Click (once or twice) on the above image to enlarge.
Chillax and enjoy my art gallery; my little rabbit hole.
the following notes are updated often as i receive more criticism. last updated 8-Jan-2017.
A) INTRO.
the idea for this venn diagram / flow chart / mind map (whatever) came to me from all the discussions (a polite word for arguments) i had engaged in the deviantART forum on Philosophy and Religion. summaries of my side of the discussions are in my dA Journals if your a curious kitten or like being driven in circles as i was. (sigh!). btw i follow buddha's teachings and he advises his followers not to focus on unanswerable questions such as if God exists or not. if a God (or gods) exist then it (or they) do so in one of the realms of samsara. however a buddhist focus should be on nirvana; the liberation from samsara. but samsara does demand one's attention from time-to-time as exemplified in this cartoon carry a woman across a river from the illustrated book Zen Speaks: Shouts of Nothingness by Tsai Chih Chung. such a cute dakini i wonder if she will salsa (dance) with me (yes, i salsa. no joke).
anyway the reasons why i entered into the God debate (contrary to buddha's advice not to) are several as follows: (a) i found it to be philosophically interesting and a chance for some mental gymnastics (b) i was upset when some atheist claimed that all religions without exception are fairy tales (c) i was upset when some fundamentalist believers claimed that their religion was the only true religion. then i noticed the God debate gave rise to unhealthy mental states on all sides of the debate (including my own). and i also found how easily lost one can become in the multiple threads of arguments and counter arguments.
my diagram was attempt to try and grasp what was happening and not lose my focus. it was also an attempt to resolve one critical issue i had with some anti-theist / gnostic-atheist / strong-atheist (sigh!) whatever they want to call themselves. it's hard to give them a definite term as some range from rejection of the concept of a God to haters of the concept of a God (note those haters are the minority. don't let the trolls fool you that haters are the majority). anyway for my notes i'll just refer to them in the broad sense as anti-theist. reality is a multitude of colours, shades and hues. so don't be too nitpicky on every single word i use but try and see what the words point to and i'll do my best to point the way or atleast in the general direction. "The limits of my language is the limits of my world" ludwig wittgenstein
[side note] in all matters of investigation and/or debate the buddhist should consider the kalama sutta that is also known as buddha's charter of free inquiry. if science had a mission statement then i believe it would read like something similar to the kalama sutta. however science unfortunately does promote (indirectly) a type of radical skepticism which the kalama sutta does not support, or as the tibetan buddhist poem of luipa best expresses it "a wild dog with honey rubbed on its nose madly devours whatever it sees". in all matters of investigation and/or debate the the buddhist path must stay true to the middle way.
yes the title of my diagram does make my diagram seem overtly biased and i could of made it less bias by simply calling the diagram "the God debate' however my diagram was ultimately spurred into development as a response to some hardheaded anti-theist (or whatever they want to call themselves) that have gone beyond a lack-of-belief (i.e., the definition of atheism) and made the bold assertion that there is no God. they would not accept that their claim to knowledge of no God is also just a belief. so you can blame those hardheaded anti-theist, who in my opinion are just as annoying as fundamentalist believers, for the diagram's bias.
B) KNOWLEDGE.
the key to understanding the God debate is to develop an understanding of what is meant by knowledge and by extension the questions of what is known, what can be known, what is still unknown and what is ultimately unknowable. in any case neither a belief or a lack-of-belief are forms of knowledge. it is the atheist position that a lack-of-proof justifies a lack-of-belief; i consider that reasonable. however it is the anti-theist position that a lack-of-proof justifies their assertion (i.e., claim to knowledge) of no God; i consider this as "the atheist delusion" that is perpetuated by the anti-theist (or whatever they want to call themselves) since the search for proof (and by extension knowledge) has limitations.
in the God debate the knowledge one seeks (and by extension proof) is specific to what can be defined as "reality" and that reality comes in three flavours as follows.
