"On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Neznac
Posts: 1652
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 2:31 pm

"On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Post by Neznac »

Lacewing wrote: Is it really about being right or wrong? Can we ever all know or agree on such a thing that applies to everyone, and is it even necessary to do so? Why not, INSTEAD, be accepting of people having a broad range of perspectives and strengths and awareness? Isn't it more important how people respect and respond to all that is around them? Clearly, a person's "path" does not define or ensure their behavior in one direction or another. On every path there are a wide range of people behaving in ALL kinds of ways. Your ongoing and broad-based attacks on "atheists" (whatever you think that represents) simply demonstrates the limits of what you can (or want to) see and fathom. Your ideas reflect your limitations... no one else's.

Wouldn't you agree that there is ALWAYS MORE to discover and see and understand from EVERY position, and that perspectives (even yours) can shift throughout time/experience? So, what you do in each "position" is what's important -- not whether you can say: "NOW I'm right! I wasn't before, but I am now... and that's what enables me to judge others." It's not up to anyone to prove your stance "wrong". Your stance is your own fabrication, and what you do/believe with it, is what you contribute to the world.
I've seen you write similar comments elsewhere Lacewing and I thought that your philosophy or it's basic principle needs its own thread. I am finding myself agreeing more and more with your position about how ultimately tentative all of our knowledge is really. But also interesting is the further comment you make about judging others. I think that is also very true, that is, those who believe very, very strongly that they are right are the ones most prone to make judgments about other people's beliefs or positions. Instead of seeing the task of "knowing" as an ongoing project, those who "know" too much (as in, they think that they have all the right answers), see knowing as a destination. Of course when these strongly fixed "knowers" admit that they rely on faith (like Ruskin) what they are admitting is that they don't know! So then faith itself undermines their own strongly judgmental view.

I see most atheists with strong beliefs about the non-existence of gods are not really so fixated on their being right, even though it often comes across as such, they are more convinced that all the various theists are wrong. Even people like Dawkins and Hitchens have admitted that if someone came along with a strong case for the existence of a god then they would be willing to examine such a proposition. So they are/were not completely closed to such ideas.
User avatar
Elder
Premium Member
Posts: 702
Joined: June 4th, 2015, 12:06 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Sandor Szathmari
Location: Canada

Re: "On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Post by Elder »

I have posted this before, but here it is again, in defense of non-believers:
Bottom line: am I an atheist? If the word ‘atheist’ means that I am absolutely certain, beyond even a shadow of a doubt that there is no such thing as a ‘god’, then I am not an atheist.

No self-respecting scientist can be 100% certain of anything in the universe. Only probabilities exist in science and I admit, for lack of evidence to the contrary, that I assign an extremely low probability to the idea of a creator.

However, nothing is proven one way or another.

Yes, the universe could have been created by a god or any number of gods. Life and evolution could have been started on Earth by an alien culture of superhuman power and we would not know anything about it.

However, all the established religions with which I am familiar are so obviously man-made that I find it difficult to believe that anyone could take any of them seriously. Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu said: “If triangles had a god, he would have three sides”.
I don't debate with the evaders, the hopelessly 'confused' or the too lazy to think -- life is too short!
Gary S
Posts: 239
Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:23 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Greta

Re: "On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Post by Gary S »

Neznac wrote:I've seen you write similar comments elsewhere Lacewing and I thought that your philosophy or it's basic principle needs its own thread.
Thank you Neznac for bringing this to my attention. And thank you Lacewing for having written it.
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: "On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Post by Mgrinder »

Neznac wrote:
I see most atheists with strong beliefs about the non-existence of gods are not really so fixated on their being right, even though it often comes across as such, they are more convinced that all the various theists are wrong. Even people like Dawkins and Hitchens have admitted that if someone came along with a strong case for the existence of a god then they would be willing to examine such a proposition. So they are/were not completely closed to such ideas.
As an atheist, I don't really give two hoots, it matters very little to me. However, I think I'm in the 100% -there is no god - camp. Here's why...

If the idea of god is incoherent, then it doesn't exist, like a square circle, or a married bachelor. However, you're not saying what God is, so let's be clear.

If God is just a being that created the universe, then God is a logically consistant concept. There is some talk among physicists about how to create a baby universe inside ours. If it happened, that would make the physicists responsible "gods", I guess.

However the Christian god is not just supposedly the being that created the universe. There is more to a Christian God than that. The Christian God has the following attributes:

(1) Created the universe

(2) Is omniscient.

