Thomas, the Saint of Atheists
In the story of the upper room Thomas even doubts his eyes. And he asks the master to let him touch the wounds to be sure that it is real. He did not operate on blind faith. He did not let his sense of awe cloud his quest for truth. He was an empiricist skeptic. Hoorah for Thomas.
And the master did not rebuke his lack of blind faith. He nearly welcomed it. He held open his wounds so that the mind of Thomas could believe. And the Master loved Thomas as much as any apostle. And if Thomas had still not believed, the Master would have loved him still.
In Christian verses Atheist debate both Thomas and blind believers are to accept and love one another. If the Atheist asks for proof we are not to rebuke them, we are to open our own wounds and let them touch. For often it is not the healing of wounds that is glorified but the sharing of them that bears witness to the Christian truth.
It is our suffering and overcoming that death of spirit that allows for the Thomas' to see and feel our wounds and how through our Father we overcome them. And if seeing this there is still not enough proof for the Thomas Atheist then perhaps through debate we can leave a doorway open that allows both to enter the room of the other and gain understanding.
Rancor and bitter debate is not a hardship, it is an attempt at honesty and none of us are perfect at how we approach honesty. Thickness of skin is required to openly debate matters of such importance and meanness and rudeness are not to be used against each other but to show sincerity in our compassion for each other.
Yes Jesus did not sweetly smile and try to explain the wrong of the money changers outside the temple. He vigorously acted with contempt and admonishment. And no, an Atheist has no duty to let hypocrisy slide with politeness.
The ongoing debates on these forums must continue and let those who have not the heart for battle watch and not participate, for yours is a different talent.
What say you?Ah Eric, It just hit me...that lightbulb moment! This is where the term "Doubting Thomas" came from, right?
Cool, I bet the light bulb just went on for many. Thanks
I say that, assuming for the sake of argument the story is true, Thomas was a man of faith, just a different kind. He may have doubted his eyes, but he didn't doubt his other senses. Putting his fingers in the holes would have been meaningless without the assumption that his senses were telling him the truth. We all make that assumption every day unless we have good reason not to. We are genetically programmed to (through natural selection) as that trait helps us not get killed. Without that assumption, we would literally be unable to believe our senses. So Thomas was a man of faith, as are we all (yes even non theists).
I question the notion that Christians have "blind faith". The belief of many Christians I have spoken to is grounded in an apparent experience of god. Whether that be a feeling of being loved, or forgiven, or peacefulness, or awe, or damnation. They feel they experience god in their lives from day to day. That is not blind faith. Just like Thomas their belief is grounded in what they are sensing, and the assumption that what they are sensing is accurate. True blind faith would be believing in the existence of god, without ever having felt any experience of god. I have met Christians who have gone through a "dark night of the soul" but I've never met a Christian who does not feel they have experienced god in their life in some way.A clarity seldom seen and right to be appreciated. I suppose I like to think I have blind faith, but you have opened my eyes. For I have experienced that which I attribute to the fruit of God, Love.
How great that the question by doubting Thomas and the reply from Jesus has been recorded and preserved for us all to this day. That is quite amazing. God didn't have to provide these evidences he has, but he did! That is pretty cool. It was a question many of us may have had, and we have the answer. God knows people pretty well, it turns out, and doesn't doubt a true heart.
I dunno. The story of Thomas and his famous episode of doubt doesn't strike me as the portrait of a scientist--a scientist would've had a lot more questions, took notes, and took Jesus to his Bronze Age lab to run some experiments--but of a man so awestruck and overcome with emotion that he couldn't trust his eyes to tell him the truth.
But of course, the Resurrection is a crock, anyway, so the stories surrounding it are hardly worth taking so seriously outside of the realm of discussing fiction.Just so you know that comment is nothing but insulting and meant to hurt persons who believe. If you think it has other value you delude yourself. If that is the person you are continue.Perhaps that is you, just someone who wants to degrade other people's beliefs.
It is equal and opposite to what you just did.
I just love these religious threads, don't you psycheskinner? Love to see the contention in the threads. I say to each his/her own. Believe what you will.
keep writing Eric..
can the nonbelievers can hope to open their eyes to the amazing world that surrounds us and ask them selves how all this wonderment can be created.. is through chance that the universe is so beautiful and amazing.. it is perchance that the human body is so complicated.. that a quirk of fate created this intricate machine... or even the tiny butterfly, the fish of the sea's, whose colors matches the most beautiful things the minds eye will ever see.. science can only take us so far .. then we must depend on faith to show the way home..Nonbelievers understand that it is due to millions of years of evolution. That is what the evidence suggests.
Sorry, but faith is not the next stepping stone from science, science precludes faith because faith based ideas and conclusions are very often wrong.so who are you to say faith based conclusions are wrong..?
you are but human ..as we.. only when we die will any of us know the truth..;
how could science preclude faith .. if you know anything at all about the journey of life .. you would realize that the earliest man looked to the heavens and praised whomever could create such things we see now... if science is so great why can they not explain global warming../ or even the depths of the sea's...
Science is as implausible as only your tiny mind will fathom..One of many who observe faith based conclusions as being wrong.
When you're dead, you know nothing, because you're dead.
Easily, people believe in things and then science comes along to tell us the truth and replace those beliefs with facts.
Early man was very ignorant.
Just because science does not have all the answers doesn't mean it has not found valid answers.
I gather you know very little about science, then.Energy does not die..... how do you know what happens when human beings die .. You do not!!
All science is not truth .. it the beliefs that humans think is so...
Early man built the pyramids and we can not even do that feat now ???
