h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

hi Alex,

I guess I consider myself to be a pantheist - at least a part-time one

Which means that most of the time in my day-to-day life I don't worry myself with worrying about the god concept too much. Mostly I worry about how I'm going to pay my rent! And so then things get put into various perspectives in terms of what 'needs' to be done. My own personal god concept is just 'there'. And usually I am quite crap at being able to explain that to anyone else.

az

See you there, then.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

hey Az

Yeah, usually I'm too busy living my life to worry too much about where spirituality fits in. Lately, though, I've been trying to figure out how it should, since leaving my family's religion did leave a bit of a gap. Explaining my beliefs helps me to understand them a bit more, I think, but it isn't really for them to exist.

~ Alex

oops

replace 'really' with 'necessary'

i deleted the wrong word!

Alex,

It's just the opposite with me - my god concept does actually exist for me, I just don't see any necessity to have to explain it.

az

'I am one of those who say 'everyone is right' '
But how can everyone be right. You can hardly say that both the Hindu religion which believes in reincarnation and Christianity which believes in heaven can both be right, now can you?
Jem

Actually, Jem, You're wrong - I'm having difficulty figuring out who you're replying to, but at least I can see that you're missing the point - it's not meant in a literal sense, but everyone's as right as eachother, and everyone contains the possibility of being right, so there's little point trying to judge.

Well, everyone is kindof rightish. ish. Very ish. However, say, Evolution theory is more right on the scale of rightness than creationism say, simply because with what data we have, it's more likely.

I just recently read a piece by a psychiatrist quaker/unitarian in a Friends Journal I recieve, which outlined something that interested me. he said essentially the following: I'm a quaker, because I like to spend time thinking about religion. However, I /don't/ think about theism. You see, the existence of God cannot be disproven simply by the nature of the concept: if you disprove it, he just made it so that you could disprove it. he's omnipotent, no? but by the same token, you can't really prove it. this we've been over before though. what he said was this: I don't debate it not because I can't prove anything, but because I /don't care/. If there's a god, or if there's no god, it will not by an iota affect how I act. I will act for the good of those around me, and to create, because if that's what god wants, that's good, and if that's not what god wants, f*** hm, and if there is no god, I've done what I wanted.

Jem:

Because we're talking here about subjective truths (personal opinions, in this context) and they *can* all be right. If your opinion and mine disagree, neither of us is 'wrong'. Opinions don't work that way. So-called 'objective truths' *do* work in the way you describe.



Yes, you can.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hi, Pattern-chaser.

So there is a basic difference between opinion, which is 'subjective truth' and *something* (fact?) which is 'objective truth'?

This difference allows two people with mutually contradictory opinions to both be right - as in the example Hindus with reincarnation and Christians with Heaven. (To be honest I wouldn't know if these were truly contradictory but let's roll with it.) At what point does subjective truth become objective truth?

If it's my opinion that this water is boiling and your opinion that it is merely tepid we are both right, by your definition, up until the point when you put your hand in it.

Truth, however tenuous the philosophy behind the concept, is truth. [Tautology Alert!] The water is either boiling or it is not even if our opinion isn't relevant until the water is put to some purpose.

Opinion notwithstanding; either there is a God ( define your own here ) or there isn't. This may appear equally irrelevant until we apply God to the purpose of punishing the unbeliever, stifling technological progress or a lifetime of pointless devotion.

A person's opinion, their subjective truth, is the pattern on which they base their understanding of the world. If that pattern is faulty then the world they live in is faulty and they will be led to make incorrect choices. Opinions - subjective truths - differ between individuals by varying degrees and they simply cannot all be right.

This is, naturally, my opinion. Feel free to express your own.

F

Yes. An objective truth is *not* dependent on the person(s) who believe it for its truth. Such a truth can be verified (or disproved) to the satisfaction of as many humans as are assembled and interested enough to do it. A subjective truth is dependent for its truth value on the person(s) who believe it.

