format_quote Originally Posted by
Keltoi
Define reality? Is reality what you make of it or what I make of it? Is reality a distinct and material truth? Or is reality simply the truth as I see it?
OK, here goes. At the most basic level, let’s assume for most of us, getting up in the morning , going to work, all the material things we do every day is our reality. I’ll admit that this could, conceivably, be flawed and we are all just brains in a jar, but for now, the reality I describe is true for most of us. It's possible that
everything is an illusion, though definitely you have precedence for this in the theistic paradigms, and not at all in the materialist paradigms. But it is possible that all is an illusion.
Let’s continue along these lines, the fact is, those who are poor or sick or even those with a terminal disease
do have to confront those realities. If it is
their reality, then it is their reality. You can dismiss this all and claim that there is another reality, (one which cannot be accessed, understood or even contemplated in a any meaningful way and that that's your right of course, but it's equally applicable to your theistic beliefs then. If you cast doubt upon your ability to reason and perceive in a reality, then your perceptions of your religious doctrines and beliefs are just as liable to be suspect as anything else -- this you cannot escape from and your argument is in real jeopardy at this point). I would say your paradigm is by definition hopeless.
I make no claims about existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this claim relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The theist asserts that "logic and reason are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality", that there is a "man behind the curtain" paradigm, i.e., the supernatural realms of gods.
Now I already conclude I have made my claim logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do you claim?
That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and limits our perception. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!
If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the theist, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man such as Jim Jones who thinks himself the Messiah?
So here we have the Theist, admitting the nature of that which he worships is beyond his ability to understand, he nevertheless assigns attributes and characteristics that, when challenged, he must back-pedal from and watch as they crumble before him.