I gather you know less than I do.... you think you know more ..except I believe in my self .. you on the other hand would not believe it if you seen it .. skeptic..What has energy got to do with it? The energy in my body once came from a star, once was in a dinosaur. But I am not a star or a dinosaur. The matter in my body was once as asteroid and once a redwood tree, but I am not an asteroid or a redwood tree. therefore like those things I will one day cease to exist as an entity and be recycled and taken up by other entities. But to say the worms that eat me become me is to take things a little further than I an willing to go.
Cleaner and psycheskinner, WOW what an inner exchange! I am blown away by this discourse.
I ask you both: Since I cannot own my energy nor contain it, are we not of the same energy now at this moment.
Beware -- I preach that love is the energy that is the only energy common to all man (save psychotics) and therefor I claim that love is God. I take the worms as metaphorical, in the cosmic sense yet comprehensible in the organic sense.well... energy is the spark in each one of us .. without that spark we could not be who we are.. your energy might have..... I stress ...Might have come... from the dust of the universe, but you .. have admitted that there is a transference of this... energy... that you poo poo..
although how it gets to something else is your own faith... that it moves on some how... some way .. right ?
so you do have faith ???
Like Psycheskinner explains, we die and our bodies are recycled. That's pretty much it.
Science provides us with truth of the world around us.
Yeah, we can do that and much more. Have you noticed NASA put men on the moon?You take it too far. Science provides facts. Truth is bigger than science alone.
Fact:
- something that actually exists; reality; truth
- a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact
Well in that case. It is a fact I know God. So God is Truth. Just because you do not know God does not make it less of a truth.
Now you will say that it is not a fact that I know God. Well it is my reality therefor it is fact and therefor truth. Because you cannot experience my reality does not make it less so.You know better. It is a fact you think you know God, but you cannot be sure. No need to go over requirements of proof; you know them when referenced to all people rather than a single subjective person, and do not have them. Your subjective feeling is cannot be known as truth, then.
Just as your "reality" is not necessarily truth, either, and you know that just as well. Just like the opinion on knowing God, a subjective reality can never be known as truth; it's why peer review is required in the scientific world. To verify truth and reality as opposed to subjective feelings and perceptions."peer review" Franklin wrote: A fool sir is still a fool the mere fact you gather them by the multitudes only aggravates the situation. Not "climate change" but man caused global warming was a fact by peer review. Totally not a fact today, by peer review. You think it is 50 degrees because your thermometer says so. I know it is 50 degrees because I have experienced it so often I can tell the temperature.
Suggesting your reality is truth and mine is false is ego driven not scientific.
That's not how it works, facts are known to all us, like gravity, for example. If your God was a truth, we would all know it.
It isn't a fact, it is a belief, you know that and I know that.
It is YOUR version of reality that is not valid to reality.
We all share the same reality where gods are not facts or truths.Because a blind man cannot see something does not make if false or not a fact. Because a non-spiritual man cannot perceive the spiritual does not make it false or not a fact.
If you can show, as in being a fact, that anything spiritual exists, you might have an argument, but since it can't, since it isn't a fact, hence not true, then your point is entirely moot.
Sorry to muddy the waters, but that's not accurate. There is synthetic truth (how something relates to the world) verified through observation, and analytical truth (something which is true by virtue of it's meaning) verified simply by knowing the meaning of the terms used. E.g. the statement "all bachelors are unmarried". Anyone who knows the meaning of the terms "all", "bachelors" and "unmarried", knows that this statement is true. They do not need to observe any bachelors. Likewise the statement "a being with infinite knowledge has greater awareness of the universe than beings with finite knowledge". We do not need to observe a being with infinite knowledge, or even know whether such a being exists, to know that this statement is true. We only need to know the meaning of the terms. How this statement relates to the world is a different question, but truth per se does not depend on observation.
How the waters are muddied is puzzling. I'm sure you have some point there, but it escapes me.
I'm pointing out for the sake of accuracy that although facts equal truth, truth does not equate to facts. Or put another way, truth does not depend on observation. Therefore statements about god (or anything) can be determined to be true, regardless of whether they can be verified by observation. You seem to be implying that's not the case.
Sorry Don, but that's some messed up logic. You can insert any thing you like into that statement, but it doesn't make the thing real because you inserted it. For instance, a unicorn with infinite knowledge has greater awareness of the universe than horses with finite knowledge. Are unicorns suddenly factual because I put them in a sentence that makes sense?
No. But truth exists whether we are aware of what that truth is, or not. Narwhales exist. That is a true statement. For a very long time people believed it wasn't a true statement.
I didn't say analytical truth makes something real or factual. That's the point. Truth is not dependent on something being real or factual (verified by observation). That's difficult to process but it is the case. The most obvious example of this is mathematics. There is no definitive answer to the philosophical question of whether numbers actually exist, but the existence of numbers is irrelevant to whether we can determine mathematical truths. Those truths are not determined through observation. To determine the truth of the statement 2 + 2 = 4, you only need to know the meaning of "2", "+", "=" and "4". You do not need to observe two things with two other things. Likewise knowledge regarding the existence of unicorns is irrelevant to whether we can determine certain truths about such things. We do not need to observe a unicorn with infinite understanding to determine whether certain statements about such a creature are true. We can determine that through reason. The same applies to god. Knowledge regarding the existence of god is irrelevant to our ability to determine certain truths about god. in short, we do not need to observe a deity to determine whether certain statements about such a being are true.
Not only did that not make it clearer is made it worse. We do in fact need to know that 2+2=4 by looking at things first, that's how it's taught to children. 2 without knowing that it represents two of something is meaningless. You can't use logic to show something exists by using it in a sentence, just as I showed you with my unicorn sentence.