1. physical reality = the natural world the can be studied scientifically and proven via empirical evidence.
2. perceived reality = how we humans interpret our world often without any empirical evidence (science) but rationalist justify via reason.
3. ultimate reality = what lays beyond Death where science cannot take us (as yet) and therefore impossible to provide empirical evidence.
[side note] when i use the term "God" it is not necessarily exclusive to the abrahamic god of judaism/christianity/islam that falls far far short of the theologians/theists greatest conceivable "theory of God" that is the omni-God (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, omnibenevolence) that in itself exists(?) paradoxically in contrast to the problem of evil as discussed in the philosophy of religion; basically begging the question: if God can create a heaven that is so perfect then why bother creating Life?
in the philosophy of knowledge called epistemology, plato said that knowledge is a "justified true belief" (JTB). the key is that the belief had to be justified as true to be even considered as knowledge. however further questions arise especially in regards to justification, such as, what do we mean by justification? what forms of justification are available or even acceptable? how does one provide evidence to support each form of justification? and, to what level of certainty must something be justified? furthermore this issue of JTB is complicated by the gettier problem which simply put shows that some forms of knowledge are at best just a "lucky guess", i.e., reaching the right conclusion (truth) with the wrong reasoning (justification). the gettier problem can be tweaked to define any sort of guess or speculation; in general to identify many forms of false knowledge.
[side note] adam & eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good & evil (genisis 2), but not the tree of knowledge. period. that's a huge difference. i'll leave that there for you to ponder on and/or debate in the forums. and if you haven't done so already then you may want to read the zen article on the discriminating mind that i linked below. and faith is not knowledge. nuff said.
one form of justification is through empiricism (science), however empirical claims made on behalf of a God can be testable and falsifiable, but i believe that a "theory of God" can get to a point of an untestable hypothesis and as such unfalsifiable. Death limits any further scientific investigations beyond our Physical Reality and picking up a dinosaur bone and declaring science can take us beyond Death is not actually going beyond Death; it's just more evidence of Death. hence my diagram shows the unknowable Ultimate Reality beyond Death. i believe this is the toughest part of my diagram for anyone to accept and definitely the part that an anti-theist (or whatever they want to call themselves) rejects outright so as to hold onto their cherished assertion of no God.
another form of justification is through rationalism that in itself is just another form of philosophy but with logic equations that rely on some established axioms, therefore a belief without empirical evidence can still be justified by sound logical reasoning if one is prepared to accept that form of justification without empirical evidence as knowledge, but if not then we are all stuck with radical skepticism, an infinite regress, and a lot of trolls from all sides of the God debate making unreasonable demands for proof since the evidence they are truly seeking is beyond the realms of science as i noted above.
[side note] philosophy literally means "love of wisdom" not love of knowledge or love of logic though they are important ingredients to achieve the right level of understanding that produces wisdom just like the eastern philosophies that are disciplines for wisdom. eastern vs western philosophy. and some good news for my fellow sci-fi buffs looking for nerdvana: real star wars jedi exist! however first you must empty your cup . sorry no lightsabers (sigh!) but there is martial arts (for self-defense only!), just don't ignore those pesky laws of physics and biology. btw some of the more atheistic jedi may be happy to know there is a school of secular jediism. and so in whatever school of jediism you choose may the force be with you.
and so i must also think about the God debate through rationalism / philosophy - not the special philosophy of theology, or theism / anti-theism, where God (or no God in the case of the anti-theist) is a non-negotiable truth / un-questionable axiom and as such all logic arguments are just more nuanced ways of circular reasoning because all truths must always and ultimately lead back to God (or no God in the case of the anti-theist). for that special philosophy the circularity of the argument is proof of it's soundness. there is no greater waste of one's limited lifespan than a debate about the existence / non-existence of God between a theologian & a philosopher, or a theist & anti-theist; it is the physical manifestation of the irresistable force paradox ... but which win?
therefore from my own investigations and discussions, ultimately summarised as my diagram on the God debate, i must with all honestly state that i cannot answer that question on the existence or non-existence of God because i personally have not gone beyond Death to confirm it for myself; hence the title of my diagram God is safe (for now) just don't overlook the "for now" part. and if pushed i must refuse to be part of either side on the God debate. however because of the problem of evil i cannot accept the current "theory of God" either and therefore i will still engage in the God debate. i am certain my position will upset everyone on all sides of the God debate.
