Hi KMR, thank you for posing some great questions. I will try my best to respond. I will try and paraphrase what I think you are asking, and respond accordingly. If I'm misreading the question, please correct me.
kmr wrote:I understand your logic, but you must understand, a different language does not constitute a different reality, as a different lens does not constitute a different substance. We are not talking about perspectives, we are talking about abstract truth. When you look at evidence in different ways, yes you can "draw" different conclusions, but the evidence stays the same. For instance, if a man with normal vision and a colorblind man try to tell what colors a vibrant poster contains, they may draw different conclusions, but the substances that form the poster remain the same, as do the proportions of photons released from those substances. The interpretation is all that changes.
I think what you are saying here is that there are some certain things that have qualities inherent and those qualities, whether perceived or not, remain true about itself. An example, perhhapes, is an apple. It is a fruit that holds seeds and have varying qualities that allow for it to reproduce. And no matter who or what animal perceive it, the inherent qualities of the Fruit remains the same. It may taste sweet to me, but bitter to a bug, but it's chemical/molecular makeup remains the same.
I agree with this completely.
For the purpose of our discussion in regards to exclusivity of religion, let me extend the analogy a bit further. Let's say the apple is inside a dark box, and one can only experience it by probing it thru a tiny hole in the box. Someone who probes it a lot and writes down his findings will have a better grasp on what the thing is in the box. Someone who probes it once obviously has less data on the object and therefore has a less accurate approximation of what that thing is.
Let's say a scientist has probed it a lot and wrote a book about it. There will be a certain amount we can learn from that scientist and his book. Let's say I find 12 more scientists who have also probed at it and wrote books on it, I can learn from those people too. And this give me a greater picture of what that thing could be. I've expanded my data set.
Now let's say for whatever reason, the students of one scientist thinks that theirs is the only data set that matters, and that their method for measurment is the only one that is correct, then they might be limiting themselves to a smaller dataset. That is not to say that the students of this scientist can not know the thing in the Box. In fact, there might never be a need to have more data than is already collected by the first scientist.
However, If I am a student of another scientist, and have come to know the thing in the Box thru their method, is my idea of what's in the box wrong? And if the first scientist and the second grew up at different epoches of time, and spoke different languages, and was under different cultural and political and religious regims, would the written description of what's in the Box differ?
kmr wrote:Likewise, if three contradicting religions are placed together, I.E. Christianity, Judaism and Islam, although the followers of these religions have all drawn different conclusions, the actual truth behind the religions implies that either one or none of them can be correct, no more. They cannot all three be correct because they contradict each other, different lens or no. I suppose one could say that they do all point to the same truth through different lenses, but take the lens away and the truth stands firm regardless of perspective.
Like you said earlier, There are some truths that are true no matter the perspective. And this is where no contradictions of religions matter, because the contradictions only exist in our minds and the lines we draw. The three blind men example says one man thinks it's a snake, and one man thinks it's a wall, well, both from their respective perspectives are right, but the truth is that if you add up both of their experiences you get a better approximation of the total object. But if one man stubbornly ignores the others perspective because he thinks that it's a contradiction, then he will simply have a smaller picture of the total truth.
Allow me to quote a modern philosopher Robert Anton Wilson, he explains the contradictions in Quantum physics quite nicely, and I think it applies quite nicely to the perceived contradictions between religions.
"when I moved from los angeles, we moved to what we thought was santa cruz, then we had something stolen from our car and reported it to the police, and as it turns out we didn't live in Santa Cruz, we lived in a town called Capitola, The post office thought we lived in Santa Cruz, but the police thinks we live in Capitola. I investigated this and a reporter told me that we neither lived in Santa Cruz or Capitola, but in an unincorporated area called Live Oak. Now, quantum mechanics is just like that, but in the case of Santa Cruz, Capitola, and Live Oak, we don't get too confused, because we remember that we invented the lines on the map. But Quantum physics gets confusing because a lot of people think we didn't invent the lines, so it seems odd to understand how a particle can be at three places at once without being anywhere at all. But if you remember that we invented the lines, then quantum mechanics seems no more mysterious than how I can live in three places at the same time. "
You see, people drew the lines in religion and created the contradictions, but really no contradictions exist, if you remember that people drew the lines.
kmr wrote:And no, you cannot find true fulfillment through books and knowledge, only through experience. I agree with this completely. But based on the context of your previous posts, you are offering this up in order to derail all of us Christians and our "book logic" arguments while you yourself can sit back on your own arguments. If we are "lost" in our pursuit of text and logic, and if our arguments prove that, then how can you not be?