We can verify 2+2=4 through observation because it happens to be a simple example. that's all. It does not mean we need to verify mathematical truths through observation. With mathematics involving multiple sets of infinity, for example, we do not (and cannot) verify statements by counting an infinite number of things. We determine the truth of such assertions by virtue of their meaning, not our ability to verify them through observation.
This is not about existence, but truth. The fact we can derive mathematical truths has nothing to do with existence. There is currently no definitive answer as to whether numbers exist. It is a philosophical question that has not been resolved. This demonstrates that some truths can be determined through pure reason, regardless of observation, or even knowledge of whether something exists. Mathematics is the clearest example of that.So it's a truth that unicorns have one horn?
The thing about math is that all those symbols mean something. We start with the simple by learning what those symbols mean and move to the abstract. Two means 2 of something. Everyone can agree on that. It's true that we perceive unicorns as having one horn, but that doesn't make the existence of unicorns true.
But, now you're talking about three things, facts, truth and observation. I understand truth does not necessarily have to be based on observation (some examples would be nice) but that doesn't mean truth and facts are not interchangeable.
How does that work?I seem to be loosing the battle against muddying the waters, so apologies to Eric for taking things off on a tangent. I'll try to clarify without going too far down the philosophical rabbit hole.
Facts, by definition, are assertions determined through observation to be true. So we're only talking about two things: facts and truth. These are not interchangeable. Fact is a description of reality verified through observation. Truth is the value assigned to things we can determine to be the case either by observation (synthetic truth), or through pure reason (analytical truth).
The best example of using pure reason to determine truth is mathematics. Examples of statements that can be determined to be true by virtue of their meaning, include "I think, therefore I am", "all bachelors are unmarried", "2 + 2 = 4", "an omni-benevolent god cannot be unloving". None of these statements need observation for us to determine their truth. We only need to understand the terms used. Our knowledge of the existence of things that think, bachelors, numbers and god is irrelevant to our ability to determine the truth of certain statements about them. They are true by definition. They can't not be true unless we change the definitions of the terms involved. That's how it works.Unicorns have one horn. Does that mean unicorns are real?
That is not a statement for which its truth can be determined analytically. This is:
all unicorns have one horn
the animal in my garden is a unicorn
therefore the animal in my has one horn
Have I ever observed a unicorn? No. Are unicorns real? Not that I know of. Is there one in my garden? Not that I'm aware. Regardless, this argument is analytically true. I can determine that through pure reason. No observation necessary. Such truth is independent of observation.
That was the point I was making.
I don't see that in the definition for fact. It says nothing about verifying through observation.
I also don't see that particular distinction in the definition of truth, either.
Sorry Don, but you're adding to the definitions of the words to make your point. That's not how that works.I am curious what your definitions of fact and truth are? If you don't mind my asking? There has to be some definition(s) that rules out that truth is relative that you could share here?
I personally don't have definitions for those words, or any words for that matter, I usually consult a dictionary.
I guess then my next question would be how your favorite dictionary differs with the definitions given by I think (Don?) that you disagree with? You made it very clear you disagree with his definitions and wondered why and what your own were.
I would have to ask Don where he got those definitions because they don't appear in a dictionary. If they do, I'd like to see them.
You said ". . . but that doesn't mean truth and facts are not interchangeable" implying they are. To clarify, do you think truth and facts are interchangeable or not?
Luckily we have the ability to reason, so we can determine things the internet doesn't tell us.. Most definitions of fact are along the lines of: something that is actually the case. If I state "the earth is round", how do we determine whether that description is actually the case? I suggest we do so by making observations which allow us to verify it. This is an example of synthetic truth statement, i.e. something that is true by virtue of how it relates to the world. It's a type of truth for which observation is useful.
Don't want to take my word for it? Quite right. I wouldn't take my word for it either. Luckily such definitions are at your fingertips. Type "analytic truth" into your favorite search engine.
Saying you are unfamiliar with a particular definition is one thing. Suggesting someone is "adding to" definitions because you aren't familiar them is another. As much as I would love to take credit for developing a whole branch of philosophy (rationalism) I feel it would be entirely unfair to Renee Descartes. John Locke, and David Hume wouldn't be too pleased either I'm sure. If you intend to engage in religious discussion it might be worth knowing your rationalism from your evidentialism, from you foundationalism as there is often an intersect between religion and philosophy. But at least if someone mentions the analytical/synthetic truth distinction in a discussion in future you'll know what they are, so that's good I guess.They are interchangeable.
This isn't about what the internet tells us, this is about adding things to the definition of words to make a point.
Perhaps, but "synthetic truth" is not in the definition of fact, which is what you're basing your argument.
"The analytic–synthetic distinction is a conceptual distinction, used primarily in philosophy to distinguish propositions into two types: analytic propositions and synthetic propositions. ..."
Notice Don, the word "fact" is not contained in that definition, but instead the word "philosophy" is there.Why do you believe that to be the case?
That's a red herring. Are facts descriptions that are actual? Are descriptions verified as being actual through observation? If you think the answer to both those questions is yes, then it is reasonable to say that observation is a fundamental aspect of something being a fact. If you think the answer to either of those questions is no, does that mean you believe observation (and therefore empirical evidence) is not required to deem something a fact?
Again the focus on definitions here is a red herring. Can you think of a fact that is not synthetically true, i.e. a fact that does not accurately reflect the world? If so, please give some examples. If not, then it is reasonable to assert that facts are synthetically true statements. Does the absence of the words "synthetically true" from the definition of "fact" change that?