C) MEANING.
regardless of one's lack-of-belief, one thing we must all face is what of Self can exist beyond Death. even a belief in a God may not help. just ask yourself, what does it truly mean to be a mere creation? one's "form" created. one's "self" created. if a God is the only reality then only that God truly exists. all else just a mere creation. anyway beyond the circularity of a theology there are two main philosophical positions to deal with this: (a) existentialism or, (b) nihilism. most normally take the path of existentialism, however for the deeply skeptical the path of nihilism haunts one's thoughts. philosophical atheist like Nietzsche have argued that some religions are a form of nihilism and some religions have argued in return that atheism is a form of nihilism. sigh! out of this endless cycle of accusations and counter accusations there developed the third less known philosophical position called absurdism born from the rejection of some of the principles of both existentialism and nihilism. this third philosophical position of absurdism is the one i follow. those three philosophical positions are summarised in this table: can life have meaning?.
[side note] in buddhism there is the concept on anatta (non-self) that is derived from the buddhist doctrine of impermanence (annica). this has inspired the zen koan of original face and is the basis of this cartoon enlightment of the wave from the illustrated book Zen Speaks: Shouts of Nothingness by Tsai Chih Chung. it is interesting to imagine that the zen koan alluded to the wave-particle duality of nature long before quantum mechanics, but of course i am speculating (possibly due to hindsight bias) and taking a quantum leap off topic.
i love science but science is not about answering that question on life's meaning, though it does like occam's razor cut through a lot of speculation, philosophical fluff and religious dogma; our perceived reality. science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe; our physical reality. because of science's ability to cut through our perceived reality it creates in some humans a mental stress called cognitive dissonance - something to remember if you're a sensitive person that starts feeling that nausea that is the onset of an existential crisis that may lead to nihilism. so to any scientist that decides to philosophise and/or pass judgement on religions my advise is don't or at least read this zen buddhist's article before you do: the discriminating mind is like a hammer. at best the only thing science can truly contribute to the question on the meaning of life is to help doctors better determine when one is legally dead; no one wants to bury their loved ones alive.
my philosophical position of absurdism is out of my own need to understand the Absurd in all it's aspects so as to help myself and eventually others through their own encounter with the Absurd. "from the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all." Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus. one does not actually combine absurdism with a belief in God (or any other belief). but instead one encounters the absurd on the path that one travels through life that may or may not lead to a belief in God (or some other belief). this youtube video very briefly mentions the absurd: Existentialism and Nihilism. it is brief but significant.
it is my understanding that siddhārtha gautama (aka the buddha) encountered the Absurd when he first left his palace to meet his subjects. he saw an old man, a sick man, a dead man, and an ascetic. that encounter was totally against how he had experienced life in the palace up to that point. that encounter suddenly propelled him into the mental state i linked above called cognitive dissonance. how he set about to reconciled his encounter with the Absurd and reduced his cognitive dissonance is what eventually gave rise to what we now call buddhism. buddhist doctrine doesn't start with a creation story but with the four noble truths. i understand the first noble truth is in a way an acknowledgment of the Absurd. buddha offers what i believe a better way to deal with the Absurd than Albert Camus or any other of the existentialist, but that is not to say what they offer is wrong, just a different perspective and often helpful, maybe even the other side of the same coin.
D) FAITH.