(3) Is omnipotent.

(4) Is a person of sorts (actually a male).

(5) Is perfectly Good.

And there are even more attributes.

Is the Christian God a logically coherent concept? No. For one thing, if he was perfectly good and omnipotent and omniscient, really bad things like the Holocaust wouldn't happen.

For another, how could God be a person (of sorts) yet be omniscient and omnipotent? If you know what's going to happen and control what's going to happen, you're not going to be angry about what's going to happen. You'll never be sad either, what happens is what you want to happen. It's hard to see how you can even be happy abou it either. Can you still be a person and never ever be sad or angry or disappointed? No. It's incoherent.

Therefore the Christian God does not exist, it's an incoherent concept. A creator God (with no other attributes) might exist. However, is such a being deserving of the term God? No.

I've said this to people, and they say, "Oh, I Just believe in a creator God" However, that's hard to believe if you are a churchgoer. As a Christian, you believe in a Christian God as I've defined, Christianity in church doesn't talk about just a creator God, it talks about a Christian god as I've defined. I've also hear that people say the idea of God can't be disproven. Yes it can. It's very possible to disprove the existence of things. I can disprove the existence of marbles in my pockets by turning out my pockets. No marbles. I can disprove the existence of a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics, or rather, Godel did that, who was a heck of alot smarter than me.

So, in the end, I say God (A christian God, which is what people talk about when they argue about god) doesn't exist, as it is an incoherent concept, just like a married bachelor.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: "On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Post by Sy Borg »

Faith and knowledge don't go together. If you know then you don't need faith. Theists want to resolve the question in their own minds and so they can move on from the vexing questions and throw themselves into life.

Non-theists come in two poles (with the usual grey areas in between). One pole wants to know the big answers and is like a dog with bone in trying to find out, aware that they are unlikely to know but enjoying the learning. The other pole of atheism figures that it's impossible to know the big answers so they simply don't care and get on with it, which in some ways is similar to a theist's approach.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 949
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 10:56 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Heraclitus

Re: "On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Post by A_Seagull »

In my opinion it is better to have doubt than to hold beliefs that are inaccurate ('wrong').

So I doubt many things.
The Pattern Paradigm - yer can't beat it!
User avatar
Elder
Premium Member
Posts: 702
Joined: June 4th, 2015, 12:06 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Sandor Szathmari
Location: Canada

Re: "On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Post by Elder »

Greta wrote:The other pole of atheism figures that it's impossible to know the big answers so they simply don't care and get on with it, which in some ways is similar to a theist's approach.
Greta, can you explain this in a bit more detail?

How is not caring about unanswerable questions "similar to a theist's approach"?
I don't debate with the evaders, the hopelessly 'confused' or the too lazy to think -- life is too short!
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: "On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Post by LuckyR »

Elder wrote:
Greta wrote:The other pole of atheism figures that it's impossible to know the big answers so they simply don't care and get on with it, which in some ways is similar to a theist's approach.
Greta, can you explain this in a bit more detail?

How is not caring about unanswerable questions "similar to a theist's approach"?
Greta is certainly able to answer this quesion herself but I expect her meaning to be that not going after the answers to the big scientific questions like the origin of the universe etc, can either fall into the I don't care variety or the Sky Fairy variety and she isn't seeing a lot of difference between them.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Elder
Premium Member
Posts: 702
Joined: June 4th, 2015, 12:06 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Sandor Szathmari
Location: Canada

Re: "On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Post by Elder »

If you don't mind, I'll wait for Greta with this one. :wink:
I don't debate with the evaders, the hopelessly 'confused' or the too lazy to think -- life is too short!
User avatar
Lacewing
Premium Member
Posts: 811
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 12:45 pm

Re: "On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Post by Lacewing »