"Human being - a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance"
Notice EncephaloiDead, the word "mammal" is not contained in that definition. Can we therefore argue that human beings are not mammals? As I said focusing on definitions is a red herring. We can determine how the analytic-synthetic truth distinction relates to facts by understanding what those terms mean and applying a bit of reason. Likewise we can assert that human beings are mammals by understanding what those terms mean and the application of reason. In some cases we have to do that to avoid making erroneous conclusions based on incomplete definitions, as you have demonstrated.Primarily due to the definitions of the words.
I never said that, I said one should not be adding their own words to definitions, that is not a red herring.
Not when someone is trying to change the definition of words to support their arguments, as you're attempting to do.
Absolutely. You should have noticed that when I put up the definition of 'synthetic truth' and pointed out the word 'philosophy'.
THAT would be a red herring. I can find plenty of information showing human beings are mammals.
No, that term is related to philosophy as can be shown in its definition.If dictionaries gave us an in-depth understanding of concepts, there would be no need for encyclopedias. They don't, and there is. What constitutes truth is debatable. The briefest of inquiries beyond a dictionary definition would alert you to that fact, but I suspect you already know that.
Dictionary definitions are necessarily limited in scope. Knowing that, yet continuing to focus on such definitions is misleading and a distraction, which constitutes a red herring. Is it reasonable to suggest that observation is a fundamental aspect of verifying something as a fact? I think it is.
See above.
The idea that we can't assert anything about a something that doesn't appear in its dictionary definition is nonsensical. We know facts are synthetically true by deduction, not because the dictionary says so. The absence of the words "facts are synthetically true" in the dictionary does not alter the reality that they are. It only demonstrates the necessarily limited scope of dictionary definitions. If we relied solely on information within that limited scope, discourse would be very limited, as appears to be the case here.
There is plenty of information about the analytic-synthetic truth distinction, and facts. Search for "truth" or "analytic truth" (in anything other than a dictionary) and you will see. Wiki says: "A logical truth (also called an analytic truth or a necessary truth) is a statement which is true in all possible worlds or under all possible interpretations, as contrasted to a fact (also called a synthetic claim or a contingency) which is only true in this world as it has historically unfolded. Notice the words truth, analytic, synthetic and fact all in the same description.
Or look up "analytical truth": "analytic propositions – propositions grounded in meanings, independent of matters of fact. Synthetic propositions – propositions grounded in fact" Notice that none of that information is in the dictionary definitions of truth or facts. Does that mean the information is incorrect, or does it just demonstrate the limited scope of dictionary definitions? So if you do need plenty of information to tell you that facts are synthetic truths (as opposed to just thinking about it) it's available.
The is the "Religion and Philosophy" forum is it not? The clue is in the name. I suspect the HubPages team have put them together because they interrelate. I think it's entirely appropriate to use terms related to religion and philosophy within a "Religion and Philosophy" forum, and I'm confused as to why you seem surprised to encounter such terms here; Unless I have wandered into the Fashion and Beauty forum by mistake, in which case my sincerest apologies.Obviously. Dictionaries provided definitions to words, not understanding of concepts. From there, we can then make the leap to understanding concepts with the proper understanding of definitions.
Facts certainly constitute truths.
A dictionaries purpose is to provide definitions to words, amongst a few other things, that is it's scope. Focusing on definitions of words is certainly important if people are taking known definitions and changing them to suit their purpose.
Again, I should remind you that those terms are about philosophy, not facts.
It's no problem to use philosophical concepts like those in this forum, but to start changing the definition of words is another story.I am not changing definitions. I am asking what it is reasonable to conclude about the concept of a fact, beyond its dictionary definition. Is it reasonable to conclude, for example, that facts are synthetic truths, based on our understanding of what synthetic truth means? I believe it is. Unfortunately you seem unwilling to make the "leap" as you put it, from a dictionary definition to any wider understanding of an idea; And unwilling to apply reason in the pursuit of that wider understanding. You seem to think doing so constitutes changing the definition. Other than saying it doesn't, I'm honestly not sure how to relieve you of that misconception.
That would be changing the definition of truth, then.
This is not about understand an idea, it is about changing definitions, which is what you're doing. I'm honestly not sure how to explain that to you any further.Try this --- "I like things in a tidy box and things outside that box bother me" So I only like oneliner definitions because things that are messy and not fitting into a classic empirical mode just bother me. This talk of ethereal really puts me on edge. If it does not fit into a Petri dish I really do not like it.
Ambiguous and complex definitions are self-defeating.
Sorry psych. Life is not clean and neat. Definitions are not rock solid and determined solely by Webster or whoever. If you want everything 1+1 equal 2 do not live in the human world.
If definitions are not determined by Webster (or other mutually accepted authority) then who does determine them? Everyone makes up their own definition for everything?
Communication will be a trifle difficult that way...Go ahead and define matters of empirical truths and make it simple. Like Chlorophyll but even there you will have trouble. Sorry wilderness man is just more complicated than simple definitions. Wouldn't it be great if otherwise --- we sure as hell would not need lawyers!
I don't recall addressing simplicity, and for a very good reason. I cannot even define what "life" is, or "human". There are many things with a massive complexity (although chlorophyll is not one of them).
But that has nothing to do with who gets to make the definitions...
When I call you a lavish person I don't mean that you are generous at all. What I mean is that you are rich and stingy because I've adjusted the definition so it looks like I'm complementing you while I'm not.
That's what happens when we change the meaning of words, communication breaks down.
