I just looked at your link. Actually, Athena recommended, 'Thinking Fast and Slow,' by Daniel Kahneman, for me to read a few weeks ago in discussion on another thread.

I have read some but not all of it. I was fairly impressed. While I am more arts based generally, I do believe in keeping up with the latest theories, a including social and hard science, alongside historical ones. I do believe this gives us the best way of arriving at a comprehensive and informed perspective,

Both science and truth are such wide open areas. I think it is worth narrowing the matter down to the more specific. It might be worth you spelling out the actual questions you think are the underlying ones relating to truth. — Jack Cummins

I agree it's very broad that's why I'm limiting myself to more practical things like say, medicine, engineering, physical objects, climate, biology etc...things that are basically within the realm of the sciences.

Of course, you can take the option of focusing upon the aspects of life just involving practical issues, according to practical knowledge, as evidenced by the sciences directly.

Personally, I am more concerned with the philosophy questions which are less able to be discerned by the methodology of the sciences. The scope of my own exploration includes questions about how mankind should live and find healing solutions.

The aspect of medicine which has been my main interest is psychiatry, and this is less clear cut than many others. I would say that neuroscience is bringing great advances but, nevertheless, the whole issues of mental illness and suffering do, inevitably, raise philosophical questions.

Also, I have, and still do, struggle with the questions raised by religion. I was brought up as a Roman Catholic and the whole worldview which I was taught has left me with big questions. So, I do tend to explore other ways of thinking, including those of comparative cultures and the ideas arising from various scientific thinkers, including those within quantum physics.

That's interesting because I'm a Psychology graduate and I'm currently pursuing graduate studies in Psychology. I'm also technically a Roman Catholic haha

Anyway, I also have a lot of theories regarding the core cause of illness, our basic motivations, dream function etc...I find it funny how advanced we are with a lot of things but as you mentioned, when it comes to our own minds, we really haven't gotten very far.

Yes, that is interesting. What schools of psychology do you consider to be the most accurate or helpful ones?

I did A level psychology but only did modules of study in the subject on my studies after that. I might have gone on to do it psychology degree. I know people who are going down the pathway to becoming clinical psychologists, but it is extremely competitive.I have worked in mental health care, but think that I would like to go in a slightly different direction of work.

I love philosophy but that is my personal interest rather than one that can be made into a career. At the moment, I am just having a break because it is hard to look for work during the pandemic. But I am finding that philosophy is certainly keeping me busy, and I love writing.

When I chose Psychology, it's because I wanted to get into counselling. Family, couple, groups, youth. Family counselling especially because I find the family unit to be extremely important because that forms the base on how we deal and interact with the world. Grow up in abuse or neglect and most likely you will carry that with you and possibly continue that pattern because that's what you grew up with.

But in terms of accuracy, maybe Clinical Psychology because it covers most bases with regards to mental illness. This is what I'm focusing on now since I hear it's easier to go from Clinical to Counselling than the other way around.

I'm pretty old for school but this pandemic has kinda thrown a wrench at life and so I figured why not try learning new skills at a field I like? My sister in law is taking a course on healthy natural cooking. Healthy eating is definitely hot nowadays so that's a good choice.

That said, Psychology here isn't quite as popular because we're a deeply religious country and most still prefer that path for solutions. But, it's thankfully a growing field.

I did wish to become an art therapist or a psychotherapist. However, there are very few jobs in this field.

I think I do not see paid work as the real 'work ' necessarily any longer. I see getting a job just as a way of supporting myself financially in order to do the more important 'work' of art, writing and philosophy.

I don't think that I would wish to become a therapist any more. I find sorting out my own feelings and thoughts hard enough, let alone those of others. But I do listen to others and try to engage in meaningful dialogues about life and all its conundrums.

I see getting a job just as a way of supporting myself financially in order to do the more important 'work' of art, writing and philosophy. — Jack Cummins

That's a great strategy. This Pandemic is telling us that life's too short to be focused on just making money. We have to take what little time we have to do what we love to do.

I noticed your comment about the 'real' and 'meaning,' and believe that the questions about these areas are very real, despite the apparent cultural relativism of our times.