Neznac wrote: I've seen you write similar comments elsewhere Lacewing and I thought that your philosophy or it's basic principle needs its own thread.
Thanks Nez! :D I'm honored! I wouldn't expect my response/comments to Ruskin to be a popular topic... as most of us really DON'T WANT to question ourselves and what we think we know. And many of us seem to feel the need to have a firm story of some sort that we "build everything upon". It's just that everyone has different stories and foundations... and it really doesn't seem to make sense to fight over which stories are more valid OR to insist on one story for everyone. At this point in my life, I feel compelled to question stories, and to ask why do we do that? If we look at ourselves as a "collective" (such as humankind)... who either move forward together or destroy each other... wouldn't there be more value if the "collective" could utilize a broad range of perspectives and strengths and awareness? Fighting over "paths" seems very, very short-sighted and "dense". There is NO ultimate answer for all. How could there be? So what are we doing?
Neznac wrote: ...those who believe very, very strongly that they are right are the ones most prone to make judgments about other people's beliefs or positions. Instead of seeing the task of "knowing" as an ongoing project, those who "know" too much (as in, they think that they have all the right answers), see knowing as a destination.
Yes!! And stopping at a destination becomes a dead-end! To believe that one has anything all figured out is surely like a self-intoxicating drug that will limit one's ability to perceive beyond one's comfortable/favored notions. (No matter how intelligent one thinks one is.) Whereas, if one remains contemplative/accepting of there always being more beyond their current view at any given point in time, I think they would be much more likely to see and adapt/evolve with a much broader capacity. If they don't want to do that, that's fine... but they really shouldn't drag/hold other people down with whatever their current limited notions are. Saying that they care about another person's soul or welfare, easily becomes a self-appointed-license to judge and control.

I think it's reasonable to have enough respect and trust in everyone (as equal parts of creation) to forge their own sacred paths, and to go forth to collect whatever broader perspectives they feel inspired/attuned to. Trying to fit everyone in the same box, keeps us all in a box. From my perspective, that's irresponsible and it's not helping anyone's soul (if there is such a thing). It would be very egotistical to claim to have any supreme authority or awareness to be in a soul-saving role for people other than oneself.

I've come to a place (for myself) where I don't think there are any "forever answers"... rather, there are always more perspectives and information to discover, consider, and work with... and they're continually evolving (which means I am too). Initially, this open-endedness terrified me. Then at some point, the terror seemed to fall away (when I didn't perish, I guess), and it was replaced by a sensation like flowing in a giant river that I cannot define or contain or control. But within it, all seems more connected and naturally aligned than I could ever accomplish through my forced, single-minded "efforts". I do watch and question myself all the time... and try to keep myself from obstructing the "larger flow" that seems to involve so much more than what appears to be my "individual" state.

When someone spews their judgments and limited ideas of what is "right" onto those who believe differently, it could look like that person is trying to manipulate the world (reality) in order to fortify and solidify the single story THEY want to believe in. The fact that they need to rail against those who don't share their beliefs, says a lot (I think) about the quality and substance of their story. Those who find value in their beliefs without needing to be "right" or control others, are getting the essence of what is surely most valuable... and they're more likely to support others in attaining such essence for themselves through whatever means works. The vast range of stories are just frameworks. If we can appreciate them as such (and not turn them into idols, or "ultimate right answers" for all, or ways to elevate ourselves above others), we might become aware of a lot more territory and the ways we can participate.
User avatar
Elder
Premium Member
Posts: 702
Joined: June 4th, 2015, 12:06 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Sandor Szathmari
Location: Canada

Re: "On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Post by Elder »

Lacewing wrote: Fighting over "paths" seems very, very short-sighted and "dense". There is NO ultimate answer for all. How could there be? So what are we doing?
Lacewing, a word of caution here. While I understand your point about "NO ultimate answer for all", you have to be aware (as I am sure you are) that there are facts and cause-and-effect chains in our universe that are non-negotiable. If you step off the balcony on the 50th floor of your building, you will fall to your death. Nothing relative here -- as absolute as it gets. If you put poison in the rivers, soil, food -- it will hurt people. If you twist young minds with irrational, contradictory and unsubstantiated claims of religion, you may do great harm to those young minds. If you enslave and exploit the citizens of your country, you may end up with a revolution on your hand.

These are solid facts and consequences here that don't allow too much doubt about them. Sitting on the fence and taking the attitude that everything is relative and there is no right solution (I don't mean you) can lead to very harmful outcome. Example is the disinformation crusade about human-caused climate change and accelerated extinction of other species.

Lacewing wrote:if one remains contemplative/accepting of there always being more beyond their current view at any given point in time, I think they would be much more likely to see and adapt/evolve with a much broader capacity.
I agree with this, wholeheartedly: one must always be prepared to re-examine one's facts and premises, and be ready to change or modify previous conclusions. That's an integral part of the scientific method.
I don't debate with the evaders, the hopelessly 'confused' or the too lazy to think -- life is too short!
User avatar
Misty
Premium Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: "On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Post by Misty »

A_Seagull wrote:In my opinion it is better to have doubt than to hold beliefs that are inaccurate ('wrong').

So I doubt many things.
Maybe your doubt is an inaccurate belief.