Or perhaps we could say: that is what happens in the real world. I still cannot wrap my head around the new definition of marriage. I got no qualms with it but it just seems strange to change it to mean something different after several thousand years of understanding. I think God used to be an old man with a beard in a throne and white robes. Not anymore. Good or Bad?
I think it has two pretty clear meanings. What it means under secular law, and what it means to each couple entering into it. The former should be fair and equitable and neutral or good for society, and the latter is none of my business.
"Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws."
Okay, so what is the new definition?Maybe you are too young to remember. It used to be restricted to a man and woman. Crazy huh!
Point is that definitions change and for some faster than for others.It also used to be standard to marry off a 10-year-old girl to a grown man.
What's your point?Your homophobic as well? I'm sure I just read that wrong.
You might want to do some research on that, you'll find same-sex marriages were common place as far back as when Rome was a Republic.
Yes and there were Amazons also and eunuchs. See you just did it. Change from a common notion to a highly well researched intellectual one. Definitions are not static.You cannot find a definition of marriage between 1910 and 1950 that includes same sex, in the English speaking world.
But prove me wrong.You're missing the point entirely, the definition of marriage is pretty much the same as it always has been, we can talk about the subject without any issues and regardless of whether the people getting married are male or female, that is pretty much irrelevant to the definition.
show me a single English definition written in the 1950's that backs up this factual claim of yours.
that is false. Marriage for hundreds if not thousands of years was between a man and a woman. You outright lie to claim otherwise and you would be stupid otherwise so your point must be taken, in that you are not stupid and are a student of history so your representations must be considered as intentionally false. And now we ask for what reason?
Explain this bald face denial of truth that is historic.
Except that it isn't. Until not so long ago it was essentially an ownership contract within which the owned woman could not own property or even control what was done to her sexually. In many countries it still is.
Would this definition still be valid?
"Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws."
You contradict yourself with every single word you write here. If you didn't write those words, that have rock solid definitions, no one would understand you, you would never be able to communicate with anyone, it would all be just gibberish. See how that works.
You overstate it a great deal but your point is well taken. Life is messy and communication not like science at all it is more like ..... what is the term? Oh yes! Life.
Definitions should strive to be exactly that, because that is their purpose. To give up on that goal is to live in humpty dumpty land where words mean what you like and communicate nothing. If something cannot be defined or is not used in conversation with any consistency, well then it makes more sense to consider the term irrelevant and confusing then to fiddle around with it.
Yes, language lives. but that means you learn what the word means by observing it in action in the verbal community--not that you can just make it whatever you want by adding jargon hardly anyone actually uses.
The dictionary does not define human beings as mammals. Are human beings mammals?
Human, Homo sapiens sapiens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiensIn evolutionary biology glossaries it does-- definitions have context. i.e. you look up taxonomy in a biology text, disease in a medical one, to be precise.
Yes, they are mammals, amongst of host of other things that one would find in an encyclopedia and other books rather than a dictionary. In the dictionary, they are defined as:
"a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens"
What is the problem?Encepholiod dude reacts but this thought is genuine so let us think on it rather than react.
Does the fact you have just described humans as mammals, even though the dictionary does not define them as such, mean you have changed the definition of human or mammal?
Is an orangutan not a mammal because its dictionary definition doesn't say it is?
Apparently, it's not a primate, either. Or orange. Or a living creature.
Once again, human beings are a whole lot of things, which can be found in books like the encyclopedia.
Can we find facts to include "synthetic truth" as part of the definition? No, we can't. That is because "synthetic truth" is about philosophy, not facts.
Are you understanding the point yet or are you going to continue propping up this red herring?I am working on definitions right now at work and the first thing I do is take out jargon most people won't understand. That is one reason why I would not include it. The other is that it adds no value to the definition.
In response to my suggestion that it's reasonable to conclude something about truth "beyond the dictionary definition", you said: "That would be changing the definition of truth, then." But your conclusion that humans are mammals is dependent on information which is "beyond the dictionary definition" i.e. an encyclopedia. Hence the question: does the fact you have [gone beyond the dictionary definition of human] mean you have changed the definition of human . . ? Your own reasoning from previous comments suggests it does. Such reasoning would be absurd, but I'm trying to clarify instead of just assuming the worst.
If the added material does not contradict the defintion it does not weaken it.
If you find your friend like petunias, does that change the fact that she is your friend? No, it just adds to it.
Whereas if you find your friend killed you cat (contradictory addition) would it change whether they were your friend.
Nothing in the definition is contradictory to humans being mammals, or earthing, or having tow genders etc. You seem to expect a definition to be comprehensive so you could read the definition of physics and be a physicist.
No, definitions merely categorize. They help determine which scientists are a physicist and which are biologists etc. not describe every quality those fields have.
Perhaps you should refer to the definition of definition: the act of distinct, or clear -- that is, what makes that entity clearly different or distinguishable from othersI don't think that's it. The issue arose when I suggested that facts are also synthetic truths. If you look at the meaning of fact: something that is actually the case, and the meaning of synthetic truth: something that is true because it accurately reflects the world, it is simple to deduce that facts are examples of synthetic truth. That is not contrary to the definition of fact, and does not weaken it. It is no different to taking the meaning of human and mammal, and deducing that humans are mammals. Yet EncephaloiDead continues to suggest that facts cannot be categorized as synthetic truths, and if we do categorize them as such, we are changing the definition of fact. That line of reasoning is absurd in my opinion, so I'm trying to clarify whether EncephaloiDead really is saying that, or whether it's just a miscommunication of some kind.
For the sake for precision, are you saying one is a subset of the other, or that they are synonyms. In which case the content of the relative definitions is pretty irrelevant.
Which way around, because honestly, I can't tell.