In your last post, you make a valid point, that, '"Relativism" brings in the cultural factor and we were not always an amoral society,' and you add, 'Something has gone dreadfully wrong.'

Yesterday, I was reading a book, 'The Death of Truth,' by Michiko Katutani(2018). He argues that relativism has been rising since the 1960s, originally adopted by the left wing, and later by some right wing ones, leading to the idea 'that there are no universal truths, only smaller personal truths_ perceptions shaped by the cultural and social forces of one's day.

Katutani traces the way in which postmodern deconstruction and nihilistic views are being given prominence,especially on the internet. He points to the way in which leaders can use relativism as a starting point for manipulation and an indifferent attitude towards truth, especially in the political arena I think that this is an interesting and important argument.

Yesterday, I was reading a book, 'The Death of Truth,' by Michiko Katutani(2018). He argues that relativism has been rising since the 1960s, originally adopted by the left wing, and later by some right wing ones, leading to the idea 'that there are no universal truths, only smaller personal truths_ perceptions shaped by the cultural and social forces of one's day. — Jack Cummins

Here's something you might want to consider, Jack. There's an epistemological standard which proposes that knowledge is justified true belief. And there is supposed to be a difference between "justified" and "true". Justification is what one might call objectification. It is the cultural process whereby we demonstrate or prove to each other our reasons for believing what we believe. Notice that "objective" in this context of epistemology, does not mean "of the object", referring to the object which is supposedly known, it means intersubjective. This means that the group who supposedly know, are the object, in "objective" here. What is "of the object" known, is supposedly the truth. But we do not really have access to "truth" in this sense, we only have how we perceive the object, and how others perceive the object, and the so-called "objective" or culturally justified perception. So "truth" in that sense, of "what is of the object", is rendered completely irrelevant to knowledge.

This would leave "truth", in that sense of what is "of the object" as right outside of any possible knowledge. And objectivity in knowledge is what is justified. Now we need to look for another sense of "true" to see how truth could be any part of, or play any role in knowledge. We find another sense which relates to honesty. This is a subjective sense of truth, as "of the subject". But we can see that honesty plays a very important role in knowledge. Justification is the means by which beliefs are objectified, but if an individual justifies a belief which one does not truly believe (dishonestly), then we have a deception, which produces a justified, but untrue belief.

So it may turn out that when people commonly seek an "objective truth" there is really no such thing. Real truth is subjective, as authenticity, what a person truly believes,

Yes, I think your argument is correct really. We cannot know truth in the absolute sense. As you state, 'Real truth is subjective, as authenticity, what a person truly believes.'

I do think that the best we can do is come up with the truth as we see it from our own honest perspective. Of course, views may change at different times in our lives depending on how the facts present themselves to us.

But in my own authentic understanding I often look at matters, especially in the area of religion and can see the arguments on both sides, with my own opinions tipping from one direction to another from time to time. The question on which I hover on the point of uncertainty most is the subject of my previous thread, the question of life after death. I tend to go around in circles. Most people tend to think yes, or no, but in this respect, there must be a real answer, so obviously some are wrong, but perhaps it doesn't matter really.

I think one other issue can sway subjective truth is what we wish the truth to be. It is easy to filter beliefs according to what we wish the truth to be.
Or, in my case, I sometimes think of the worst possibilities, especially if I am in a negative state of mind. Then, building up my fears, I then have to convince myself that is not true.

I think that is another book I should add to my collection.

The Greeks knew people around the world were different. They also had a notion of what it means to be civilized or pagan or barbarian. It seemed obvious to them those who refused to accept the Greek stand of living were pagans or barbarians.

Could relativism have a negative effect on culture and civilization?

It is the cultural process whereby we demonstrate or prove to each other our reasons for believing what we believe. — Metaphysician Undercover

That process seems to be broken.

In the past, we had myth and religion to process the justification for what we believe. While knowing the truth has always been important, only in modern times has that meant science. The US never did develop a strong relationship with philosophy because of reliance on religion, and perhaps today that is a problem?

