[SIZE=3]The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. [/SIZE]John F. Kennedy
I agree. Myth and faith are pretty much synonymous. They are the greatest enemy of Truth.
A Lie you can at least disprove. But a myth just stays there in the background and society refuses to let go of it, because in some ways they consider the myth a part of their heritage. But myths are truly the most insidious and dangerous aspects of society.
my experience has been that disproving a lie is often possible, but not always possible. and regularly we know in our bellies that something is lacking truth or it is an incomplete truth, but there is nothing that our minds can find to support these knowing perceptions–this can be a tricky situation to navigate.
what also impresses me is how often even after a lie or a myth is shown to be just that–meaning that all parties involved agree on this point–that many people are still unwilling to abandon their sentential around the lie. disproving a lie or a myth creates no change in either future actions or personal biases; so often people are unmoved and unchanged by the discovery. in the usa, we see this repeatedly in nearly all current political and social issues that are being negotiated. it happens everywhere though, in our medical and health systems, in our homes and communities, in our own hearts and minds, in our workplaces and on this forum too.
and regularly it is a simple matter that not everyone involved gives weight to the counter proof or argument; that there is not an agreement between parties that the point is either being proven or unproven by what is being offered in the discussion. and it seems that just as regularly, there is a death grip on the formerly held belief/understanding and an active unwillingness to shift from the previous position.
And it all (often) comes back to that legal axiom:-
The onus or burden of proof (invariably) lies with the person or people trying to disprove XYZ.
You speak a lot of truth. I love people who speak truth 
All I can say is: Satyameva Jayate. The truth will always prevail. It just takes longer in our current Kaliyuga, because people do not love the truth. In Vedic times, they held debates between parties to ascertain the truth and the losing party felt no dishonour in relinquishing their false positions and surrendering to the truth. Sadly, such honesty is lacking in our times. Even so though, when the evidence for a truth becomes so overwhelming, then even those who want to suppress it cannot win. We have seen this with so many scientific discoveries. It took a 1000 years almost to accept the heliocentric model of the world, but in the end it prevailed. It has taken 300 years for materialism to lose its ground, but it indeed is losing its ground today.
All we honest truth loving people can do is speak it. We must do our best to present the evidence and engage with all counter-arguments honestly, critically and sharply. This may do nothing to sway the opponent to the other side, but believe me, somebody else hearing you is noting everything you are saying. They maybe more receptive to the truth and you are doing them a service by letting them hear it. I often get messages from people who appreciate my honesty in debates and the evidence I present. Although my opponents rarely concede anything and often resort to rhetoric and fallacy, I consider it worthwhile that at least somebody has benefited from what I write.
Just remember always stick to evidence and make valid statements. Never venture outside the domain of evidence into speculation and faith. There are three kinds of evidence 1) Empirical and 2) Rational and 3) Testimonial and Phenomenological. As long as your statements are based on these valid evidences(pramanas) you will be in service of truth. Also remember to engage every point your opponent makes. Where they are correct concede and where they are incorrect, refute.
[QUOTE=core789;37811]And it all (often) comes back to that legal axiom:-
The onus or burden of proof (invariably) lies with the person or people trying to disprove XYZ.[/QUOTE]
This is a really good one. If anybody makes a claim, whether that is a positive claim(I saw bigfoot) or a negative claim(You did not see bigfoot) they carry a burden of proof. The one making the positive claim must furnish evidence(photographs/videos, detailed testimonies, physical trace evidence etc of bigfoot) The one making the negative claim must furnish evidence that disproves a claim(showing conclusively photos/videos are fradulent, testimonies are flawed etc)
I find that with so-called skeptics no evidence is ever given for negative claims. It’s as if they believe they carry no burden of proof. The truth is, every statement carries a burden of proof, because it contains a truth claim.