If we take fact to mean: something that is actually the case, and use that as our top level category. That can be divided into two subcategories: things that are actually the case by virtue of how they relate to the world (synthetic truths) and things that are actually the case by meaning (analytic truths).
E.g. If we observe it is raining, then the proposition "it is raining" can be categorized as a fact, because we know it is actually the case. It can be categorized as synthetically true because it is actually the case by virtue of how it relates to the world.
In contrast, the proposition "all bachelors are unmarried" is actually the case by virtue of meaning. We don't need to observe any bachelors. We just need to know what "bachelor" and "unmarried" mean. So it can be categorized as a fact (we know it is actually the case) and it can be further categorized as analytically true (true by virtue of meaning).
So both propositions are facts, but they are determined to be facts in different ways. In the same way that humans can be categorized as mammals beyond the dictionary definition of human, facts can be categorized as either synthetic or analytic truths, beyond the dictionary definition of fact. None of that contradicts, the dictionary definition of fact.
My original point was that the nature of synthetic truths make observation integral to facts that can be categorized as synthetically true (how else can we determine such facts if not through observation?)But observation is not integral to facts that can be categorized as analytically true. Unfortunately we didn't get beyond that as EncephaloiDead denies facts can be synthetic or analytic, on the grounds that doing so changes the dictionary definition of fact.Analytical truths are versions of logical truths, in that they do not carry any information on matters of fact. In your example, the analytical truth of "all bachelors are unmarried" is changed by substituting the word "bachelor" with it's synonym, "unmarried men" giving us "all unmarried men are unmarried", another version of the original logical truth.
That is not the same thing as the example of humans being mammals, with mammals not showing up in the dictionary version. That argument is absurd. For the most part, many words don't require much more than a small dictionary definition in order to work with as a valid form of communicating an idea or thought. Certainly, there are words that may require much more than just a dictionary definition to suffice, human being would probably fit that category, so we would obviously refer to an encyclopedia for more information about "human beings" if the need to find out if they are mammals or not should arise.
So, basically, your argument is that you're trying to nail me down with using just a dictionary. Fair enough, I would clarify that upon further review that we can extend our use of the dictionary to include an encyclopedia if such a need arises where one does not find what they're looking for within any given definition, such as human beings are mammals.
I would agree with this comment, and add that not all truth equates to observable facts by us as humans. Which is kind of what you went on to say. There are all kinds of things that are 100% true, that we need not observe or record or experience or agree with to be true. Humans live their lives and die not knowing of all kinds of facts and truths. This seems to go without saying, but it needs to be said sometimes.
I will go a step further and say that there are many things that are true for all people, for all time, that they may never apprehend at all. All kinds of big and little truths. They are not dependent on any of us knowing of or agreeing with them. Truth just "is."
A lot of the things on these threads seem to come down to what is most reasonable to explain the truths we all observe. Some are less reasonable to explain, some are more.
"a lie ...repeated often... enough becomes truth " according to the human who proved it so
and humans ... who each have their own minds with free will... you who choose not to believe in anything but science and we who believe in faith... FAITH that there is a higher power, a higher intelligence or spiritual being that directs us and also.. gives us our own choices to make .. so when we stand before him in the end he will show you that you made your life.. not he .. he ..only gave you the opportunity direct your choices..
Your own words answer your faith in a higher intelligence and anything spiritual.
As no one yet has ever proved that statement, it is almost certainly false.
Repeating a lie often enough, though, does produce the perception that it is true all too often. Not true, mind you, just the perception that it is true. It also produces the faith and belief in that "higher" power you reference, but not the truth of it's existence. Just the perception.
Let me repeat this is false logic and not get lost in sophistry. I know God and that is a fact that you cannot refute. You do not perceive God and that is your problem not mine.
You look through a microscope and see microbes I cannot, that is my problem not yours.
You have senses and I have more senses. Get over it. What is empirical to you is empirical to me. But I have more empirical senses that you do not. Sorry, blame your genes.
But do not explain that what you cannot get is not real because you cannot get it!Prove it. It can be refuted if you can't prove it. I can say I know the easter bunny and that can't be refuted?
There are medications you can take for those hallucinations.
Yes, you can see them if they are there, no problem.
Again, there are medications you can take for those hallucinations. That's a pretty funny joke.Something tells me that you would know that first hand ;-)
Not really, I don't go around on public forums, or anywhere else, telling people I have special powers over and above everyone else, that is actually what small children do, then they grow up.
I can only offer the advice that you not talk like a small child, and instead start acting like a grown adult.You are correct. You go around on public forums or anywhere else telling people that if you cannot perceive something no one else can. That is what small children do.
If you cover up with a blanket the monsters cannot exist.Really? Me? All by my lonesome? Or, are there millions, if not billions of people in the world who don't perceive the same thing as you, nor do they go around claiming they have more senses than the rest of us?
So, monsters also exist in your perceived world?So when my daughter says there are monsters under her bed, I should agree with her? And instead of consoling her with reason, I should become just as frightened as she is, and just pack our bags and move?
Makes perfect sense.
How many times have scientists, or doctors for that matter, said something is fact and 10 or 20 years later there is a new development and what they previously thought of as 'fact' is now wrong. this has happened all the time throughout history. so just because science says something is 'fact' doesn't make it truth.
Gravity is absolute. Now we find it is different in space and different at 3 thousand feet underwater. Point blank case in point. Get over it. A mere 60 years ago gravity was absolute. A mere 2,000 years ago Christ was. One survives and the other is modified. Science is temporal and today. Faith is a truth that passes all time. One is fact by existence and the other fact by peer review.
