PureX said:
What I'm saying is that no matter how full my grasp of the universe is, the universe remains more complex then I am able to grasp. Therefore, the complexity of the universe appears to me to be infinite, as I experience it, though it may well not actually be infinite.
and
But how it looks to me is how I am experiencing it. How could we see something one way and experience it another way?
Right, I think you cleared up that misunderstanding last post, you experience the universe as more complex than you can fully grasp…..
You said:
In this case the observation is that the universe is complex. We can verify this observation easily, by simply attempting to take the universe apart. The more parts we generate, the more parts there will be yet to be removed. Does this mean that the number of parts is infinite? It's impossible to say, of course, because we are not capable of dismanteling the whole universe to find out. But to us, it would appear (as we experience it) that the number of parts are infinite. Yet our experience of 'infinity' isn't actual infinity, and our assumption of infinity (if we so assume) isn't an established truth.
So it appears infinite despite your inability to prove that it is, in fact infinite.
Ok…
Now you say in response to me..
quote:
Originally posted by BChristianK I’m not a math whiz, never will be. I’m not going to be able to solve any “good will hunting” math equations in my lifetime. But I can look at those equations, apprehend their complexity, and yet still recognize some simple, recognizable, simple elements within the equation. I know how to calculate a square root. Can I assume that whatever happens in the calculations of the equation that the result will be built upon that element of the equation and not contradictory of that part of the equation?
Absolutely…
That is all that Fundamentalists are claiming when they point to absolute truths. Not that we know everything about everything, nor that world isn’t complex, but that within that complexity there are some truths that we can observe and believe as true in the midst of that complexity.
But what these fundamentalists keep ignoring, and even fighting tooth and nail against, is the basic fact that their "equation" only adds up "absolutely" in their minds. And thus it is not an intrinsic part of the reality that the rest of us experience (unless we have accepted their intellectual "equation" as our reality, too). They keep insisting that because 2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute truth in their own minds, that it must be an absolute truth in my mind, in everyone else's minds, and in reality, too. But it's NOT.
We have been over this argument PureX, and you have been unable to show me how 1+1 doesn’t equal 2. Duder tried by stacking velocities and multiplying 1 by a variable but even if I were to take that attempt as true, I can also make the move of specificity to absolutize my statement. One cent plus another cent always equals 2 cents. THis is an easily understood and applied categorical, objective truth. The fact that you would deny this shows that your argument is problematic.
And the more other people try to tell them that it's not, the more angry, antagonistic, belligerent, and even violent they become. And they behave this way because it's of the utmost importance to them that they maintain the belief that the "equations" in their minds are "real". It's so important that over the years they have often committed murder, and torture, and all kinds of terrible crimes in their efforts at maintaining this proposition. And when I converse with them on line, here, I still find them using any and all means possible to dismiss and discredit any other concept of reality.
Huh? You can go on believing that one cent plus another equals something other than 2 cents. We might laugh occasionally and look kinda funny at you when you try to make change, but I think you are being innacurate in suggesting that Christian fundamentalists have become belligerent or violent. As a general rule, we fundy’s are a relatively harmless lot. And that is where your argument degenerates into a hasty generalization.
Some Muslim fundamentalist factions fly airplanes into buildings, Christian fundamentalists don’t. You might not like the religious right, or the TV shows they broadcast, or the radio programs they have or the books they write. You might want them to focus on their own Darn family But by and large, the Christian fundamentalist movement has used peaceful means to accomplish its aims.
Sure, there is the occasional kook who bombs an abortion clinic, but you and I both know that this is the outlier and not the representative. You can tell this by how Christian Fundamentalists, as a whole, reject such behavior as unacceptable. This stands in contrast to the confirmation and encouragement you get from Muslim fundamentalist groups on acts of terrorism.
All this to say, your argument breaks down at the point of specific application. You may
want all fundamentalists groups to employ the same violent methods, for if they did, you would have reason for your accusations. There would be no difference between the heinous actions of extreme Muslim fundamentalists and the actions of Christian fundamentalists. However, not all fundamentalist groups employ the same methods, encourage the same methods, or prescribe the same methods, and that is why your argument, eloquent as it may be, is still a hasty generalization.
You said:
THIS is fundamentalism. This battle with truth, with reality, with science, with other religions, with anyone and anything that dares to contradict the blind insistence that the equations that are "absolutely true" in the fundamentalist's minds ARE THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
Your arguments are circular when you claim that fundamentalism battles with reality, truth, science, etc…
The fundamentalist claims that they are harmonious with reality, truth, science, etc…..
You’ll have to prove that the fundy’s are wrong before you can cast these stones and as of yet, you haven’t convinced me that you have won those points…
Now you say
quote:
Originally posted by BChristianK There’s no denying that fundamentalists often have disagreements over doctrinal issues. But if you put a professing non-fundamentalist and a fundamentalist in a room alone, they will also fight with each other about who is “right” and who is “wrong.”