We seem to have a cultural divide between those who rely on religion and those who rely on science, and science lacks the qualities of cultivating culture, right? Without history and philosophy, I fear we are in deep trouble.

I do agree with you when you say that the 'process is broken', regarding the whole issue of proof.

I think it is hardest still if you are brought up with a mixture of religion and science, but not one fully. I think that is why I struggle with questions a lot, because I was taught a lot of contradictory ideas at school, and I am not just talking about the issue of evolution. I think some of it was around morality.

The reason I do believe that it was education that gave me a whole load of clashing is that I know that many people I went to school with have struggled with the contradictions too. In fact, two of the friends I am in touch with from school have had psychotic breakdowns, in which the context is of a religious nature, involving ideas such as the devil and the fallen angels.

I have struggled with ideas I was taught including the fall of the angels, although I think that idea is more from John Milton's, 'Paradise Lost', rather than Biblical. I do think that if I had not read like I do, ideas in the social sciences, as well as philosophy, I think that rather than just spending time contemplating ideas, I could have become psychotic. The two friends I speak of do not read philosophy and the kind of books I read. Actually, I was not aware that they were struggling with questions around religion until they became unwell mentally.

I have also come across people who have not been brought up with religious backgrounds at all who have developed religious psychosis too. I do believe that the clash between religion and science in our relativistic culture is the source of such psychosis. Personally, I have never got quite to that point, and for me it has just been an underlying worry, but I do believe that my own philosophy exploration is not simply a form of mental illness but a quest.

Of course, views may change at different times in our lives depending on how the facts present themselves to us. — Jack Cummins

I think that this is a very significant part of being human, to be open to changing your mind, and to actually change in that way, is an important part of honesty and authenticity. When you hold a belief, and it becomes evident through some demonstration, or whatever, that your belief is not acceptable, you ought to release that belief. But for some reason, some people are not like this, they'll cling to some belief even though it's been conclusively demonstrated to be irrational.

But in my own authentic understanding I often look at matters, especially in the area of religion and can see the arguments on both sides, with my own opinions tipping from one direction to another from time to time. The question on which I hover on the point of uncertainty most is the subject of my previous thread, the question of life after death. I tend to go around in circles. Most people tend to think yes, or no, but in this respect, there must be a real answer, so obviously some are wrong, but perhaps it doesn't matter really. — Jack Cummins

In many instances, when persuasive evidence is not forthcoming, it is best to keep an open mind. To suspend judgement is a type of skepticism. I don't think there is anything dishonest with that, and if there is nothing pressing you, which needs a decision, then leave it that way for now. Maybe the question will end up being unimportant in the long run, even if it seems quite important now.

I think one other issue can sway subjective truth is what we wish the truth to be. It is easy to filter beliefs according to what we wish the truth to be.
Or, in my case, I sometimes think of the worst possibilities, especially if I am in a negative state of mind. Then, building up my fears, I then have to convince myself that is not true. — Jack Cummins

This, being swayed by what we wish for, is difficult to understand because it's a type of irrationality. It's sort of like buying lottery tickets when you know the odds are far against you. I think that this type of irrationality is closely related to the reason why people cling to a belief when it has been conclusively demonstrated to be false. It's a type of dishonesty, as a self-deception, when I tell myself that it's OK to believe this even though I know it is irrational. The inclination toward wanting to believe it is some emotion like a desire or want.

In the past, we had myth and religion to process the justification for what we believe. While knowing the truth has always been important, only in modern times has that meant science. The US never did develop a strong relationship with philosophy because of reliance on religion, and perhaps today that is a problem? — Athena

The problem is that science doesn't really give us truth, as per my discussion with Jack above. What gives us truth is a particular attitude of honesty, and it is probably the case that religion would be better suited toward culturing this attitude. Science gives us useful principles, hypotheses, but truth being associated with correspondence, involves how we employ those principles.

The US never did develop a strong relationship with philosophy because of reliance on religion, and perhaps today that is a problem?
— Athena

The problem is that science doesn't really give us truth, as per my discussion with Jack above. What gives us truth is a particular attitude of honesty, and it is probably the case that religion would be better suited toward culturing this attitude. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think the relationship the US had with religion is not so removed from philosophy as Athena might think. It seems to me that religion was a way of contemplating the world and consequently the idea of reality. It as the truth.