-- Updated Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:33 am to add the following --
Elder wrote: If you step off the balcony on the 50th floor of your building, you will fall to your death.
Wouldn't it depend on what one lands on?
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
User avatar
Lacewing
Premium Member
Posts: 811
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 12:45 pm

Re: "On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Post by Lacewing »

Misty wrote:
Elder wrote: If you step off the balcony on the 50th floor of your building, you will fall to your death.
Wouldn't it depend on what one lands on?
Oh look, Misty is channeling Harbal! (I miss Harbal.)
Elder wrote: Lacewing, a word of caution here. While I understand your point about "NO ultimate answer for all", you have to be aware (as I am sure you are) that there are facts and cause-and-effect chains in our universe that are non-negotiable.
Yes, I do not deny that there are physical and measurable characteristics of the world we are a part of, as we know it to be and as we know how to measure. We do not know what is beyond or in addition to that (as we know things to be) -- but, if we did, it could significantly change the characteristics and what's possible. And the reasons this keeps reappearing in the things I say are: 1) It doesn't make sense that we NOW know everything (or even most) of the greatest significance that there is to know/measure, nor that we have reached our pinnacle of understanding (especially considering how tangled up and blind and disconnected and fractured we seem to be); and 2) It doesn't make sense that the incredibly vast and creative and powerful potential of this universe is confined to the spectrums that we are able to perceive. This is why, I guess, I seem compelled to question our human stories and limitations... including, of course, my own! The limits of the human "box" don't make sense. What's beyond it? I don't know. Do I have to know in order to get out of the box? I don't know that either. Can I believe in the box while feeling that it doesn't make sense? Doesn't seem like I can. :lol:
Elder wrote:Sitting on the fence and taking the attitude that everything is relative and there is no right solution (I don't mean you) can lead to very harmful outcome.
Yes... inaction and denial can be destructive. Just as forcefulness and blind assuredness can be destructive. There are no easy answers perhaps because we don't have all the information/awareness/clarity that would make us more effective and sensible. I tend to think that lots of things can "work" to accomplish a similar end, therefore it's more important to notice the quality of energy we are producing in the process... because I think that has a very real effect on everyone involved and the outcome. It doesn't matter what we build/create if it destroys widely in the process -- and that's pretty much the way we operate. The intoxicated vision of an "end result" makes us blind to the quality of the present moment... to the beauty that's right in front of us... to the connection that we could experience. We typically don't even know how to connect to the most basic wavelength of this stream we're a part of, and we just keep creating more stuff from that disconnected state. That's how it seems to me anyway.

Does that depress me? No. Why? Because I practice loving things the way they are: US for the primitive way we are... so much beauty and ugliness... magnificence and horror... it's fantastic. What a show we are! When will we shift into a broader spectrum of clarity? Soon, I hope. Can we? Surely it must be possible. Am I sitting around doing nothing and waiting for it to happen? That wouldn't make sense. None of us will be able to see anything new if we don't clear out the old gunk in our circuits that obstructs and limits us. Part of that gunk is the disapproval we have of others... or the certainty we have of how things must be... or the disrespect we have for life and nature. LOTS of gunk!!!

So, instead of rushing out with yet another billionth "right" solution/answer/judgment to untangle and smooth a giant hairball thousands of years old... I'm trying to see what could naturally work/evolve if I DON'T add more to the tangle. When we stop adding to the noise (widely... as well as in our own head), we can hear things we didn't hear before. That makes sense, yes? That could reveal whole new frequencies to operate on... and when enough of those channels open up in the collective, maybe it will fry out all of the old wiring. :D

No easy or absolute answers... and that's okay! There's more to become aware of.
User avatar
Elder
Premium Member
Posts: 702
Joined: June 4th, 2015, 12:06 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Sandor Szathmari
Location: Canada

Re: "On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Post by Elder »

Lacewing, instead of repeating all I said in the "What is and how to find truth" thread, onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... mp;t=13214 and the "Scientific Method" blog I posted a link to before, at goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/8532471 ... fic-method

I suggest you read or reread them and see how we agree on most points, except I tried to give those points a lot more substance and reference to reality.
I don't debate with the evaders, the hopelessly 'confused' or the too lazy to think -- life is too short!
User avatar
Misty
Premium Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: "On being right or wrong" by Lacewing

Post by Misty »

Lacewing wrote:
Misty wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)



(Nested quote removed.)

Hi Lacewing,

I miss Harbal too, but my question was serious!

Misty
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021