Actually, no. To fundamentalists it always looks this way, because they are at war with ALL other views of truth and reality. But for most people, being "right" is not nearly so much of a priority. What happens is that the fundi and the non-fundi begin a conversation, and as soon as the non-fundi says something that dares to contradict the fundi's concept of truth and reality, the fundi feels he is being "attacked", because to him there can only be one right view of anything. But the other fellow may be a relativist. To him there are lots of "right" views, even some that contradict. So he was simply expressing his own opinion in the conversation. He wasn't "attacking" the fundi at all.
First of all, it has been my experience that the reverse happens. The “relativist” gets their feathers in a ruffle the moment the fundy asks them to substantiate their worldview. There is some statement analogous to “how dare you insinuate that I am wrong and you are right, you narrow minded fundy!”
Most fundis, especially on this site, are willing to dialog and debate all sorts of things without getting their feelin’s hurt..
Second, fundis don’t consider themselves at war with all other worldviews, they simply vocalize what they observe. And what they observe is that there are incompatible worldviews. They choose, to the exclusion of the other worldviews, based on the evidence. And they urge others to do the same. Many relativists refuse to even consider the pink elephant in the room. They won't admit that worldviews are incompatible regardless of how self evident this truth really is. They are so worried that the Buddhist or the Hindu or the Wiccan might get their feelin’s hurt that they refuse to see that not everyone can be right. So when the conversation gets flooded with the precepts of contradicting worldviews, they scratch their goatee’s, say, “Hmmmm” in a thoughtful tone, and take a sip of their white chocolate mochas.
Now the “narrow minded fundis” just stand up and say what it evident, “we can’t all be right.” Then quickly sip their black coffee and wait for the angry mob of relativists, Buddhists, Hindus and Wiccans to crossly tell them how terrible and intolerant they are for not to acquiescing to other's
rights to be agreed with.
And don’t be fooled, you know that that this is what is meant when they say, “its true for you but its not true for me.” You and I both know that really means, "we have a right for you to agree with us."
I understand that this is how life appears to you, but it's not true. We do disagree, but not about what's right or wrong so much as about my right to be right, too. That's what fundamentalists can't ever really accept.
Everyone has a right to be right?
No, we don’t buy that. We don’t because, for one, it is selectively applied. It is ok for new age philosophy to be “right” or Buddhism to be “right”, or relativism to be “right,” and it is just fine for them to share why they think they are right, and it is likewise acceptable for them to persuade others to entertain thier worldviews. But the moment the exclusivity of the Christian message becomes “right for me,” and I become equally active explaining why I think I am correct, and persuading others to consider Christianity I am labeled “intolerant.”
It is the fundamental hypocrisy of the “right to be right” principle. The real statement is, “you fundi’s have no right to be right, you should shut up about what you think is right and capitulate to my right to be right.”
No, you are correct, we can’t really accept that. And though it might be a shock to you, the reason we can’t accept it is because
no one has the right to be right. This, "right to be right" notion is the perhaps the most abusive ontological principle ever devised.
In
never, never land, lolly-pops might materialize into existence at the wishes of a sugarplum fairy but in the world that we really live in, things exist or they don’t regardless of a persons claimed right for it to be otherwise. Some things are true or they are not, some things are right or wrong. People don’t have the
right to wish things into existence. To think this is foolish. And, based on these facts, no one should beholden to entertain another’s worldview without scrutiny.
The concept that people have the right to be right assumes that if someone claims there are unicorns and they worship them, we are all beholden to entertain that possibility that there really are unicorns worthy of our worship, and we must entertain this without reservation. No matter how preposterous a proposition it is, we must always allow them to make these claims without criticism. To openly criticize, or even to doubt is to be intolerant, unless of course the criticism is directed at the fundi Christian, then such criticism is a righteous voicing of opinion.
This crazy idea that everyone has the right to be right completely destroys rational thought. It makes the child learning their multiplication tables right no matter what answer they give.
Finally you say:
Some ideologies do invite fundamentalism, while others tend to discourage it, I agree. Christianity and Islam both invite fundamentalism because both religious ideologies are essentially elitist, and elitism does invite and encourage fundamentalism.
Elitism is the wrong word. Both faiths are exclusivistic. If all worldviews that are exclusivistic are elitist then
relativists are elitist for their worldview is equally exclusivistic. A relativist must, by virtue of accepting the principle that multiple roads lead to salvation, exclude the claims of religions that teach that only one road leads to salvation.
I understand, it is much easier to vilify Christians if you can call them elitist. That straw man is much easier to push down. And the relativist certainly couldn’t admit that they share the same tendency because that would equalize the standing and eliminate the high ground from which accusations of intolerance are hurled.
Hopefully you will one day see the hypocrisy this presents…
Grace and Peace