I don’t think myth and religion was used, as suggested by Athena, to process the justification for what people believed, I think it was what they believed, what else did they have? But somehow I don’t think religion can go back to what it was and by that I means particular attitude. Of course people will claim that religion was always a lie. But in time philosophical and scientific ideas are proven wrong, which doesn’t necessarily mean they were a lie.

but truth being associated with correspondence, involves how we employ those principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

The principles of religion, and for my point it’s Christianity, were and still are, if chosen, still as relevant as philosophy is in its relationship to science. I guess I’m saying I still see religion and philosophy as one compared to science.

We seem to have a cultural divide between those who rely on religion and those who rely on science, and science lacks the qualities of cultivating culture, right? Without history and philosophy, I fear we are in deep trouble. — Athena

I don’t know if it’s true that science lacks the qualities of cultivating culture. But then we would need to define culture. Nor do I think there is always a divide between religion and science. If you believe in God then science is an investigation into his world.

Second thoughts:

I think it’s worth remembering, though you may not agree, that all three: religion, philosophy and science were, are, developed from a mind that reasons. They’ve all been ways of understanding the world. So they are in a sense unified in our attempt to understand ourselves and the world, each of them operating differently in trying to reach an understanding. Which suggests there is more to come.

The principles of religion, and for my point it’s Christianity, were and still are, if chosen, still as relevant as philosophy is in its relationship to science. I guess I’m saying I still see religion and philosophy as one compared to science. — Brett

I don't think it is correct to class religion and philosophy together, and separate science from these two. What separates religion from philosophy, is that religion is always structured, as an institution. And in this sense science and religion ought to be classed together, because science is structured as an institution. This allows that philosophy, being the quest for knowledge, might be free from adhering to any specific methods of a particular institution. I believe that this type of classification is necessary because we need to allow philosophy to get beyond both science and religion, to enable us to make judgements if there is an incompatibility between these institutions. Philosophy, being the quest for knowledge, is what actually gives us knowledge, wisdom, and the capacity to make sound judgements.

The institutions (conventions) of science will and do clash with the institutions of religion. Each will compete for recognition from the general public, for funding, etc., and acceptance in general. The general public, being made up of individuals, requires the means for making such judgements. The individual will need to turn to philosophy in order to develop the means for making an informed judgement. This is similar in principle to the judgement we are asked to make in a democracy for an election. We can vote along the lines of these conventions, or those conventions, being the ones which we naturally accept through the institutions which we are familiar with from our social environment, or we can make the effort, to take the time, and put the power of philosophy to work, and make a truly informed decision.

I think that science, philosophy and religion are distinct categories of experience and methods. They can all converge at some points and probably each one of us has to find our place on this map.

For many, in history it may have been possible to combine all three. I think that it is becoming harder, especially as scientific knowledge grows.

The main aspect which seems to be distinct in most religious perspectives is a belief in a supernatural or, at least, a superhuman order in the Eastern traditions.Philosophers or scientists can decide whether or not to take the religious aspect on board, or reject it completely.

But, as you say, it is about honesty, and we do not have to come to ultimate solutions immediately. I think that philosophy allows us to juggle the possibilities before us in the most authentic and critical way. If anything, I fear that many scientists may think that they have the monopoly on truth, regarding religion as magic 'nonsense' and even seeing philosophy as redundant and unnecessary.

I have to admit that even though I try to hold onto the objectivity of science the poetry of mysticism is my real language. — Jack Cummins

I think the appeal of Science (Engineering; Technology) is primarily to those who think Abstractly & Reductively, while the appeal of Mysticism (Spiritualism, Religion) is to those who think Concretely & Holistically. That may be an over-simplification of a complex topic, but it helps me to understand how & why reasonable people can hold such divergent worldviews.