Let me explain my personal process. I had long ago realized that books and logic are dead ends to enlightenment. So the path has been "practice". When I was Christian, I prayed and practiced loving kindness, and it showed me what Christ Love was like. At first, it didn't come naturally. Loving your enemies was especially challenging. But it was thru the practice that I came to know Christ Love. Then as I read the Bible, and other spiritual texts, I realized that the text was trying to point towards the experience of Christ love. As I continued in life, I came across Buddhist, Hindu, zen, Taoism, etc. Their text also describes the same experience, except they had different ways of explaining it, or called it different things. I knew though, thru my practice that it didn't matter what cultural and religious tradition these text came from, that the experience they point the aspirant to is the same.
And as my life circumstances grew and shifted, I found that some of the practices perscribed by these other faiths fit my personality better. I am not as book smart, and more of an artist type, and love poetry and music, and have an extremely short attention span, etc, there are certain ways of training for "loving all" that just worked better and fit me better.
I only point out the "book Logic" thing as an example of how one can become stuck on one's ego and lose sight of the real purpose of Jesus' teaching.
kmr wrote:
And if you think that all of these are just among infinite human perspectives and that the truth can never be known (that is your perspective), then why bother to sit there arguing that the truth can never be known to a bunch of fools who think that the truth can be known? And what if, after all of this, it turns out that there is an abstract truth that can be known... will you still think that it cannot be known, in the sense that it is just human perspective? That no perspective is correct because we exist in a mind that observes reality by means of perspective?
It has been on my mind quite a bit as to why I'm on this forum. It is difficult to have a civil discussion when most have taken personally defensive or offensive positions. But what I have gotten out of it is a better understanding of fundamentalism, and a better understanding of my own views and perspectives. And also learned how to spot my own emotional ups and downs as my believes are challenged, and how to properly have a discussion while avoiding hostility. It allows me to spot where my ego lies. And to avoid egoic traps while maintaining the practice of understanding and compassion.
I like to keep a mental perspective of "not-knowing". It seems to work the best for me. Here is a little Taoist parable about a Farmer who held that perspective.
"An old farmer who worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied. The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the old man. The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "May be," answered the farmer. The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be," said the farmer."
kmr wrote:Well, in that case, I have this to say: All humans are capable of perceiving reality one way or another. Therefore, in the end, all humans have the capability of perceiving the same perspective and, perhaps, one perception is the one that most ultimately fulfills human logic. In this case, it is the perspective and way of thinking that most directly relates the evidence to the conclusion. And one perspective is always able to do this better than another one, although which one that is is not always clear.
Yes, I agree that if the truth can be known, that certain perspectives work better for certain individuals. And that is why people chose for themselves what works best for them.
You might try this exercise with your church members. Meet outside of a building that no one has been to. Have everyone walk in at the same time and take a 2 minute look around, then leave the building and reconvene outside. Now have each on write down what they observed.
You will get some overlap in answers, but it will most clearly demonstrate that even though everyone had the same external experience, that their perceptions are drastically different.
Here is another exercise to try. Have everyone take off their watch, and make sure there is no clock on the wall. Have everyone close their eyes. The facilitator then choses a random amount of time between 1-5 minutes. Have everyone sit quietly and the facilitator will let everyone know when the secret amount of time has passed. People then open their eyes and write down how much time they think have passed.
You might get some overlap, but again, you'll see that perception is very different from individual to individual.
We see this occur even in Church. Given the same passage of bible to study, the individuals of the group will often have very different interpretations of the passage. Of course it depends on the type of church you go to. Some churches might have one authority figure that tells you exactly what the passage says, or some might like to take multiple perspectives and discuss, some never discuss it and believe that your relationship with Christ is yours alone and not to be shared. (Of course differences in perspectives are not limited to Christianity or even religion alone. Differences in perspectives is a universal truth amoung humans, animals, insects, etc.)
If you find a perspective, a method of reaching enlightenment that works for you, that's great, but to make it law and force a population to adhere by the penalty of condemnation, it's becomes tyranny, not spirituality. The aim of spirituality is to help all reach enlightenment with whatever method that works best.
But all said, this is just my perspective. You need not agree. But I welcome discussion and clarification in the hopes that it will advance our collective understanding.
Thanks,