WARNING - this section may disturb some. as i stated in my intro above i noticed the God debate gave rise to unhealthy mental states on all sides of the debate (including my own). such discussions concerning faith / death / hope as covered in this section are not easy nor readily welcomed.
faith is a "special" type of sound logical reasoning where the "belief" has been eventually reduced to a non-negotiable truth / un-questionable axiom and as such all logic arguments are just more nuanced ways of circular reasoning because all truths must always and ultimately lead back to that "belief". for that "special" type of sound logical reasoning the circularity of the argument is proof of it's soundness .... sounds familiar?
one must realise that "faith" is just a word. if the word "faith" has too much religious connotations then there are substitute words (synonyms) that sound more secular such as trust, confidence, conviction, optimism, expectations. so when others use that word "faith" then in one's own mind simply replace that word with a synonym so as to try and grasp what that word points to rather than get fixated on that word. for example a skydiver may have done everything reasonably possible to ensure a safe jump but ultimately when a skydiver jumps out of the aircraft he/she does so on faith / trust / confidence / conviction / optimism / expectations because there will always some unknowns and some unpredictability. any skydivers that believes they are in absolute control of Nature are deluding themselves.
ultimately one must eventually face death. complaining about how others choose to face death isn't going to help oneself. one may say to oneself that death is a natural part of life, or that death is inevitable, or there is nothing one can do about death. these are things that one tells oneself so as to ease any distress surrounding thoughts about death. but one may also be lulling oneself into a false sense of security. one may even say to oneself that the briefness of one's existence is not as much a concern as the experiences within that brief existence. but again one may be lulling oneself into a false sense of security. however i do accept that faith can be an unreliable shortcut between truth and belief but that doesn't make death no less unavoidable. faith in buddhism is "only an initial trust in the buddha as a spiritual teacher and an initial acceptance of the buddha's teachings. by listening to the teachings and putting them into practice, a buddhist disciple can examine through direct experience whether they are true or not."
some will argue that in being brought face-to-face with death it is fear that motivates one to adopt a religious view. however the same argument can be applied to simple day-to-day events like driving a car, or as the buddha understood it, to be awaken to the true nature of reality (which Albert Camus understood as the Absurd) is to understand that the human life span is only the length of a single breath. in any case religions offer so much more such as community and support. however i do acknowledge that some religions do have some questionable motives and conduct; but so do governments and business enterprises. in any case one should be realistic about one's fears. in buddhism any irrational fears would be considered as a result of one or more of the three poisons of the mind (such as anger) that one should try to overcome so one can live in accordance with the noble eightfold path.
E) FOCUS.
as i stated in my intro above my diagram was attempt to try and grasp what was happening and not lose my focus when engaged in the God debate against one specific claim made by an anti-theist (or whatever they want to call themselves). it was not about trying to resolve the entire "theory of God" altogether. and therefore the focus of my diagram can be summarised as follows:-
The God Debate = Justified True Belief versus The Absurd
so now i have one simple elegant philosophical equation for the God debate however this does not mean this debate is resolved but hopefully it gives this debate focus. within my diagram the Absurd is represented within the Taijitu where western philosophy finally catches up with eastern philosophy as a discipline for wisdom. i believe (though i'm not entirely certain) that the western philosophical equivalent to the yin-yang principle of the taijitu maybe (maybe) the epistemological theory of contrastivism. yep western philosophy just sucks out all the mysticism and leaves behind a raisin of facts.....but is that a bad thing or a good thing? hopefully you have read the zen article i linked above on the discriminating mind before you try and answer that.
in the God debate many of you have already come across the Absurd, misrepresented and caricatured by atheist/anti-theist as the flying spaghetti monster (FSM) or the invisible pink unicorn (IPU) and even russell's teapot. as amusing as those little absurdities are they actually work against a complete understanding of the Absurd, hence the religious may miss the point one is trying to make when invoking those little absurdities. "from the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all." Albert Camus, The Myth of Sysyphus. and if you haven't done so already then you may want to read the wiki article on cognitive dissonance that i linked above.