Physics is the most abstract & reductive of the sciences, while Biology & Chemistry necessarily deal with more concrete subjects, but they still dissect their subjects into isolated parts. Meanwhile, Metaphysics -- the subject of Philosophy and Poetry -- covers those aspects of reality that cannot be seen or touched or cut, hence must be inferred, and can only be expressed in terms of analogies & metaphors : concrete comparisons. Imitating scientists, some philosophers try to use analytical scalpels for metaphysical topics, but the abstruse results of their dismemberment tend to lie lifeless, like vivisected frogs.

People seem to be born with innate tendencies toward one end or the other of the Reductive/Holistic spectrum. But most of us are somewhere in the middle. Famous mystics may see the world through rose-colored romantic holistic glasses, while famous scientists view reality via the gray pragmatic X-ray vision of Analysis. Each type can try to see the other's perspective, but it's like learning a new language, in a foreign culture.

The term "Holism" was originally a scientific concept, but later was adopted by New Agers because it fit neatly into the newly-popular imported religious philosophies of India and China. Scientists now prefer the term "Systems Theory", because of the mystical taint on "Holism". Ironically, some of the pioneers of Quantum Science were also influenced by Eastern holism. For example, Heisenberg -- after a journey to the Far East -- wrote "all fundamental aspects of physical reality, which had been so difficult for him and his fellow physicists to 'make sense of', was the very basis of the Indian spiritual tradition". Nevertheless, while I appreciate the broad general holistic wisdom of the ancients, I prefer to rely on modern science for an accurate understanding of the specific details.

While in college, I made a break with my Western religious upbringing, but still retained some affinity for holistic thinking. So for a while, I was attracted to Theosophy, which claimed to combine modern science with ancient wisdom traditions. Like, most of the New Age philosophies though, Theosophy has since fragmented into dozens of piecemeal worldviews ( e.g. Anthroposophy). So, I no longer find such mystical views attractive. However, I have developed my own personal worldview (Enformationism), which aims to bridge the abyss between Physics & Metaphysics, without going to extremes of Materialism or Mysticism. :cool:

Holism : Holism is the idea that various systems should be viewed as wholes, not merely as a collection of parts. The term "holism" was coined by Jan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

Systems Theory : Systems theory, also called systems science, is the multidisciplinary study of systems to investigate phenomena from a holistic approach.

Theosophy : (god wisdom) is a religion established in the United States during the late nineteenth century. It was founded primarily by the Russian immigrant Helena Blavatsky and draws its teachings predominantly from Blavatsky's writings.
. . .any of a number of philosophies maintaining that a knowledge of God may be achieved through spiritual ecstasy, direct intuition, or special individual relations,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy

The problem is that science doesn't really give us truth, as per my discussion with Jack above. What gives us truth is a particular attitude of honesty, and it is probably the case that religion would be better suited toward culturing this attitude. Science gives us useful principles, hypotheses, but truth being associated with correspondence, involves how we employ those principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

True. Typically, scientists don't claim to reveal absolute Truths, but merely useful facts that we can rely on for practical applications. But many Western religions make bold assertions of divine revelations of Eternal Truth. That is the root of the Science vs Religion controversy. I agree that religions would be less socially divisive, if they promoted the character trait of honest appraisal (self-skepticism) of one's own beliefs, with as much enthusiasm as they promote skepticism toward the unorthodox doctrines of other sects. :smile:

Science Does Not Reveal Truth : https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulmsutter/2019/10/27/science-does-not-reveal-truth/?sh=5609bca038c3

Eternal Truth : Truth, eternal truth, is the groundwork of the Christian's hope: it is the only sure rock on which he can build.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-23?lang=eng

don't think it is correct to class religion and philosophy together, and separate science from these two. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you’re right. I tried to correct myself in my ‘second thoughts’ post.

What separates religion from philosophy, is that religion is always structured, as an institution. — Metaphysician Undercover

In the beginning I don’t think that’s necessarily true. It’s definitely become structured and as a consequence a little irrelevant. But don’t you think that despite philosophy’s openness to questioning it largely falls back on logic and reason, which is about as structured as you can get. And the same with science.

