Does your Theology Align with Reality?

by cofty 124 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  adamah

  SBF said-

  That is exactly what I am saying, in contrast with the view that the reality of any situation can be determined 100%. The key word here is "useful" and the key absence is "truth".

  I tend to agree if you're saying that there are no absolute "truths" (eg Einstein's theory of relativity suggests that Newton's laws are limited to our plane of existence, and break down in black holes, etc), and it's only a fool's quest to find them (and that includes "moral laws").

  I am making two points. One is that we can never be certain we perceive reality as it really is.

  Yup, and that's why we all build a MODEL of reality in our brains: it's NOT the reality itself, only our PERCEPTION of what is "out there".

  eg humans are known to see (perceive) colors differently, so their perception of green is different from mine. Via the CONVENTION of language, we all agree that light of 540nm is going to be called 'yellow', regardless of how we perceive it; individual perceptions created in the brain are KNOWN to vary amongst individuals. So who's right? No one can ABSOLUTELY declare what the perception of 'yellow' is or SHOULD be, and that's why we adopt a STANDARDIZED definition (540nm). Just realize, the CONVENTION is not the reality, either, just an attempt and agreement to identify the stimulus in a consistent manner.

  The second is that even if we could see reality as it really is then language is not equipped to transmit any stable conception of that reality.

  True, too. Language changes, as I posted earlier today on the Adam and Eve thread, using the example of phrase, 'Big Brother'. Meanings aren't locked in, and hence the difficulty of reading a book written 2,500 yrs ago and thinking you're going to understand the message in the original context. It's nuts to think a layperson can, but the vast majority of the population will, without giving it a second thought.

  Nevertheless, the lack of absolutes and certainty is NOT some excuse for us to do NOTHING, as if giving up in a nihilist defeatist funk. We're here, and we've gotta do something with our time besides knocking on doors telling others that absolutes exist. :)

  Meaning and morality are where we find/make it, being largely controlled by one's cultural influences.

  IMO,

  Adam
• 

  slimboyfat

  Nevertheless, the lack of absolutes and certainty is NOT some excuse for us to do NOTHING, as if giving up in a nihilist defeatist funk. We're here, and we've gotta do something with our lives. :)

  Meaning and morality are where we find/make it, being largely controlled by one's cultural influences.

  I agree completely. Adopting a relativist view of reality doesn't mean insisting that all views are equally valid as some mischievously aver. Rather it means that we acknowledge there is no objective way of ruling any particular view out entirely. That doesn't mean we don't make choices, of course we do, on the basis of preferences and culture and what we find works. Not on any slavish idea of a method for arriving at absolute truth. Far from being a paralysing view of the world relativism can be a liberating, practical and productive one, able to adapt well and meet new situations.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Most theological beliefs are created from mythological story telling from ignorant human beings who had no other

  explanation to explain the world they lived in, the same world we are living in now.

  Some people still today believe in gods such as Yahweh, Christ Jesus, Allah, Buddha.

  Of course there were hundreds more that have now vanished out of human consciousness and belief,

  but the core foundation of those beliefs were developed and created from human ignorance.

  Most gods are conceived as being old men for some reason, I guess its that wisdom thing gods are suppose to have.

  
• 

  *lost*

  Adam

  Have we surveyed millions of believers and asked them if they literally believe mankind is only 6,000 yrs old ?

  I don't literally believe mankind is only 6,000 yrs old.

  Mankind in his set form, could well be 49,000 yrs old.

  There is something about Jubilees. I will have to look it up.

  The Cambrian explosion, is another point to look at. As well as Darwins Dilemma, whereby he says himself, he cannot say for certain, because of the Cambrian explosion.

  Does science explain 'why' people have a belief in the supernatural ? or why people believe there is the possibility of a God, demons, angels etc.

  How can science say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the earth is billions of years old ?

  Can science explain why the earth has a different formation today than it had previously ?

  Can science explain why peoples and animals migrated to other continents ?

  Can science explain why we like one thing over another e.g certain breed of dog, horse, cow ?

  Can science explain why we love something so much it hurts to be without it ?

  Can science explain the devastating loss of death of a loved one ?

  Can science explain why we grow old and die ?

  Can science explain why our ancestors built the pyramids and stonehenge ?

  Can science explain why there is a petrified forest ?

  Can science explain why there were ice ages ?

  Can science explain why nature and animal life are so perfectly attuned ?

  What came first, the chicken or the egg.

  Neanderthals are now accepted to be advanced intelligent humans, not the dumb 'apes' they were once thought of.

  There are many questions, many answers, and they don't come overnight, it takes time for people to research and learn these thing.

  Ridiculing people who don't have the knowledge is a dis-service to all of the former 'cult' members here who have broken free. And are still trying to break free.

  This is not a scientists site, it is an ex-jw forum.

  I'm more intersted in dealing in 'people' not science.

  What does it matter how we got here, or why, the fact is we are here, and man has a barbaric history, and he is stil barbaric, selfish and controlling.

  All we can do is pick up the pieces and move on.

  Is science infallible ? Does science ever change its stance on anything ?
• 

  cofty

  Adamah - Do you have a PHd in stating the bloody obvious?

  Of course there are no sacred cows in science, of course we must follow the evidence wherever it leads, and there is no place for dogma in science.

