Spirituality without religion

Originally posted by Conrau K
You touched on some important philosophies. How do you know what is actually blue? Well, you can't. I can only know (through the world of phenomoenona) that what I see as blue, is blue. I cannot know what everyone else sees as blue. We could all be pointing at the same thing and calling it blue. But I can't know if they're seeing the same blue as me. Thats ...[text shortened]... ead on it, but it seems to have degenerated into a "My Gods better then yours" debate.

How do you know what is actually blue?

From Wikipedia:
Blue is any of a number of similar colors. When it is a pure color from a single source, it corresponds with a wavelength range of about 420–490 nanometers.

There are definitions for blue, if one is misleadingly interpreting any (significantly) different wavelength range than it is he who is making the mistake.

No ambiguity there, even if one cannot know if your brain processes the information of the colour blue differently.

The interesting thing is that it doesn't matter! The inability to project oneself into another person's consciousness doesn't prevent that blue can be defined accordingly and consensually, even if there is the possibility of the brain processing of the colour blue being radically different. A blind person can be made to understand the physics of a colour and wouldn't that individual know more about the colour than the average person who can actually see (but doesn't truly understand)?

One should be careful when applying such metaphors to the physical world.

My atheism comes from a form of skepticism. As far as I do not see evidence towards the existence of a creator, I will remain so. The belief on faith is contradictory to skepticism but my support for skepticism is a belief in itself (that it leads to less extremisms) but based on induction, not faith. I leave to you to discern if it is contradictory or not.

But can anyone have an ideology without any axioms? It is my opinion, that they cannot.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You touched on some important philosophies. How do you know what is actually blue? Well, you can't. I can only know (through the world of phenomoenona) that what I see as blue, is blue. I cannot know what everyone else sees as blue. We could all be pointing at the same thing and calling it blue. But I can't know if they're seeing the same blue as me. Thats ...[text shortened]... ead on it, but it seems to have degenerated into a "My Gods better then yours" debate.

You are right.It seems that things often degenerate in these sorts of arguments. It's a shame. I've actually always thought that Atheism was a fairly logical position , and you are expressing it as such. I found your idea of 'even if he appeared in front of me...I couldn't be absolutely certain' interesting. Can we be certain of anything? On your argument one could say that nothing is absolutely verifiable. There's an important distinction here though. One either believes that (a) there are 6 billion different realities(or individual truths) out there or (b)there is only one reality out there and 6 billion different perspectives on it. I firmly believe in (b) because without it there can be no science for example.In this sense religion and science agree in that there are fixed truths. As for certainties , I think all life is faith anyway. We all have to put our money on something without being 'absolutely certain'. But do you really believe that if God exists for me and not for you then we live in two parallel universes where we are both right at the same time? (This is starting to sound like a philosophy PHD now!!)

Originally posted by amannion
I'll have to have more of a think about it, but I like your ideas - that is truth as being uncofortable and challenging. I agree with you about the threads - they seem to be arguing around the fringes a lot.

I think atheists often feel like the world is against them - which is probably true in some respects given the huge number of people with some relig ...[text shortened]... ou're right about that being the fault of churches.
Perhaps the outdoors is my church.

I went to church as well and often found it frustrating too. There is a lot of guff in churches but I did also meet some very interesting people on the fringes of things. One thing I have always found compelling is Christ's charactor. He wasn't a religious guy. He spent loads of time in the outdoors and the people who followed him had their lives wrecked! (not very comforting either) He was a raving communist (in my opinion) who pissed off the authorities and was prepared to die rather than kill for what he believed. And children flocked to him (that always tells you something about a person). Now for the interesting bit....he said "You shall know the Truth , and the Truth shall set you free" . Half my struggle is trying to figure out what he meant by 'know' . Did he mean scientifically verifiable? I'm certain he didn't , but this puts us back in the realm of individual perpectives again doesn't it? It's starting point though , but how do we 'know' truth if we believe that there are 6 billion + truths out there? Sorry , only more questions....

Originally posted by widget
And just how does this fit into a thread called "Spirituality without religion"? 😕

😉 Not being spent or wasted, why get all knotted up about being saved?

🙄"There's nowhere to go. You're here already."🙄

Man you should know better. Wasn't it you htat said that you had Mennonite background?

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]How do you know what is actually blue?

From Wikipedia:
Blue is any of a number of similar colors. When it is a pure color from a single source, it corresponds with a wavelength range of about 420–490 nanometers.