The individual will need to turn to philosophy in order to develop the means for making an informed judgement. — Metaphysician Undercover

I certainly value the need for making informed judgements or choices. But it seems to me that some choices can only be made on the basis of either religion, philosophy or science. Are all philosophical choices correct? Or science? Or religion? What was the decision to drop a bomb on Hiroshima based on?

In the beginning I don’t think that’s necessarily true. It’s definitely become structured and as a consequence a little irrelevant. But don’t you think that despite philosophy’s openness to questioning it largely falls back on logic and reason, which is about as structured as you can get. And the same with science. — Brett

Well I don't really agree, because philosophy addresses issues which fall out of the reach of formal logic.
So what it "falls back on" is an odd sort of reasoning, like abductive, which is better described as intuition rather than structured logic. This is what makes philosophers and philosophies unique and distinct in their reasoning. Scientists use very structured forms of deductive and inductive logic. However, we can see that scientists do think outside the box when proposing hypotheses, and I would say that this is where science relies on philosophy, but in verifying the hypotheses through the use of experimentation and observation, they are supposed to adhere to more strict formal logic.

I certainly value the need for making informed judgements or choices. But it seems to me that some choices can only be made on the basis of either religion, philosophy or science. Are all philosophical choices correct? Or science? Or religion? What was the decision to drop a bomb on Hiroshima based on? — Brett

I would say that the decision to drop the bomb was a philosophical choice. It's a decision which required going beyond a direct application of scientific principles, and also beyond the direct application of religious principles. So the decision relies on some further intuition. Notice that the vast majority of any seemingly important decisions which we make on a day to day basis are like this. That's why philosophy is important. And the reason why these important decisions are so difficult to make is that we cannot appeal to either science, or religion, for decisive guidance as to what is correct.

We commonly make decisions to do things which would have huge import if we went another way, (like not to kill the person I am mad at for example) but we are already so culturally ingrained to recognize what we are doing as correct, through either the principles of religion, or science, that we don't even think about, or consider any alternatives. It is only when the choice is not obvious, that we must think and use philosophy in an attempt to access relevant principles which at a first glance would not seem evident, or relevant. Having to think before making the decision creates the appearance that the decision is important, but it's not necessarily so, as people can get really stressed out over relatively insignificant decisions. And on the other side, we rush through all sorts of important decisions without even thinking about them because of that cultural indoctrination.

The question of what constitutes a correct choice, and whether a philosophical choice is necessarily correct, is another issue altogether. We could define "correct" along the lines of what is justified by cultural norms. But you'll see that different norms will produce conflicting decisions of "correct", as is evident sometimes in the clash of science and religion, and clashes between various religions and cultures. This indicates that "correct" cannot be adequately defined in this way. That is the issue which Plato ran into in trying to define "just" in "The Republic". This implies that we need to look for a true definition of "correct" rather than a justified definition, in the way that "true" has been defined by Jack Cummins and I earlier in the thread, which relates "true" to honest.

So if an individual acts according to what one truly and honestly believes, this could constitute a "correct" decision. The problem is that a "correct" decision, when "correct" is defined in this way, might still be mistaken. The person might not properly consider the evidence, or judge what is relevant, or have deficient capacity of judgement in some other way. Since an honest decision does not necessarily exclude the possibility of mistake, we cannot truthfully define "correct" in this way. Therefore we are inclined to look for a definition of "correct" which transcends the individual's own personal capacity, to take into account all possible relevant information, and define it according to the decision which some omniscient, omnibenevolent being like God would make, to validate a real definition of "correct".

The reason I do believe that it was education that gave me a whole load of clashing is that I know that many people I went to school with have struggled with the contradictions too. In fact, two of the friends I am in touch with from school have had psychotic breakdowns, in which the context is of a religious nature, involving ideas such as the devil and the fallen angels. — Jack Cummins

Been there done that. I thought I was possessed and was on the verge of killing people. I had to make a decision- is all that demon, devil stuff for real or not? I am very glad I decided it is not. Later a came across information about post-trauma syndrome and then I found a book about traumatized children and found a counselor to help me deal with my experience of being put in a body cast with I was 1 year of age. I will stick with science okay? But it is also why I constantly relate science with morality and democracy. It seems so simple to me to understand morals as a matter of cause and effect, that I can't understand why everyone does not instantly embrace that. We must have morality and principles. A civilization can not exist without some basic agreements.