  But this is not a thread about the philosophy of science despite SBFs best efforts to derail it. If it was a thread about the philosophy of science I would have used much more careful language.

  With an abundance of evidence science shows that humans evolved from non-human ancestors over millions of years. Evengelicals continue to insisist that we descended from a first created pair 6000 years ago.

  In this context SBF insists there is no such thing as a fact.

  I was going to restate the purpose of the thread but I have already made it clear in the OP.
• 

  cofty

  Have we surveyed millions of believers and asked them if they literally believe mankind is only 6,000 yrs old ?

  44% of Americans believe in the fantasy of young earth creationism. They are second only to Turkey.

  I don't literally believe mankind is only 6,000 yrs old. Mankind in his set form, could well be 49,000 yrs old.

  The line that led to Homo sapiens diverged from the line leading to chimps 6 million years ago

  The Cambrian explosion, is another point to look at. As well as Darwins Dilemma, whereby he says himself, he cannot say for certain, because of the Cambrian explosion.

  The Cambrian explosion is no longer a mystery.

  Does science explain 'why' people have a belief in the supernatural ? or why people believe there is the possibility of a God, demons, angels etc. - Yes

  How can science say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the earth is billions of years old ? - Yes it can. The answer is just a mouse click away...

  Can science explain why the earth has a different formation today than it had previously ? - Yes

  Can science explain why peoples and animals migrated to other continents ? - Yes

  Can science explain why we like one thing over another e.g certain breed of dog, horse, cow ? - I have no idea

  Can science explain why we love something so much it hurts to be without it ? - ditto

  Can science explain the devastating loss of death of a loved one ? - ditto

  Can science explain why we grow old and die ? - Yes

  Can science explain why our ancestors built the pyramids and stonehenge ? - Yes

  Can science explain why there is a petrified forest ? - Yes

  Can science explain why there were ice ages ? - Yes

  Can science explain why nature and animal life are so perfectly attuned ? - Yes

  What came first, the chicken or the egg. - Egg

  Neanderthals are now accepted to be advanced intelligent humans, not the dumb 'apes' they were once thought of. - and this knowledge was brought to you by science.

  Ridiculing people who don't have the knowledge is a dis-service to all of the former 'cult' members here who have broken free. And are still trying to break free.

  Nobody is ridiculing. I'm just saying that any theology worth holding ought to align with known facts.

  This is not a scientists site, it is an ex-jw forum.

  And science is a powerful tool to help a JW see that they have been taught to believe in nonsense.

  Is science infallible ? Does science ever change its stance on anything ?

  Science is not a body of facts or a club or organisation, its simply a method for discovering what is true.
• 

  slimboyfat

  When you stated that this, that, and the other are "incontrovertible facts" and "100% true" you made it a thread about epistemology. That is language that closes down exploration of alternatives and insists upon acceptance of the current consensus. Tyranny in other words. People who really believe that any "fact" is a 100% certain are ignorant of history, lacking in imagination, or both. The history of science if full of discoveries of new ways of looking at the world that turned over deeply held beliefs, ideas that were once thought permanent and untouchable, now discarded in the dustbin of intellectual history. On what rational basis do we really think our own generation is any different?

  And where does the confidence really come from that mankind can even begin to understand the answers to all of the questions we might ask anyway? We would not expect a dog to understand that when his owner leaves the house in the morning he is going to work, and what that means, and how that enables the owner to buy dog food for the dog to eat. Nor would we expect a slug to understand the reason for fertilisers and pesticides on a particular plot of earth. What if questions like how the universe began, and why, are similarly obscure to us, and will always remain so? What if expecting us to understand our origins is similar to expecting a slug to read a map?
• 

  cofty

  A theology that includes young earth creationism and a fall from human perfection ignores the facts - to say so is not tyranny.

  It is a certainty that humans evolved from non-human ancestors over millions of years. It is as certain as the fact that the earth is not flat. It is incontrovertible.

  Anybody who doubts that is ignorant of the facts or blinded by religious dogma or is a relativist who believes there is no such thing as a fact.

  The purpose of the thread is clearly explained in the OP. It wasn't yet another excuse for your obscure philosophy.
• 

  *lost*

  Why, when researching and reading these things from science about the earth, man, our origins, evolution, animals etc ... do I often read the words, probably ? possibly ? it is thought that ?

  Doesn't sound too exact that to me.

  possibilities, and probabilities are not facts.
• 

  Phizzy

  I think , dear Lost, that you still have some of the WT/JW thinking, that there has to be "absolutes".

  Science is not like that, what we know today will be added to tomorrow, so people writing on such subjects do not speak in absolutes, they wisely use words such as "probably", so as not to look foolish if new knowledge shows their hypothesis to be wrong, or in need of change.

  There are certain facts known to science which will never be overturned, that there is such a thing as Gravity, for example. But when writing about what Gravity is one cannot do so in a way that does not allow for new knowledge, which may well come in the near future. (Is it a force ?)

  Certain Scientific Theories are so well established, such as evolution by natural selection, that they wil not be overturned and discarded. But, our knowledge of how evolution works may well be added to.

  The facts listed by Cofty in his O.P are facts, but again facts can be modified by greater knowledge, or to use a favourite of the W.T "refined".

  This I find exciting, that there is no end to our learning, if there was one body of Scientific Truth that remained absolute, we would simply be at the end of Knowledge, and probably die of boredom.