[QUOTE=Nichole;37810]my experience has been that disproving a lie is often possible, but not always possible. and regularly we know in our bellies that something is lacking truth or it is an incomplete truth, but there is nothing that our minds can find to support these knowing perceptions--this can be a tricky situation to navigate.
what also impresses me is how often even after a lie or a myth is shown to be just that--meaning that all parties involved agree on this point--that many people are still unwilling to abandon their sentential around the lie. disproving a lie or a myth creates no change in either future actions or personal biases; so often people are unmoved and unchanged by the discovery. in the usa, we see this repeatedly in nearly all current political and social issues that are being negotiated. it happens everywhere though, in our medical and health systems, in our homes and communities, in our own hearts and minds, in our workplaces and on this forum too.
and regularly it is a simple matter that not everyone involved gives weight to the counter proof or argument; that there is not an agreement between parties that the point is either being proven or unproven by what is being offered in the discussion. and it seems that just as regularly, there is a death grip on the formerly held belief/understanding and an active unwillingness to shift from the previous position.[/QUOTE]
You might find this an interseting read...
You might find this an interseting read…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Wow Omamana, interesting indeed! thanks
And thank you Nicole for sharing your thoughts! Insightful!
[QUOTE=omamana;37853]You might find this an interseting read…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias[/QUOTE]
This confirmation bias makes sense: in order to build coherent belief system our brain/mind is searching for fitting pieces of puzzle and rejecting “bad” pieces. So of course it has to reject not fitting pieces. Each new piece fitted to the whole is rewarded…
From evolutionary perspective its better to have a even bit invalid coherent belief system (e.g. about the best way to hunt or avoid predators) than none at all. Existing one can be always corrected and their efficiency improved.
I remember at some point in my life this shocking realization - people are by nature more interested in emotional gain than in truth itself (especially if its causing discomfort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance ).
Good piece Omamana, about the phenomenon of ‘selective perception’.
A lie and a myth seem to differ in yet another way. A lie occurs first as an intention and the liar constructs suitable articulation to deliver it. While myth is a delivered result like a web woven out of sticky half-truths, mostly unintentional.
A liar has a cunning design that seeks an effect beyond the lie; and so any attempts to disprove the lie may meet with more lies because the liar is not interested in the truth, but only the effect. You can kill a lie by ignoring and not engaging with.
While a myth-bearer usually detests intellectual probes and is eager to lean on ‘something’ unaware that it is a half-truth. So, a myth can be busted by waking him/her up by providing better or pure truth to lean on. But, the wake-up call has to be genuine, warm and patient; not loud, intellectual and arrogant. That makes it so tough these days.
Myth is justified by the Myth-bearer as faith. If I say to a believer if there is any evidence for what they believe, if there is none, they will fall back on faith - “I believe because I believe” Sometimes this is harmless, but at other times it becomes dangerous. Countless wars have been waged on the grounds of faith.
In Hinduism and Buddhism faith is seen as an infection of the mind. It is a terrible disease which weakens our intellect and leaves us vulnerable to the germs of ignorance and vice.
This is why I tell everybody to stick to evidence and never venture outside of evidence into faith and speculation.
[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;38040]While a myth-bearer usually detests intellectual probes and is eager to lean on ‘something’ unaware that it is a half-truth. [/QUOTE]
I think that may be another pitfall in our search for truth. This conviction that if people thinking in different way would just listen to reason and intellectually probe their beliefs then they would arrive at the truth (which, incidentally, is what we have now). And that they just avoid intellectual probing.
Look for example at creationists. Do they avoid intellectual debate? No, they are eager to learn, analyze evidence, dispute etc. Or theologians who can write philosophical dissertations on immaculate nature of Mother Mary. All of them think and feel that they have direct perception of reality and “other side” is clouded by ignorance and unable to clearly think. Do you think you are so much different? I recently loose trust in my own intellectual abilities - I just see to many mental-emotional defensive mechanisms changing my perception and influencing how I think…
The beauty of reason is that reason is impartial and thus can be used to investigate any statement. If something is reasonable it means it has stood the test of reason. Creationalism and theological discussions on the immaculate nature of Mother Mary do not stand the test of reason, because they are based on assumptions which are not reasonable and are contradicted by factual evidence.