atheism, just like religion, is a dead-end to philosophical inquiry into the Absurd as each takes some form of leap into their individual and unique flavours of existentialism, denying any contact with the Absurd. the religious scream "there is a God" and the atheist / anti-theist screams back "there is no God", but I ask you seriously: which one will help you cope better with the fact that you will die? only the deluded laugh at Death. be honest with yourself. calvin and hobbes get existential.
in any case no arguments, tears, or rage, will make the unknowable knowable. that's just the way it is. and so, when facing Death i must declare with all honestly the socratic paradox that "i know that i know nothing" and embrace the Absurd. and i deal with any dukkha that arises from that acceptance of the Absurd by cultivating the mental state of equanimity which in buddhism is called upekkha. "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress." Niels Bohr
i'm not really interested in reaching nirvana (for now) same as i'm not really interested in knowing if God exists or not. i'm just interested in following the threads of logic, like any good philosopher, to see where they lead me, paradoxes and all. but mostly i'm interested in proving to some hardheaded anti-theist (or whatever they want to call themselves) that their affirmation of no God is also just a belief. it's been a long journey but hopefully i have cracked that nut. "the amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." Brandolini's law.
so who am i ? i am one awakened to the Absurd ~ Lazy Bloody Artist Magic.
--------------------------The End--------------------------
F) END NOTES.
when analyzing my diagram you should consider Daniel Kahneman's system 1 & system 2 from his book Thinking Fast and Slow: System 1 (fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypical, subconscious) in my diagram is knowledge gained via "common sense"; a unreliable shortcut between truth and belief. System 2 (slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious) in my diagram is knowledge gained via the "rationalised" path of philosophical inquiry; a better more reliable path between truth & belief that has an element of "reason".
[side note] i had intentionally excluded an image from my diagram. i had considered placing the venn diagram of perceived reality within an image of a human brain. however i felt that, due to the unhealthy mental states of some people that i had encountered on all sides of the God debate, that such an image may divert focus. cognitive science has too many fields of focus that although they are great at taking the human mind/brain apart they are woeful at putting it back together again in any way that provides meaning to existence. as i said above, at best the only thing science can truly contribute to the question on the meaning of life is to help doctors better determine when one is legally dead; no one wants to bury their loved ones alive...or be buried alive one self.
[side note] btw if i had included the image of the brain as noted above then the two separate images of Evidence and Limit of Evidence would of made more sense as they are actually one image that brings together multiple concepts. to understand those concepts you will have to watch the youtube video i linked below on Plato's allegory of the cave and also read the wiki article i linked above on nirvana. furthermore, even though the scientific method creates observable experiments with repeatable results, ultimatley it is the human's mind (our perceived reality) that attempts to explain those results. "we are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. the word "reality" is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly." Niels Bohr.
[side note] it was a tough decision to not include the image of the brain in my diagram but i have learnt the hard way how easily many of us lose focus (yes, myself included). only a very few of us can use the composition of our brains as an excuse for losing focus but for the rest of us there is no such excuse as we can and should learn to exercise our brains in the right way that brings mindfulness. and again i remind you that this discussion on the mind/brain is taking us away from the intended focus of my diagram as only a specific aspect of mind and no aspect of brain is the focus of my diagram. the mind is the yang to the brain's yin and that's where i'll leave it (for now).
if you want to go all esoteric on my venn diagram then: Truth is the physical form Body, Philosophy is the mental form Mind, Belief is the spiritual form Soul, and Reality is the Perceived Reality brought about through balance (or conflict) between those three fundamental forms of Mind-Body-Soul to our sense of well-being. and that Perceived Reality can be almost anything human-centric, such as, religion, politics, culture, ethnic identity, social order/status, id/ego/super-ego, self, and even ethics & morals.