Fact by existence, is it? But your god does not exist. For well over 2000 years the same "truth" has been expounded and claimed, yet is still the same as it always was. Imagination uncoupled from reality without truth in it.
For truth is available to all, not merely those with imagination.Gravity is a theory . Then so is electronics. You, I or anyone else don't know squat about Jesus although I do believe he actually existed. All these quotes and details about his life were written by people who weren't there when Jesus said or did these things. Paul wrote Jesus' biography 30+ years after he died and to top it off, never met him! Then there's people that claim Elvis is still alive and never did drugs! And that was less than 40 years ago.
What does that supposed to mean? Who ever said that?
In don't think you even know what you're talking about. Do you understand how gravity works?
That is so ridiculous. You make something up out of thin air that makes absolutely no sense and then base an explanation on it.
That is why faith based explanations will not preclude or debunk science.
Scientists once believed that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, not vice versa.
Scientists? No, that was church leaders. Anyone claiming that the universe didn't evolve around a flat earth could be killed.
Even the method of calculating carbon dating has changed more than once because it was found to be incorrect.
Okay, so what? At least they are admitting to an error and fixing it, rather than holding up a book written thousands of years ago that claims the earth is 6000 years old and created in 6 days.
Which book claims the earth is 6000 years old, that was written thousands of years ago? The fact you said 6 days, makes me think you might be referring to the book of Genesis, or the Bible. That bible, or Genesis, doesn't weigh in on the age of the earth or universe anywhere. Some people have used the genealogies from when they started recording those as some kind of reasoning but that only sheds light on the time likely passing for the writing of the genealogies. Just wanted to point that out as many jump on a bandwagon, but this one has no wheels supporting it, so to speak, lol.
So the bible doesn't say the universe as we know it was created in 6 days and that on the 7th day God was so tired he had to rest?
Yes, it does say that. There was clearly a lot going on however, much more than meets the eye. Looking very carefully a the scriptures will tell you that. I am merely pointing out that some people are asserting opinions of interpretations of scripture then running with those ideas. I am saying it isn't necessarily warranted, as the bible doesn't give us an age, nor does any prophet or Jesus even suggest how old we ought to believe it is. It isn't part of "Christianity" or "Judaism" to assert that the earth is 6000 years old, is my point also. Some have taken that view and taught it to others but it just isn't there that I can see. This is the view of many Christians that I know of as well.
Well said oceansunsets. You are correct. The whole problem is that when scientists do make mistakes (after claiming for years that something is fact) and a Christian points it out, the reply is atheists is "so what, at least they are admitting an error and fixing it". They don't acknowledge that The New Testament was admitting that there were some errors in the Old Testament and fixing them.
The best I can figure is that those "days" were "God" days. Especially before light and dark.
And that thing about resting on the 7th day shows just how truly prophetic it is, how could they have possibly known about the NFL that long ago. loljodah that is a really cool thing to point out about the old and new. I had never thought about it that way. Even if not correcting the exact text the new does correct our notions of how to view the old text. And clearly Christ was telling us to lay off with the strict interpretations that interfere with the good in man's nature. Awesome.
That is not true, there were no such thing as scientists back then. We can look at the bible for that:
"Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” Only with a flat earth could tall tree be visible from “the earth's farthest bounds,”
Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world"
Luke 4:5: "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time."
Isaiah 40:22: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."There were no scientists back when? What time frame are you referring to?
Perhaps, I should clarify, while there were men making observations and writing them down for many centuries, there weren't scientists as we know of the definition today. The concept of the flat earth preceded this by a very long time.
And when Christopher Columbus sailed on his voyage of discovery, it was still the popular belief by 'scientists' that the world was flat and he would sail over the edge.
Uh, you may want to read this, bolded mine:
"The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.
During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
So... if there are paranormal events that happen... without explanation .. does that mean, because you did not witness them ..they did not happen or the people and scientists were hallucinating..? there are such facts that paranormal events have perpetuated myth's which turn into truth..
Truth is what you i9n your mind believe it is .. Faith is in my mind what I believe it is .. if I have Faith.. in the truths that the god within my own body is there who are you to tell me that it isn't..?
to try to inject climate change is just muddying the waters.. the main question of the whole argument is FAITH.. I have Faith and you do not ..it is as simple as that .... why do you try so hard to disapprove my faith ..What scientists?
No, it isn't, truth is base on facts, not what people believe.
You're free to believe whatever you want, but that doesn't mean your beliefs are valid or true.
Not true, I can have just as much faith as anyone else, I just don't let it rule my worldview.
I'm not. You have your faith, that is fine. However, your beliefs may or may not be true, depending on whether or not there is any factual evidence to support them.What scientist are studying paranormal activities. May I suggest that you one witnesses something they can't explain it may be a good idea to continue to look for explanations rather then assuming that it can't be explained. Imagine if we did that with gravity, just assume it was magic?
True (no pun intended). It is just our best effort at determining truth. More than any other method, science as been accurate.
that would be bull#$@% wilderness. Science is more wrong than right by it's very nature. Feelings and senses are more right by their very nature. Disprove a theory but you cannot disprove a feeling.
I wouldn't say that. See: The very appropriately-titled Science vs. The Feelies video.
Speak of your own mind Zelkiiro or let others speak for you. This is garbage and you know it. But I need not refute it for you throw it out there like a bone to be licked or not.
Good minds are not hungry for this garbage.
Of course - imagination, feelings, desire for particular results - these are all well known to produce truths that match nature and reality. Where careful observation, measurements and experiments are wrong far more often. Where asking for peers to review results and conclusions, doing their best to poke holes in them, accomplish nothing.
