Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18579)	7/18/2001 2:22:42 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"The whole idea of "self-evidence" is very messy." Not at all. It is impossible for you to accept something as true simply because someone else says they have self evidence for the thing or even 100 zillion others. If it is based on self evidence and having sincerely sought such evidence, you find none, then self evidence on the thing to be believed as truth is invalid for you. In other words, self evidence is only an issue to the self directly involved. So if this is what you mean by: "What seems self-evident to one may be very questionable to another." We likely agree on this point. "I would not be inclined to accept any proposition as true, or even likely, simply because it seemed self-evident to some people, even if I were one of the people." If you cannot accept internal evidence that confirms truth in the Universe then you have identified the key difference between believers and non believers. Believing requires a triangulation of three at a minimum. 1) a basic self awareness of the human condition. 2)evidence in the universe that reflects that awareness. 3)The message(s) from the God of the universe that defines the human condition. When all three aspects of the human condition confirm one truth, we call that common sense. When you witness one of the three that does not confirm what is common sense about the other two, then we pull up on the rains. If one of the three is exaggerated and ignores what could be confirming by the other two then it draws negative attention from our fellows. So, when there is lots of science that a religious person just plain ignors we call him a religious nut, or fundamentalist. When there is lots of science but it impinges on the common sense of human beings we start looking for problems with it, like pollution or quality of life issues. When there is lots of religion but human beings seem to be lowered rather than lifted by it, we look for the effects of dogma that may have run amuk, thus oppressing or even tyrannizing our fellow human beings. It is possible to be a believer but not have access to information that would solidly confirm one of the three variables of belief. Some one may pose a theory in science that makes some sense to me but the evidence of its validity has not come forth...so, I either become scientific and seek my own conviction on the thing or take a wait and see attitude until strong evidence comes forth. We meditate or pray regarding our self evident truths but in complex situations we may struggle with out conviction on a thing. We look at a religious message and determine if it makes sense given what we can confirm through scientific inquiry and through self evident. If we can't, an agnostic might conclude that the idea makes sense but I'm not convinced by the evidence presented. An athiest who considered all three sources of evidence as valid would determine that the thing is proven false by logical science or by self evidence confirming the false hood. Of course this is the athiest Chris identifies and this athiest would be a believer in a non-god alternative explanation for the human condition. Discounting self evidence completely is a broken path for a seeker. It is the seekers perogative and doesn't require acknowledgement or validation from other people. When Jefferson wrote "We hold these things to be self evident" he did not ask the King to validate his position. It was an in your face, like it or not, statement of belief. If you believe something that is crutial, you can and would stand against the powers of the world for it. Yes, even you.