also i wonder how my venn diagram would relate to immanuel kant's three questions: what can i know? Truth???, what ort i to do? Philosophy???, what may i hope? Belief??? - yer i'm a noob at philosophy so go easy on me, please. if you want to learn some philosophy in easy to absorb snack size youtube lessons then i recommend as a starting point the philosophy tube. and if you want to understand how to apply philosophy to your life then i recommend the school of life
and lastly as Ian Stewart (mathematician) and Jack Cohen (scientist) put it in the science of discworld by Terry Pratchett (novelist), we are the storytelling ape, pan narrans, and our worldview (perceived reality) operates on narrativium and "if you understand the power of story, and learn to detect abuses of it, you might actually deserve the appellation homo sapiens (wise men)."
If you want others to be happy, practice compassion.
If you want to be happy, practice compassion.
Tenzin Gyatso - 14th Dalai Lama
just some short youtube videos as food for thought. enjoy.
The hidden meanings of yin and yang - John Bellaimey
Plato's Allegory of the Cave - Alex Gendler
Who am I? A philosophical inquiry - Amy Adkins
What Are You? - Kursgesagt - In a Nutshell
The Matrix Meeting Morpheus Scene HD
Keep taking those blue pills and occasionally a red pill.
Just don't overdose on either. And stay on the path.
May HOPE be your guide if not your God.
amazing facts about rabbits
I know an enormous amount and love the void of the frontier beyond, delving ever deeper, discovering more that I can only greet with wonder...
Many answers are there awaiting only when the question is asked. Like Schrödinger's cat - the truth doesn't exist until the box is opened.
kant's Transcendental idealism is all about the area of my diagram called 'perceived reality' and it's relation to kant's first question 'what can i know?'. we perceive the world around us primarily as poof via our 5 senses which are rationalized (circumstantial) evidence. however our senses can be fooled because knowledge can also be gained via 'common sense'. hence the development of empirical (scientific) evidence to help us gain knowledge via the 'rationalized' path.
example of knowledge gained via 'common sense' = i stand still on the earths surface and observe via my 5 senses that the sun, moon and stars move overhead hence i apply logic with the only evidence i have at hand and rationalize via 'common sense' that the earth beneath me is the center of the solar system/universe.
your questions have highlighted a limitation of my diagram. my diagram looks as major points of the thinking process and puts them in relationship to each other however the viewer of my diagram has to fill in the connections using their logic. this is a limitation of my diagram and the keep it simple (KIS) principle. if i was to draw every nuance of our thinking process then you would be viewing a spiders web or worse; i leave that to the real philosophers. i am an artist of images not of words.
Ok, here's your first big problem, what suggests to you that there's any such thing as 'beyond death'? What does that even mean? Is it beyond in time or space? We have a perfectly good account of what happens during death, and no reason to assume anything beyond that, so where'd you get the idea?
'if you want to 'believe' there is nothing beyond death then that is nihilism or no hope. that choice is yours and yours alone.'
Nihilism is the belief that meaning doesn't exist, thinking the afterlife doesn't make sense isn't nihilism.
'kant's Transcendental idealism is all about the area of my diagram called 'perceived reality' and it's relation to kant's first question 'what can i know?'. we perceive the world around us primarily as poof via our 5 senses which are rationalized (circumstantial) evidence. however our senses can be fooled because knowledge can also be gained via 'common sense'. hence the development of empirical (scientific) evidence to help us gain knowledge via the 'rationalized' path.'
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it's just the transcendental proofs and logic I think you should look at, the point of them is to get beyond the phenomenal world (perceived world), to the noumenal (external/'real') world. Kant not only concludes that this is impossible, but his arguments demonstrate that even the claim that there IS a real/external world is completely without rational basis, or evidence. The point being, sentences like 'we can never understand what happens after death' are actually meaningless.
'i stand still on the earths surface and observe via my 5 senses that the sun, moon and stars move overhead hence i apply logic with the only evidence i have at hand and rationalize via 'common sense' that it is reasonable to believe the earth beneath me is the center of the solar system/universe.'