There are definitions for blue, if one is misleadingly interpreting any (significantly) different wavelength range than it is ...[text shortened]...

But can anyone have an ideology without any axioms? It is my opinion, that they cannot.[/b]

Actually , I beg to differ. Would a blind person know more about the colour blue if he had studied it (even though he couldn't see it)? Ask a scientist he will say yes. Ask a painter then no. Let's say I spent my entire life researching sex so that I had x-number of PHD's on sex and had an entire library with all the research that have ever been done on sex. Let's say I memorised it all and spent the rest of my living days reciting all that research. Let's say I understood it all as well. If I have never actually had sex do I really know more than the average guy? In one sense I know a lot but in another way I know very little. How do you define 'know' ? How do you 'know' your wife(if you have one)? How do you 'know' yourself? What colour is the sky in your world (lol) ?

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]How do you know what is actually blue?

From Wikipedia:
Blue is any of a number of similar colors. When it is a pure color from a single source, it corresponds with a wavelength range of about 420–490 nanometers.

There are definitions for blue, if one is misleadingly interpreting any (significantly) different wavelength range than it is ...[text shortened]...

But can anyone have an ideology without any axioms? It is my opinion, that they cannot.[/b]

This is what happens when we confuse truths with abolsute truths. The way you measure the colour blue, also relies on perception, the way you communicate with another person is perceptual. Your entire wave length concept derives from experience which in turn derives from perception. For all you know (since perception is subject to distortion and inaccuracies), you could be hallucinating the colour blue. Then how do you when you are seeing the colour blue? The obvious approach is to ask someone else BUT WAIT! I could be hallucinating that as well.

This is the very basis of skepticism. It was the subject of inquiries of Plato, Locke, Descartes...

can anyone have an ideology with out any axioms,"

Probably not. But axioms are truths we describe as self evident and in no way depend on faith.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Can we be certain of anything? On your argument one could say that nothing is absolutely verifiable. There's an important distinction here though. One either believes that (a) there are 6 billion different realities(or individual truths) out there or (b)there is only one reality out there and 6 billion different perspectives on it. I firmly believe i e we are both right at the same time? (This is starting to sound like a philosophy PHD now!!)

I would say that the truth is outside of me, but being outside of me I can't actually know it. It is unknowable and unverifiable.
So there are six billion people (or so we believe), there is one truth and six billion perceptions of it.


In this sense religion and science agree in that there are fixed truths. As for certainties , I think all life is faith anyway. We all have to put our money on something without being 'absolutely certain'. But do you really believe that if God exists for me and not for you then we live in two parallel universes where we are both right at the same time?

I'm not atheist per se. I just got stuck on the uncertainty and refused to budge.

[EDIT] If you believe in God then so be it. I don't think atheists want to prove that there isn't a God (in fact it might do them some good) they just don't want the truth dictated to them.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Man you should know better. Wasn't it you htat said that you had Mennonite background?

Mennonite? 😀 Is that like Speedstick, dude? Aquavelva maybe.... Old Spice?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I went to church as well and often found it frustrating too. There is a lot of guff in churches but I did also meet some very interesting people on the fringes of things. One thing I have always found compelling is Christ's charactor. He wasn't a religious guy. He spent loads of time in the outdoors and the people who followed him had their lives wreck ...[text shortened]... believe that there are 6 billion + truths out there? Sorry , only more questions....

I guess one of the things that's always bothered me about religion - or probably I should say Christianity here - is the complete reliance on the one main source of information. That doesn't make much sense to me (although I understand the notion of it.)
So, when you quote Jesus as saying such and such, my concern is not only about the meaning of that statement - as you question - but also, did he actually say this stuff? Given the historical evidence of much of the NT being written later (some books significantly later) I wonder about the historical accuracy of any of his sayings.

But I think you're probably right, I don't think he meant 'know' in any scientifically justifiable way. As for the 6 billion odd truths? I think we can only find common truths perhaps - truths that we share with others, perhaps many others, social and communal truths perhaps. I mean science is in essence this - many people get together and accept that this work or that theory or the other experiment is truth. Sort of like the colour blue stuff - we agree that it's blue, but who knows in the end?

Originally posted by knightmeister
You are right.It seems that things often degenerate in these sorts of arguments. It's a shame. I've actually always thought that Atheism was a fairly logical position , and you are expressing it as such. I found your idea of 'even if he appeared in front of me...I couldn't be absolutely certain' interesting. Can we be certain of anything? On your argum ...[text shortened]... are both right at the same time? (This is starting to sound like a philosophy PHD now!!)