I do think that if I had not read like I do, ideas in the social sciences, as well as philosophy, I think that rather than just spending time contemplating ideas, I could have become psychotic. — Jack Cummins

Good choice. I also turned to philosophy. It was years before I learned of pts and my life was not good at the time. I managed with philosophy. I was really lost because I lived in a rural area without resources, nor educated people, but could find explanations of Greek gods and heroes and that was my starting place. I am so thankful I found my way out of Hades. A place we must all go to to sort out our values and meaning of life. But we should never go to Hades without the help of the gods because it is so easy to get lost in Hades. To be lost in Hades is to experience depression or even psychosis.

You know Joseph Campbell. Without shared mythology, we create our own story using our family and people familiar to us as the gods and monsters in our personal story. What a bloody mess, because then we need counseling to figure our personal myth and journey. If the counselor can't teach us coping skills and how to write better life stories, we can remain trapped in Hades and still blaming our mothers for our infantile efforts to manage our lives.

The problem is that science doesn't really give us truth, as per my discussion with Jack above. What gives us truth is a particular attitude of honesty, and it is probably the case that religion would be better suited toward culturing this attitude. Science gives us useful principles, hypotheses, but truth being associated with correspondence, involves how we employ those principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which religion would that be? What are the important truths?

On the other hand, there is a liberal education and learning the higher-order thinking skills. That education leads to science AND good moral judgment.

Personally, I think we have two extremely important truths right now and that religion is a very serious problem right now because too many people are living a fantasy, and their fantasy could destroy life on the only planet we have. Even if there were a god ready to give us a new planet, why would give it to human beings who would destroy that one too because they refuse science?

Truth, wear a mask to save lives. Truth, stop filling the air with carbon and destroying the planet. Truth, if you have more children than you can feed, some will die. Truth, someone needs to care for the children and if you don't think that person is you, don't have children.

I think the relationship the US had with religion is not so removed from philosophy as Athena might think. It seems to me that religion was a way of contemplating the world and consequently the idea of reality. It as the truth.

I don’t think myth and religion was used, as suggested by Athena, to process the justification for what people believed, I think it was what they believed, what else did they have? But somehow I don’t think religion can go back to what it was and by that I means particular attitude. Of course people will claim that religion was always a lie. But in time philosophical and scientific ideas are proven wrong, which doesn’t necessarily mean they were a lie. — Brett

Oh, we do have an argument going. :lol: I have to be careful. Are others having an emotional reaction to what is being said? I am having strong feelings and thinking of such stupid things to say, that really have to pay attention and be self-aware. Thank you to all of you for sticking with a higher standard of argument and being so well mannered! In this crowd, I know being reactionary and sassy is not going to score me good points. That social pressure, like the culture of Athens, pushes me to think carefully, instead of being a jerk.

We can see historically and without question that in the US there has been little interest in philosophy except for a handful of elite youths who could go to college. We know many founding fathers were deists who did not deify Jesus. We one of them, Thomas Jefferson, edited the Bible so it is compatible with science. And studying old textbooks, reveals a reliance on Christianity as God is often mentioned, but because the US has so many different understandings of the Bible, education avoid religion other than mentioning God, and preventing education of evolution or anything that might offend a Christian, and this includes preventing doctors from telling women about birth control.

We do not think of Dick and Jane readers as religious books, They exemplify the White heaven of the single-unit family order, where Dad works and Mom stays home to raise the children and do not object to this, except for racism, a fantasy the excludes others, taking women for granted and denying that economic freedom. The man is the head of the household and until recently we did not question that, nor did we question restricting what women could do. And the book 1984 book by Sally D. Reed "NEA: Progranda Front of the Radical Left", and the 2012 Texas Republic agenda demonstrate the slipping Christian control of education. Like when Christians had unquestioned control of education, that never got our attention, but their fight for control now gets our attention, and notice how political that is! Notice how bad our political situation is. Our democracy may not survive this Christian Right president and the Christian left one who was elected.