I think you have slipped back into defining "right" as whatever you wish it to be. Unprovable = right, if we want a specific thing then it is right and true.Knock it off. you operate on plane that does not allow for spiritualism yet cat scans and MRIs and thermograms prove you wrong there is energy that your small brain cannot account for. Get over it, You do not get it but science does, We know there is more to energy than macrobiotics. Stay stupid it is OK by me.
Stick with science and learn. My aura is real whether you like it or not it shows up on cat scans and thermograms and MRIs. Boast your garbage science proves we are more than your given senses.Sorry - I operate on exactly the same plane you do. It's called reality, and there is only one. No "spirit" plane for you, no "higher reality", nothing any different than the "plane" where you can find me looking over your shoulder so to speak.
I just don't have your imagination, that's all. That and I don't make claims like my "aura" disturbs electromagnetic radiation in the X-ray, radio and infrared frequencies, plus magnetic fields, all at the same time. But never in the visual wavelength range.
But yes, there is more to energy that another fad diet, even one out of Chinese mythology. A whole lot more, as a diet has nothing to do with energy except for the relatively tiny amount in the chemistry of biology.
So sure, crawl inside your own mind, crank up the creative juices and make up whatever you wish to. Just don't try to pedal it as a "truth" from a "higher plane" or a "different dimension". Don't say you know truths that no one else does but that you cannot prove. It doesn't wash.Of course I don't think I have those "special" senses that some characters in science fiction novels have. But you believe that you do?
Cat scans, MRI's and thermograms prove what? This I've got to see, please provide links.
I was comparing 'truth' vs 'fact'. I didn't say either was 'right' or 'wrong'. We Needscience or we'd still be living in the dark ages, but it's mere existence is to experiment and question, to make mistakes and learn from them.
Science makes changes and modifications when there's a new discovery. Theories are there to be disproved. The Big Bang and evolution aren't going anywhere. They will be added to and modified over time. For those the claim the Big Bang and evolution are lies from hell (LMAO), sad by these poorly educated people do exist and that's proven, they need to gather their evidence, get it peer analyzed and collect their Nobel Prize.
While science can confirm matters of faith it cannot disprove matters of faith. Wait I will start a new forum.
so many try to prove that facts are the norm...
when you die the body dies but does the energy that lives in the mind die also.. ? you or no one knows this..! so do not say you do ..!
you or no one knows if reincarnation happens or not..
you think because you have no faith in a higher being that it is true .. truth is not what you think it is..! just because you say it is so.What norm?
What energy? What are you talking about exactly? Please specify? What energy is in the mind?
Unless you can actually substantiate what it is you're talking about, then your argument is meaningless.Energy is not alive to die. The energy remaining in our bodies after we die is recycled either by fire or by feeding the bugs that consume us. Much like our bodies convert food to energy, but covert our bodies to energy. This I know as fact. Unless you have some evidence to prove otherwise.
Cleaner, how right you are. I have yet to meet a believer who is against science. I here there are those, but they would be oddballs at best.
Yet we see so many who are actually "against faith". Funny but it almost takes a certain faith to oppose faith at every turn.I think your confirmatory bias is at play. That is, we tend to pay more attention to events that confirm what we already believe.
As, no doubt, am I. because where I sit (in the US, as a person who feel climate change and evolution is supported by good science), it looks more like the reverse.As you phrase it we are in complete agreement. Evolution and climate change are supported by good science.
As for bias: Show me a man who denies any bias and I will show you a liar.True Eric, all of us have biases of some form or another. It is hardwired in our brains and is part of the human consciousness and human condition!
One part of not denying bias should be speaking in a way that leaves room for doubt. That is one of the first things my scientific education taught me.
Funny thing is, they don't need to be opposing. There are Christian Scientists out there.
Those who have extra-sensory perception abilities are open to the possibility of having them. Those who don't have extra sensory perception abilities are not open to the possibility of having them. Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is perceived within. This is where God is perceived:
w i t h i n…
Related Discussions
- 71
At what point a believer can be convinced?
by Rishad I Habib 13 years ago
Is there any logical distinction between Faith & Blind Faith?? Is faith & blind faith the same thing by nature?? Is there any logic that can counter your faith?? An atheist, as we know is open to new dogmas, their science can be changed over time with the advent of new physical laws, but...
- 268
Straight forward factual of the Atheist condition
by Eric Dierker 10 years ago
Sometimes we should get tired of avoiding debate.It is my well learned understanding that Atheists just cannot operate on faith. Now sometimes Atheists get upset at that suggestion. They should not in my opine. They should just agree and take it from there.I cannot evaluate and analyze anything...
- 929
What happened to an atheist to make him/her convert to Christianity?
by Claire Evans 5 years ago
It's easy to deconvert to atheism because they are disappointed, hurt or because they have lost their faith due to God making sense. It's harder to suddenly make a rational atheists convert to Christianity, which is faith-based. How does it happen?
- 289
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
by PhoenixV 6 years ago
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
- 75
Atheists, do you study the scripture?
by JG11Bravo 10 years ago
It's a question that has come up more than once and I have a preconceived notion about it. Do you know the Bible? Have you read it? How "advanced" is your study of the subject? Is it a 'know thy enemy' thing, or an interest in theological studies with belief absent?
- 216
Would a Christianity Without Hell be More Appealing to Atheists?
by Robert Erich 12 years ago
I have noticed that many atheists and anti-Christians (as can be seen from the most active forums on Hubpages), have a huge distaste for Christianity primarily because of the contradiction between there being a loving God and an eternal hell-fire for those who do not do what he wants.From my study...