And that's a good thing, IMHO. How, though, can we applaud that... and not do so when religion "adjusts" as well? Again, I'm not a proponent of religion; I am also not a proponent of hypocrisy...
If we go beyond the scientific methods currently known and accepted, we are entering into a realm of faith which cannot be proven or falsified using "true" scientific methods. Those who look to fit ideas of faith into science are trying to place a square hole into a round peg, Dear Shelby.
So, DaVinci shouldn't have had his vision of a flying machine (helicopter)... or told anyone about it... because the scientific methods known and accepted during HIS day couldn't prove or falsify that vision... the theory of which took some 400 or so years to "verify"? But wasn't it HIS vision that prompted the attempt TO verify it... although 4 centuries later? Are we really to believe that every possible way to verify something is known to us today... or will/can be known in, say, the next 5-10 years?
If someone brings "other ways" that don't accord with the scientific method, whatever they're doing isn't scientific.
What if such other ways doesn't accord... but WORKS? Would science actually reject it because it doesn't (seem to) accord? And if so, isn't that exactly what religion does?
I seriously doubt anyone is asking believers to verify items of faith in a scientific way.
Sure they are. They do so here all the time! Even when one says, "But it cannot be verified that way - it must be verified THIS way." The response is "Nope, gotta be verified "that" way and "that" way only."
I certainly don't ask that. I believe items of faith are outside the realm of the "facts" discussion, because they cannot be proved or disproved scientifically
Yes, dear one. You and many others... and those of us of faith are most appreciative of that. However, that is NOT the case with everyone.
Shelby - just one more response in clarification: I'll jump to the middle of your post because I found this example interesting.
For this discussion my inclination is to steer away from personal experiences and keep it to universally known ideas and to whether they are factual or not. Otherwise we get into religious / faith experiences that are not subject to the scientific method. So those kind of things may be something, may be real to you or others who truly believe they have experienced them. See, these are items of faith, and while they are in the realm of your own reality - and honest people will listen to them and evaluate them, they are not universal.
Yes, I TOTALLY understand! I believe that that is what both dear Apognophos and Satanus (peace to you, both!) were trying to say. I personally don't have a problem leaving off from discussing "facts"... except where I have stated something as true... and then am accused of twisting, distorting, misstating... or "mispresenting facts." YOU have the insight to see that one may not be discussing "facts" that can be scientifically proven (NOW)... but realities that, while scientifically verifiable at SOME point, but perhaps not NOW... ARE true. Just because I can't prove that I landed that Marlin doesn't mean I shouldn't share my experience with you... perhaps even how YOU can do it, too.
"If evidence is strong enough to be universally accepted, tested and recreated, then it can come into the realm of fact. Otherwise the evidence is personal and can serve to strengthen one's faith.
I totally agree with the latter part of your statement; however, if only a few WANT to accept, test, and recreate the evidence... and do... and receive similar results... it can still be rejected because ONLY a few did. That the majority don't even WANT to... shouldn't negate what the few found. Should it?
However you and I live have only lived in a world where we knew the world to be spherical. The earth was spherical even before it was verified. However since nobody could verify it, how could we anyone at that point state "it's a FACT"? Maybe I'd be more clear if I use an example from the world we know.
And that's my question: WHEN it is a "fact"? When it is TRUE (which it is before it's even verified)... or only when it's verified? Now, I have NO problem with that definition; again, MY interest is when I say something is TRUE (and it is but perhaps not yet verified)... and some says I'm "misrepresenting FACTS."
Back in the 1970's and 1980's we heard our music on record players and boomboxes. Who knew it was possible to miniaturize music players so that it would fit in the palm of one's hand? Such a thing could have been theorized by the brightest minds in 1975, but it wasn't yet verified. And then technology kept miniaturizing the circuit boards, and things kept getting smaller until they produced MP3 players and I-pods that can hold thousands of songs. So the fact that such a thing "could" happen became verified.
I understand: it became a fact. But... wasn't it always TRUE... that music players COULD be miniaturized... except the tools/means to do that didn't exist yet? So, okay... you're saying, "Yeah, and while someone may have KNOWN that... they couldn't SAY that... because the industy couldn't prove/verify it, yet." Right?
See, but here's where that bugs me: that's similar to what the JC said when I told them what I was hearing. Of course, such wasn't understood, known, being taught/published by THEM, and so THEIR position was that I was "going beyond" the things written (by them) and thus accepted (by them)... and so couldn't even speak them. Now, of course, they have since published some of what I (and I'm sure some others) have shared with them... and addressed a lot as well but not changed anything (NOT because it was wrong, but because they are not going to change their errors).
Do you NOT see how that's really the same thing: "You can't say it's true unless WE say it's true... and right now WE don't because WE don't know if it's true... because WE can't [currently] verify it and we think the method you suggest won't work so why try... and even so, we still might not publish it, if it stands to undermine something else... so YOU can't speak it because your doing so is going beyond (our things)"?
I guess you have to have it done to you by both to see how they really aren't different. It's even easier to see when the men who "interrogate" you... on both sides... do so in the exact same manner... while pointing fingers at the men who do so on the other side.
I will understand if you... or others... don't/can't understand. And it won't change my regard for you. I just wish you would understand why it's absolutely NO different to ME.
Again, peace to you!
YOUR servant and a doulos of Christ,