That's not knowledge tho, it's just a mistake.
'your questions have highlighted a limitation of my diagram. my diagram looks as major points of the thinking process and puts them in relationship to each other however the viewer of my diagram has to fill in the connections using their logic. this is a limitation of my diagram and the keep it simple (KIS) principle. if i was to draw every nuance of our thinking process then you would be viewing a spiders web or worse; i leave that to the real philosophers. i am an artist of images not of words.' Tbh, I'm not sure what the chart is supposed to say, but I think you've misunderstood quite a few of the phrases/concepts in there (eg: You contrast empirical evidence with 'direct experience' evidence, but these are in fact exactly the same thing, empirical evidence is evidence which can be gained through direct observation, as opposed to through logic or theory, 'direct experience' evidence you say, is evidence obtained through the 5 senses. These are two different ways of stating the same thing.
'i leave that to the real philosophers. i am an artist of images not of words.' Fair enough, but you whether you work in images or words, you have to understand the concepts before you can do anything else, I think you're a bit off in that regard. No offence, just thought you might be interested.
www.youtube.com/playlist?list=…
You really haven't understood the diagram. It makes no claim there is anything beyond Death. It simply states that IF there is anything beyond Death then it is either unknowable to Science or is a matter of Faith. Try not to over think things and please refer to point 4 below.
2. Kant's Transcendental idealism.
Proof of a real external world is easy. All I have to do is slap you in the face. If you feel pain then where did the source of that pain come from? You may say from within yourself, but you would be wrong. Why would you want to cause pain to yourself? The true source of that pain came from the external world, i.e., from me slapping you in the face. Cause & effect. What is the true cause and what is just the effect.
I believe you have misunderstood Kant as he was trying to reconcile the difference between Leibniz (rationalist) versus Newton (empiricist) understandings for time & space. Kant's transcendental idealism is really really difficult so I would say becareful on how you apply it. Check out this youtube videos.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3xGDT…
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE40mK…
3. Example of knowledge gained via 'common sense'.
When you say that is 'not knowledge tho, it's just a mistake' you are applying what psychologist call 'hindsight bias'. If you read Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking Fast and Slow" you will understand this.
4. Limitation of the diagram.
My diagram cannot compensate for the different ways that people apply logic or different routes people take to come to their conclusions. The best way to read the diagram is to apply the "What If" state of mind. However if you can do a better diagram then go for it. I would love to see what you can come up with to explain our thinking process and how we perceive reality.
At least in my "world-view system", the GOAL is to improve ourselves and then the world around us, in order for God to be revealed in the open way eventually.
What's YOURS?
my diagram is basically summarising my dA jounal in which i recorded my side of the dA forum discussion on atheist evangelism (warning, it's very long & i occsionally update it) lbamagic.deviantart.com/journa… . having said that the diagram also works against those who make a claim of "knowledge" that there is a God.
Like, what LIFE GOALS do you have based on your philosophy?
Also, I disagree with the last part for a personal reason.
Sure, the ONLY way to KNOW [about] God, is if God Himself contacts you (and that's where your diagram is good at debunking the claims of those who lack OR reject such experience), but I disagree with your apparent claim that this haven't happened already (unless you actually don't claim it that way, but rather about what I said in the beginning of this sentence).
i totally understand your personal reason to have reservations about my diagram and i respect it. however i must make every effort to present my findings without personal bias. maybe one day i too will know your God; i don't discount that.
btw another philosophy i do my best to live by is the golden rule en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_R…
"Jews, it's Jews everywhere..!"
I myself would link ultimate reality to logic as logic shows things that are by nececeraly true.