I'm not so sure about atheism as being the more logical position, despite my own atheism. I had thought that it was, but this was a position I'd arrived at without actually really thinking that much about it.
The reality is that it's a belief like any other.
Conrau is right when he suggests that agnosticism is the more logical position to take.
I guess I take the stronger atheist belief in no god because of my faith that there is no external power to support me, no external creator being, no supernatural consciousness to love me. The universe for me is a natural place without anything else. This doesn't fill me with terror or sadness or cause me to wallow about the meaninglessness of it all - quite the contrary, as my original post suggested, I get meaning in the things I do outdoors (and in the things I do with my family). But it's meaning that I make for myself.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Actually , I beg to differ. Would a blind person know more about the colour blue if he had studied it (even though he couldn't see it)? Ask a scientist he will say yes. Ask a painter then no. Let's say I spent my entire life researching sex so that I had x-number of PHD's on sex and had an entire library with all the research that have ever been done have one)? How do you 'know' yourself? What colour is the sky in your world (lol) ?

You don't even need to memorise it all. If you have understood all the thesis, you will have a fuller understanding of sex than the average guy, even if you never practiced it.

You would know the implications of the act, but not the perceptions of doing it. I fully agree that it depends on what you consider as knowledge ("to know" ), but as a blind man that has studied can know that the Earth turns around the Sun, a non-blind man may easily fall in the trap of perception.

But my point is that the individuality of each perception is irrelevant if a consensus can be made regarding the colour. If an alien race defined green (and saw as green what we see) as the same wavelength as we do blue, then the colour itself would be unchanged.

It's a simple matter of finding common points in perceptions, even if the perceptions are fundamentally different.

Originally posted by Conrau K
This is what happens when we confuse truths with abolsute truths. The way you measure the colour blue, also relies on perception, the way you communicate with another person is perceptual. Your entire wave length concept derives from experience which in turn derives from perception. For all you know (since perception is subject to distortion and inaccuraci ...[text shortened]...
Probably not. But axioms are truths we describe as self evident and in no way depend on faith.

Please read my previous post about the irrelevance of the difference in perceptions.

But axioms are truths we describe as self evident and in no way depend on faith.

You'll need axioms to acknowledge any truth as self-evident.

Originally posted by Palynka
Please read my previous post about the irrelevance of the difference in perceptions.

[b]But axioms are truths we describe as self evident and in no way depend on faith.

You'll need axioms to acknowledge any truth as self-evident.[/b]

Ok if you can prove at this moment (to me) that all your experiences are valid. That you have not been hallucinating your entire life. And in doing so can you prove that I am not dreaming that you exist? If you can disprove solipsism and demonstrate the "irrelevance of the difference of perceptions" I would gladly appreciate it.

By the way no one has ever done it. Go read up some science philosophy. You'll realise that science cannot produce an absolute truth (since all truth is derived from the perception which is inherently subjective [duh, not absolute]).

Originally posted by Palynka

You'll need axioms to acknowledge any truth as self-evident.

First of all , I have no idea as to how that is relevant to idealogies (you used the word not me).

I dont think you see the contradiction in what you just said. Anyway, if we need an axiom to know if a truth is self- evident, how did we know the axiom was true to begin with? Wouldn't it presuppose another axiom? Ad Infinitum?

Our first axioms always originate from a process of induction (it can't be deduction as you imply, because eventually working backwards you are left with no other axioms to deduce from). They are thus, described as self- evident.

Originally posted by Palynka
Y I fully agree that it depends on what you consider as knowledge ("to know" ), but as a blind man that has studied can know that the Earth turns around the Sun, a non-blind man may easily fall in the trap of perception.

All knowldge drives from experience. Experience is subjective, thus knowledge is subjective. You would not "know the implications of the act". ou would only know the purported implications of the act. And a blind person would have given knowledge of the colour blue but since he has never experienced cannot be sure that it even exists.

Palynka you miss the entire point of being a skeptic. Its not about rejecting one system of belief and accepting another (i.e. science over religion) . Its about rejecting it all and then accumulating truths via personnel experiences and inferences. This is what science since the enlightenment has been about. But the important thing to understand is that under no circumstances should any scientist dscribe anything as an absolute truth. Whether it be about the colour blue or sex.