These two 'truths' cause no problems until you confuse one with the other. For example, assuming that "water is boiling" is not an objective truth.



Yes, but if there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other (which I believe to be the case), then your thoroughly sensible assertion is meaningless.



Yes they can, subject to the qualifications I've already outlined. "Right" does not mean the same thing for a subjective truth as it does for an objective truth. *That's* the catch!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Arthensiur:

A sentiment that also works perfectly well for an atheist like me, except of course that I don't have to justify not thinking about what god wants.

'

Yes, you can' How?

hi Pattern,

>>An objective truth is *not* dependent on the person(s) who believe it for its truth. Such a truth can be verified (or disproved) to the satisfaction of as many humans as are assembled and interested enough to do it. A subjective truth is dependent for its truth value on the person(s) who believe it.<<

Well said.


Fathom,



Maybe! We don't know and we never will as long as we are inhabiting our temporal bodies here on 'planet doubt'. Still, doesn't stop people from either believing or not believing in a god concept.

Also, all subjective truths can be right for the person perceiving them. Which is the whole idea of them being subjective. I personally have no problem with people believing seemingly contradictory subjective truths - guess it depends on how a person puts these things together for themself.

A favourite quote of mine:

'Do I contradict myself?
Very well then, I contradict myself.
(I am large, I contain multitudes).

- Walt Whitman.

az

Jem,

<>

Yes you can by being a pantheist! I quite like all of the god myths and think there are things in all of them that are of value. But I cannot 'belong' to any one religion as I find each one on their own somewhat limiting.

Another quote:

'There is a fine world unkown to us and religion is an attempt to explain it' - Robertson Davies.

The fact that I take all religious myths as allegory means I can see that concepts like 'heaven' and 'reincarnation' are only talking about various aspects of the mystery of life (and death).

az

You're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't. Quite literally.
I find the religions limiting, and I find not having a religion limiting.
Az - am I still a pantheist?

Pattern- "Such a truth can be verified (or disproved) to the satisfaction of as many humans as are assembled and interested enough to do it." I'm not convince that's a good enough definition. An objective truth is one that is definetly true, not matter the human factor involved. However, because of that, it's unprovable to my satisfaction. Anything that involves anything is subjective, if I know about it.

hi Fnord,

I don't find not having a structured religion to hang my hat on limiting at all. Have no idea if you feeling this way makes you *not* a pantheist. Maybe you should ask Pattern Chaser, after all, I'm only a part-time pantheist

>>An objective truth is one that is definetly true, not matter the human factor involved.<<

Well, that would leave most religions out of the 'objective truth' scenario, doncha think?

az

<>

I have to side with Jem on this one. No you can't. You can believe that you don't ultimately know; and you can believe that it doesn't ultimately matter one way or the other. But they can't actually both be right. And there are plenty of people who believe that such statements are *objectively* true, and who must be mistaken in that if they are only *subjectively* true.

Noggin

Once you accept subjective truth as valid, though, any amount of nonsense becomes valid. For instance, my "I was invisible" statement. It shouldn't be taken seriously even if I really did believe it.

This is why objective truth is so important. The truth should be independent of the observer... because, let's face it... we're generally stupid and worthless observers.

Noggin,

If you actually and ultimately believe in either one concept or the other - then no - they both can't be right. For you. Subjective.

The fact that I admit I do not know if any or all of these beliefs are the ultimate truth is not in any way saying that it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. If it didn't matter to me then I wouldn't bother thinking about it or waste my time posting things on this thread. In order to discuss this with other people. It matters.

I think I have already said that anything regarding religious beliefs has to be subjective. That there is no such thing as an 'objective truth' when it comes down to human perception (or maybe I said this on another thread? Eek, memory failure!)

Sure, if Jem believes in Christianity whole-heartedly then she also will probably not be able to believe in reincarnation and other stuff. So, she is 'right' in her belief insofar as it pertains to her. Subjective.

There is no ONE TRUE GOD.

az