I would also change truth to science as you now seem to imply that death logic and that ultimate reality lies outside the truth.
or do you want to say that logic and the "ultimate reality" are untrue?
pure logic can lead to false conclusions. for centuries the europeans believed the logic of the ancient greek philosophers that the earth was at the centre of our solar system. and why not, just look at how the earth stays still beneath our feet but the sun moves over us.
but it wasn't until proof was offered through observations and measurements, via the telescope and mathematics, did the europeans finally capitulate and place the sun at the centre, and accept the earth was moving. it would of been a great time to sell seat belts or motion sickness pills. lol.
saying truth is science only is limiting the many ways and many tools that we have at our disposal to arrive at truth. science is just one of the ways/tools we use to provide proof so as to verify the truth (or falsity) of the subject in question. you also must consider what truth means in a court of law. don't be blinded by science, it is a great tool but not the only tool.
ultimate reality is currently unknowable. it lies beyond our current tools to provide proof. at the moment the only way to know ultimate reality is through faith. i put it coming from faith because as stated above logic can be flawed and that flaw comes from a belief system that is based on faith.
don't just think of the word faith as something tied to religion. the ancient greek philosophers, without a telescope and advanced algebra or calculus had to trust (have faith in) what they had on hand....their eyes (and some geometry). but the human senses can be fooled as we all know now.
each element of the venn diagram does not stand apart. they interact and give us what i have called our perceived reality. don't focus on one element, but try to understand how they interact with each other. and within each of us each element is different in scope and size and depth of interaction and that's why we each have a different point of view, a different percieved reality. and each elements meaning is not static but change depending on the focus of our percieved reality, i.e, the subject matter we are hotly discussing in the forums (religion, philosophy, getting a date, baking a cake, etc).
1. that is true but I am talking about something else with nececeraly true things.
I think that it is best to not reinvent the wheel I think this guy can better explain it than I can www.youtube.com/watch?v=tefsuX…
2. I agree with that and that is why I think "truth" here is misplaced. as you imply that everything outside the circle "truth" does not contain the property not which the circle represents . thus implying it is "not true"
3. if something is unknowable how is it different from everything else that is unknowable to me?
like the existence of a hoard of ogres walking through my room every time I am not looking in my room which always return everything to the state it would have been if they did not exist every time I look at my room.
but I won't discuss this as it will only lead us in circles unless you have a point which is unique and convincing.
4. I see what you want to do but I do not really see this diagram as relevant for the discussion there.
it is mostly interesting to me because this is a model as how you think reality is.
2. do not think in terms of black/white, truth/not-thruth, think of philosophy and belief in terms of conjectures/propositions/hypotheses.
3. knowledge is not truth but the grey area that blends truth and the other states noted in the diagram that effect your percieved reality. here you are better of to read wikipedia articles such as this one where i orginally got the idea of the venn diagram en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
4. i updated the venn diagram based on critique i recieved recently from others. i hope it's more clear. though i'm certain it's not perfect.
2. I said that because it does not seem to be your intention to suggest that everything outside the circle does not contain the property "true".
3. I can also agree with that.
4. I find it strange that you would to put a difference between the "unknowable" and "greater faith/god"
it seems like you would imply that the greater faith and god is not "unknowable". while I suspect that you do not mean it like that
2. unfortunetly the venn diagram is a static model. and also i don't want to make it too complicated by showing many subtle transitions from one element to another. so it is my best compromise. as another pointed out that though it's not perfect the venn diagram is a good starting point for discussions.
3. good to know. as another asked what is the path from faith to truth, i replied that maybe the transitional process is what we call an "educated guess" (no pun intended. lol).
4. this was in response to another persons remark that god can be known (per se) via faith. ok it's kind of weak and stretching the term knowledge but i thought he had a point. so to reconcile the unknowable with the "knowable" i placed god and ultimate reality as the two side of the yin/yang symbol; there is the seed of one in the other. here is a little video to help you to think about it. The hidden meanings of yin and yang - John Bellaimey buddhism actually tries to see beyond all dualities such as this and so it can get really deep which is way beyond my venn diagram.
I think I have nothing to discuss with you here. since we have brought all our points on the table thanks for the nice video
"genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration" - thomas edison