It is interesting to hear about your own experience of feeling possessed at one stage on your life, although I am sure that it must have been for you. I have seen the extremes of psychosis in friends' illnesses and in my work.

Apart from my friends from school who became ill mentally, I also had two friends I knew at college who became unwell and committed suicide, and both had struggled desperately with mental health problems, with an underlying flavour. One was despairing about his inability to live up to St. Paul's teachings and the other had not been brought up as religious at all, but still thought God was communicating with him.


Although I had worried about religion and puzzled over the passage in the Bible over the unpardonable sin in the Bible at age 13, it was really as a result of my friends committing suicide that I began questioning religion so much. When I began university I was still going to church and by the end I was experimenting with drugs, trying to make sense of everything. But I don't want to get too carried away talking about my own life on this site because I am trying to make the point that it was seeing destructive religious belief can be, resulting in mental illness and despair that really led me to question the foundations of my own thinking.

The main thing that I would say is that religious questions are a key factor at the heart of issues relating to mental illness. I was once advised by a college tutor that in mental health care, nursing staff should never get into any discussion about religion or politics.

Obviously, it is an extremely sensitive area and I would not recommend staff self disclosing personal beliefs but I do think that mental health professionals need to listen to patients' struggles, rather than dismiss them. It is not very helpful if nurses and psychiatrists simply ignore the struggles over beliefs and philosophical questions and simply offer medication.

I do wonder if we are moving culturally into a time of mass psychosis. I do believe that Covid_19 is real but think that all the rules and regulations and confusion could be making it worse rather than better. It is leading to a lot of extreme anger and fear.

I certainly wear a mask, although I find it gets in makes me unable to see properly because it makes my glasses steam up. I am not entirely convinced that it is as much protection in terms of stopping the spread of viral germs as some choose to believe. Sometimes I think that people wear a mask as a ritual and a means of telling themselves that they are stopping spreading the virus.

In the mess we are in I am not sure if the religious or the scientists can help us. I have a religious friend who believes that it is the end of the world. I like to hope that is a time in which people have to think critically , and in doing so that people will have to be more consciously aware of ethical issues and the wider picture of human life and the future.

I was interested that you explored the area of theosophy. I have read some of the writings of Rudolf Steiner as well as some of the writers who formed the theosophy movement.

Have you come across Benjamin Creme? I have read several books by him and attended some workshops in transmission medication, which was the meditation founded by him. I found the transmission meditation to be the most helpful form of meditation personally, but some of his ideas are rather far fetched. In particular, for years and years he had believed that the Maitreya was living in East London waiting to emerge.

It is really since getting into the ideas of Creme that I try not to get carried away with the extremes of the esoteric, and touch base with science. In this respect, I find the systems view of life, advocated by Fritjof Capra to be extremely helpful as it is holistic and a good basis for drawing upon a variety of other, divergent perspectives.

I was interested that you explored the area of theosophy. — Jack Cummins

When my exploration found that Theosophy was mostly Sophistry, I abandoned that path, and went-on to explore more fruitful concepts. Blavatsky & Steiner were very convincing to those who were Mystically inclined. But I'm more Practically inclined --- more like an engineer than an artist. :cool:

Sophistry (Rhetoric) : "Sophists did, however, have one important thing in common: whatever else they did or did not claim to know, they characteristically had a great understanding of what words would entertain or impress or persuade an audience."
The works of Plato and Aristotle have had much influence on the modern view of the "sophist" as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist
Note -- I view the 20th century "linguistic turn" of philosophy as mostly a return to Sophistry, wherein confusing word-play is used to obfuscate rather than to illuminate; to sound smart, rather than to be wise.

I find the systems view of life, advocated by Fritjof Capra to be extremely helpful as it is holistic and a good basis for drawing upon a variety of other, divergent perspectives. — Jack Cummins

Yes. Capra's synthesis of Western Science and Eastern Philosophy was more suitable to my taste. I've read several of his books. He may be considered fringey by some of his peers, but his ideas are more practical than most mystical notions. My personal worldview is intended to be a "Systems View" of life :smile: