Debate is what happens when guns aren't available.  Or so it seems to many on this forum.



In other words there is no commonality and therefore knowledge and opinions are balkanized forms of mental warfare?  How darwinian.

I disagree, I think humanity has within it a common theme that we can all engage in, a commonality that allows us to exist without reverting to the darwinina approach advocated by so many posers.  If no such commonality exists, then any exercize in dialogue is futile.  and we simply spin around asking each other what every word means so that we can waste a mountain of time with small talk and overlook the grander much more important aspects.

Minutia is what we see, when we lose sight of the objectives.

Indeed, most serious thnkers on any subject are 'philosophers' in that they are "trying identify what is there and to make sense of what there is", within their particular field.  What is common to us all, our interactions with our fellow humans and with the world, should also of course be subject to a meditative attitude.  But there are so many conventions and received wisdoms in our behaviour tht it is not an easy task to identify those actions that should be examined.  And when we come down to examining the 'what is there' question it is immensely difficult for all of us to make the mental revolutions involved in redefining a fundamental term.  Which is why revolutionary changes are so often resisted, sometimes violently.


Neither of these opinions accurately reflect what I said.


Your use of labels is both incorrect and confuses your issues.  It is precisely because of this all-too-human leaning to talk in 'big issues' that are inadequately defined and understood that misunderstanding is spread.  For example, the 'common theme'.  What is this? How do we find it, appeal to it?  This isn't 'whining', or focusing on minutia.  This is asking what on earth do you mean.  Or do you just want to sweep everyone along in some vague emotional career into whatever actions you fancy?


On the contrary, precision is what we need, to define and achieve those objectives.



Inter-area conflict arises when attempts are made to impose the reasoning, standards or conventions of one area on another.  This is reflected in the idea of magisteria.  Historically, western religions have claimed virtually all subjects of study to themselves.  We can all see the reasons for this, since the religious were the 'keepers' of knowledge  (for example, copying manuscripts through the dark ages).  But naturally, as fields of study become more developed, they break away from the old empire and strive to establish themselves independently.  The friction this causes between old and new is what works up those in each field who find the secession to be an emotional issue.  (I guess this is because they have trouble, understndably, restructuring their world models.  It is hard!).  One can see a nice metaphor in the topic about Tom Paine - with the conflict of views over the relationship between state and religion.



 

I think we can all agree that the people/credo distinction holds in most fields - not just attitudes to religion.


I think you are here giving a fine example of the sort of overlap I was considering.  It is not that revelation is an invalid tool within the field of religion: it is tht it is not seen as a valid tool outside it.  For  example, I would not want a pharmacist to mix my cold remedy on 'revealed' knowledge, I would prefer him to be trained.  And of course the other item of overlap her is the use of the word 'truth'.  For example, while I am perfectly happy for you to have the 'truth' revealed to you that your god is three-in-one attended by nine degrees of angels, I do not accept your revealed 'truth' that the sun can be stopped in the sky.

In both cases the conflict arises from the two fields using the same words to describe different things.  Religious truth and knowledge are one thing, chemical and physical truths and knowledge are another.

Thank you.  I was hoping to discuss your comments further.


Revealed knowledge is not limited to religion.  In the broader sense, it seems to me to be the most common way to acquire knowledge.  I am attempting to answer Philosofear's question here as well.  Your training example is most directly a case of revelation.  The pharmacist had knowledge revealed by teaching.  I suspect that most of what we know has been revealed to us.  Court testimony of eyewitnesses is generally revelation.  Firsthand knowledge gained by our own senses (perception) is a form of related knowledge.

Now I realize one could counter by going to the ultimate source of these revelations.  In the case of the pharmacist, one would likely find empirical studies to be the source, but even then it is ultimately revealed through perception by observation of the trials and adjustments.  The point is I don't think it is wise to throw out revelation so quickly.

When it comes to evaluation of the premises contained in a set of beliefs like religion, once again I suggest that the premises can be taken at face value and evaluated with these other tools to determine the relative merit of the premise.  Certainly this process is useful to separate the wheat from the chaff.  What remains are belief systems that are plausible.  This method I think works well with for example Christianity and materialism and in both cases leaves them as worthy of further consideration.


One of the limitations of revelation is the difficulty the consumer has with full understanding.  When one has the luxury of interrogating the source it becomes easier.  When the writer has been absent for 3500 years, it gets much more difficult.  I'm not sure what to make of Joshua's account of the sun stopping.  I don't regard him a liar so I accept that he described what he perceived.  I figure that I simply do not understand what happened during this historical event.  I accept that because I realize that there is much in history that I don't understand.


I don't agree.  Truth very clearly is absolute and external to ourselves.  When you begin to differentiate it and introduce uncertainty one should stop using the word truth.  Perhaps opinion, premise, and beliefs are better words.  We can recognize truth by comparing it to available evidence regardless of the source of that evidence.  Perception/revelation and empirical studies provides evidence, philosophy can help us make sense of it.  I don't understand the value in separating it in the sense you have proposed.

I didn’t address this question in my previous response however it is really at the heart of our differences isn’t it?  I spoke of revelation in general so I will address the one of particular interest, namely the possibility of revelation by God.

If there truly is a God and God does not lie and a particular revelation is from God then we can be sure it is true.  However we can’t be certain of God or the source of such revelation.  Given that such uncertainty exists (I think we can agree it does) this revelation, like others should be tested before it is accepted.  We are encouraged to test the statements of our instructors and our politicians and even seek second opinions from doctors.  Likewise given the uncertainty supposed revelation from God should be tested.  We should know what we believe, why we believe it and we should be ready to give an account for it. 

As for testing revelation, we test it, all of it, by comparing it to the evidence.  If it comports with and explains the evidence well, we can have a degree of confidence in it, but if it does not we may want to consider alternatives.

Now, some might protest, “What about faith? Aren’t you missing the role of faith in accepting a set of beliefs?”   I answer by noting that faith covers for uncertainty.   It bridges the gap between what is certain (generally based on evidence and reason) and what is uncertain.  In the end, anything that includes uncertainty including existence of God or belief in materialism requires the choice to have faith in order to come to a conclusion one way or the other.   

Once more that isn't what I said. 

One can easily set an objective in grand terms - here's one.  I will eliminate world poverty.  But to achieve it you need a little more than an adolescent's vaulting ambition. 

Precision, by the way, does not mean bean-counting. It means being clear about what you mean.   Which is why I wouldnt bother to ask you what you mean by 'lint' - you are incapable of giving precise accounts or answers.

Reasoned
I am glad philosofear asked you about what you mean by revelation, since in your rsponse to me you seemed to be conflating testimony and revelation, and erecting a justification for equivocation - 'everything we learn is a revelation therefore it is the same as a religious-style revelation'.  (OK I know I'm distorting by paraphrase.  I'm happy wityh your precisification to philosofear, so I'll let it drop)


Truth is an interesting concept.  For example, is it true that Harry Potter went to Hogwaerts?  and is the answer talking about the same idea as 'it is true that an atom is the smallest division of an element'.   Maybe we can start a new topic about this, since it is quite a broad thing?   Maybe Jesting Pilate can kick it off....