Pure metaphysical claims

[Received]

Morality may be absolute -- there may be a universal inherent sense of "oughtness" that individuals call morality, whether they feel up to following it or not -- but morals are not; truth may necessarily exist, but it is only such relative to our concepts. Without ourselves to name things on the basis of our own preference, truth does not exist. Truth is subjectivity.

 

[Received]

Non-Moslems and non-Christians both go to Hell because there are two metaphysical eschatological systems that advocate such without proof, based solely on theoretical conceptions. Logically, both cannot be true, but metaphysically, allowing a plurality of views neither of which can be proven superior and therefore more likely to be correct, both are. It depends on which metaphysic you uphold.

 

[elman]

And since truth and morality are but our concepts, ideas and terms, there isn´t much left to discuss but our perception.

Our concepts or ideas of truth are our perceptions. Our perceptions of truth may or may not be partally correct. We can seek truth and sometimes partially discover it making our perceptions more in line with reality.

 

[elman]

Morality may be absolute -- there may be a universal inherent sense of "oughtness" that individuals call morality, whether they feel up to following it or not -- but morals are not; truth may necessarily exist, but it is only such relative to our concepts. Without ourselves to name things on the basis of our own preference, truth does not exist. Truth is subjectivity.

I don't think so. Our perception of truth is subjectivity, but truth is not subject to our perceptions. Reality or truth is what it is and our perceptions of it may be wrong or correct and they are always I think a little of both.

 

[elman]

Non-Moslems and non-Christians both go to Hell because there are two metaphysical eschatological systems that advocate such without proof, based solely on theoretical conceptions. Logically, both cannot be true, but metaphysically, allowing a plurality of views neither of which can be proven superior and therefore more likely to be correct, both are. It depends on which metaphysic you uphold.

First of all I don't believe in an after lilfe that involves torture and pain. I believe hell is death and heaven is life and the only after life is heaven. Therefore my perception of reality is that death is permanent for all people who are not loving to others. I see the metaphysical truth or my metaphysicaly view is, that life after physical death is available for the ones who are loving. This has nothing to do with their calling themselves Moslem or Christian.

 

[Received]

That is a very admirable thing to say, and I think a lot of people with a heart would agree with that. But some don't; some don't have a heart; some believe that anyone who opposes them, in short, is worthy of anathema, eternal Hell, and such -- therefore such individuals create their own eschatology. They say that if you don't belief X, regardless of how loving you are, you deserve and will have eternal torment.

For such individuals, it is theoretically (metaphysically) true that those who oppose them will go to Hell; just as it is true according to your doctrine that those who don't love will conclude in the manner you stated.

What I'm saying is that when you push your own metaphysical theories to the door, you must understnad truth or falsity in relation to these theories. That is why it is true to X Christian for Moslems to go to Hell, as well as true for X Moslem for Christians to go to Hell. Logically, both cannot be true; theoretically, they can.

You'll forgive me for not responding to your first response. It's a huge issue, and I'll let your point stand.

Take it easy.

 

[quatona]

Our concepts or ideas of truth are our perceptions. Our perceptions of truth may or may not be partally correct. We can seek truth and sometimes partially discover it making our perceptions more in line with reality.

And I take it, you are the judge as to when that is the case with someone.

 

[SimplyNothing]

'Hell exists and all non-Christians will end up there after death.'

'Hell exists and all non-Moslems will end up there after death.'

Imagine that one of these claims is true.

How do I tell which one it is?

Flip a coin?

There really isn't any way that you can. Like most thing I should suppose. I can't be sure, I just believe that Hell exists (I believe that Hell is non-existence) and that those who don't believe in Jesus end up there. It is a metaphysical claim, a claim that I cannot back. The only thing I can try remotely to back is that Jesus did exist and that God does exist, other than that, there's really nothing.

I could tell you that you are being monitored by Video cameras and that I'm watching you right now, and that you are on National television. Couldn't I? would you believe me? Probably not. Well, that doesn't mean that it's not true. There's a lot of evidence to the contrary. You could scope the room for all cameras, you could check every drawer, every nook, and every cranny, and make a deduction.

"I'm not being watched."

But that doesn't change the fact that it's possible, even though you sufficiently checked the room. There could be a camera in your pocket that you don't know about. A decision, a faith one (along with fact) is made.

I suppose that is what we have to do with some Metaphysical claims. The extremity... the degree of faith we must use... varies.

I think that every facet of life requires, however small, just a touch of faith.

 

[elman]

And I take it, you are the judge as to when that is the case with someone.

And you. Who else can be?

 

[quatona]

And you. Who else can be?

I didn´t even know you were such an outspoken subjectivist.
For me, there needn´t be such a judge, btw.

 

[hybrid]

The question I am interested in is this: by what methodology do we evaluate the truth or otherwise of pure metaphysical claims?

For example, imagine these two claims sitting side by side:

'Hell exists and all non-Christians will end up there after death.'

'Hell exists and all non-Moslems will end up there after death.'

Imagine that one of these claims is true.

How do I tell which one it is?

the belief in the existence of hell is contigent to the one who said there was. chrsitians believed in hell because jesus said so. it's a simple case of taking Jesus' words for it.

it is also interesting that jesus claims to be the truth. (John 14:6) if one believes that jesus was the word of god that was responsible for creation, it makes sense to believe that he is indeed the ultimate reality since all physical reality depends entirely on him to continue to exists.

another interesting he said is that the truth is knowable, but not by emperical observation but by considering and obeying his teachings.

John 8:31-32
"If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."NIV

so i guess the methodology is to know the one who claims to be the truth. it's kinda tricky because this means you need to follow jesus and be his disciple. but this is his condition...

this is also i think why all philosophy fail to define what truth is.

it is something realized, not analyzed.


.

 

[JBrian]

Are you looking for objective or absolute "TRUE?" If so, the answer is there is no such thing.

another absolute statement that there are no absolutes.

 

[quatona]

another absolute statement that there are no absolutes.

Which is not much of a problem as long as the two "absolute"´s in this sentence have not the same meaning.

Hint: Every statement necessarily is an "absolute" if applying a certain meaning of the word.

 

[Telephone]

the belief in the existence of hell is contigent to the one who said there was. chrsitians believed in hell because jesus said so. it's a simple case of taking Jesus' words for it.

This fails to engage the orginal posters question, it simply replaces it with why take Jesus' word for it.

This thread does much to forward the suspicion that religious belief is little more than the wishful thinking of those wanting its claims to be so, this wishful thinking may be fueled by indoctrination or cultural pressures, but ultimately it is little more.

The almost complete failure of those of a religious bent to engage honestly in the basic question speaks volumes.

 

[JBrian]

Which is not much of a problem as long as the two "absolute"´s in this sentence have not the same meaning.

Hint: Every statement necessarily is an "absolute" if applying a certain meaning of the word.

The word as was used by the person I quoted meant it the same way I did: truths that are true for everyone everywhere at all times. In other words, objective. At least this is the way that I understand the way it was used.

To make it simple, it is self-defeating to say there are no absolutes, since it is supposedly true for everyone everywhere at all times.

 

[quatona]

The word as was used by the person I quoted meant it the same way I did: truths that are true for everyone everywhere at all times. In other words, objective. At least this is the way that I understand the way it was used.

To make it simple, it is self-defeating to say there are no absolutes, since it is supposedly true for everyone everywhere at all times.

So, technically, we would have to describe a state of no absolutes existing by "except for this one absolute (that there are no absolutes) there are none existing"?

It is just semantics: The absence of any laws, rules, objectives is thinkeable, and we need a way to express this notion. If you want to equivocate this notion to the assumption of positive rules, laws and objectives existing (and don´t want to acknowledge the difference), then feel free to call it an "absolute". This equivocation does not seem to do justice to the idea that´s meant to be expressed and the distinction that can be made and that is significant.

If you come to a holiday camp and ask for the rules, and you get the answer
"there are no rules here", would you start quibbling with semantics like "but this is a rule itself"?
Probably not. You know what´s meant by the statement, and despite the fact that this meant condition is thinkeable and possible there seems to be no way to express it which is not self-contradictory.

 

[hybrid]

This fails to engage the orginal posters question, it simply replaces it with why take Jesus' word for it.

This thread does much to forward the suspicion that religious belief is little more than the wishful thinking of those wanting its claims to be so, this wishful thinking may be fueled by indoctrination or cultural pressures, but ultimately it is little more..

hold your horses, telephony

this is the meat of the poster's question....

Pure metaphysical claims are those claims that do not have a grounding in the world we can detect.

The question I am interested in is this: by what methodology do we evaluate the truth or otherwise of pure metaphysical claims?

if you read on my post, i did offer an option of knowing the truth.

it has methodology and can be detected,

The almost complete failure of those of a religious bent to engage honestly in the basic question speaks volumes

so i did honestly address the basic question, though the tone of your post speak volumes against the religious bent.


.

 

[JBrian]

So, technically, we would have to describe a state of no absolutes existing by "except for this one absolute (that there are no absolutes) there are none existing"?

It is just semantics: The absence of any laws, rules, objectives is thinkeable, and we need a way to express this notion. If you want to equivocate this notion to the assumption of positive rules, laws and objectives existing (and don´t want to acknowledge the difference), then feel free to call it an "absolute". This equivocation does not seem to do justice to the idea that´s meant to be expressed and the distinction that can be made and that is significant.

If you come to a holiday camp and ask for the rules, and you get the answer
"there are no rules here", would you start quibbling with semantics like "but this is a rule itself"?
Probably not. You know what´s meant by the statement, and despite the fact that this meant condition is thinkeable and possible there seems to be no way to express it which is not self-contradictory.

It's not just semantics; it's a truth claim. And I am not talking about rules when I say truth is absolute and objective. Just because rules hypothetically might not exist has nothing to do with the nature of truth.

To say that there are no absolutes is a truth claim, and a self-defeating one at that. It is not semantics, it's bad philosophy. Any time a claim destroys itself it is self-referentially incoherent.

 

[quatona]

It's not just semantics; it's a truth claim. And I am not talking about rules when I say truth is absolute and objective. Just because rules hypothetically might not exist has nothing to do with the nature of truth.

To say that there are no absolutes is a truth claim, and a self-defeating one at that. It is not semantics, it's bad philosophy. Any time a claim destroys itself it is self-referentially incoherent.

So we must conclude from all this, that there must be an absolute truth, for the mere reason that the absence of such cannot be put in words in a non-defeating way. Limitations of human language limiting reality.

 

[JBrian]

So we must conclude from all this, that there must be an absolute truth, for the mere reason that the absence of such cannot be put in words in a non-defeating way. Limitations of human language limiting reality.

We must say there is absolute truth because it cannot be denied without making an absolute truth claim. It is an attempt to deny the undenialbe.

Language has nothing to do with shaping reality; rather, language describes reality.