I have not come across a single creationist argument for instance that stands the test of reason. Also it really depends what you mean by creationism? The usual creationist I see is one who argues that the Abrahamic god has created the world as described in the bible, and they often oppose evolution and believe in a young earth. Some are extreme enough to still believe in flat earth. On the other hand, if you mean by creationists intelligent design proponents, then they are obviously more reasonable, do not take recourse to scripture, but look at scientific evidence to show that the complexity of the body is irreducible to have evolved by chance, but rather it indicates that it has been guided by an intelligence. This is of course very reasonable. In fact, as I have argued in my papers in the past, it is random chance evolution that is not reasonable at all.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38057]The beauty of reason is that reason is impartial and thus can be used to investigate any statement. If something is reasonable it means it has stood the test of reason. Creationalism and theological discussions on the immaculate nature of Mother Mary do not stand the test of reason, because they are based on assumptions which are not reasonable and are contradicted by factual evidence. [/QUOTE]
Thats sounds great. I wish the reason would work like that. But reality is different - our reason is filled with defensive mechanisms, emotions and unconscious motives. You had to realize that in your life. E.g. when in argument we ignore difficult questions/sentences and focus on ones that we can easily refute. Or when we do internet search we automatically search for contradictory material. Or digesting philosophical or spiritual texts we think using syntax and approach of the most influential writers in our life. Or perceiving someone as wise only if this person has similar beliefs and values which are not directly articulated.
That was one of the greatest discoveries in my life: that with all my clarity of reasoning and knowledge that I’m aware, I’m the same conditioned and limited person as e.g. orthodox Christian for whom its clear that yoga is tool of the devil and only personal relationship with Jesus will save your soul.
Hm… maybe I don’t believe in “truth will set you free” (truth in intellectual meaning). When you get closer to the truth you can’t just allow your defensive mechanisms to restore full control over you. The journey doesn’t end when you feel that you found the “truth” that is obvious and you have a feeling that its so clear that it will never change. Time will show you different and probably in 15 years you will be embarrassed how naive you are now.
You are so correct Pawel. That’s why Sage Patanjali describes not only ‘incorrect knowledge’ as a mind modification, but ‘correct knowledge’ as well. He says, howsoever correct this knowledge is still derived and infered and does not take you beyond what you already know. In fact what you already know (through incremental learning) unwittingly and unknowingly colors what you derive.
So, he recommends that knowledge which is born from a discernment between what is the Spirit and what is the Mind-matter. Such knowledge accrues only from a direct perception unaided by mind, emotions or the intellect. Such knowledge is intuitive and not labored.
You see reasoning is a precise science in which one studies how to formulate a valid argument and how to recognise formal and informal fallacies. There are tests in reasoning for validity and soundness. Statements can be tested for such properties as consistency, validity, truth etc.
Every statement carries a truth claim and that can be tested. If I say, “Fire is cold” this statement can be tested by testing the properties of fire which is hot not cold. Thus the statement is false.
There are statements where the reason given is wanting of proof itself. Such as, “Bigfoot exist, because a clairvoyant has seen one”
There are statement where the reason given can be contradicted by the opposite. Such as, “This glass is half full, because it only has half water” and “this glass is half empty, because it only has half emptiness”
Obviously emotional reasons is an invalid argument. If you say ghosts exist, because you feel them ti be true. It is obviously an invalid argument, because what one feels to be true is not necessarily true. I may feel that I will win the lottery and not win it.
I have never had any problem in demonistrating a false statement as false. That is because as soon as one makes a statement, they are by default engaging in logic. If I say even something simple as “Here is a cat” then it means it is not a dog. Now, if the author of the statement is calling a dog a cat then the statement can be disproven.
Let us look at a more sophisticated example of a false statement. If one makes a statement “All is material” Then one can contradict that statement by saying that the mind is not material. The mind is immaterial in that we cannot actually see it, feel it, touch it, taste it, hear it and nor can we divide it.
If you understand the science of reasoning well enough nobody will be able to make a false statement and get away with it.
Here are some valid examples of reasoning given in Hindu logic.
Knowledge consists of three conditions 1) The knower 2) The object known and 3) The instrument of knowing
If there is no knower present it is impossible for there to be knowledge. As who is the one who knows the knowledge then? If there is no object present then from where does the knower get the impressions. Finally, it is shown that the knower does not receive knowledge even when the object is present, when its mind is somewhere else. In other words there must be an instrument which attends to knowledge and transmits it to the knower.
Something cannot come from nothin
Nothing can only produce nothing for it has no content. Something presupposes that there is already a content. Although it may seem sometimes that effects are issuing forth from empty space, the fact that there is content proves that the empty space is not empty but already has that content latent.
Reasoning is a very powerful tool which has the power to reveal the actual truths about reality without a single empirical experiment. It is highly neglected in modern science.
[QUOTE=Nichole;37807][SIZE=3]The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie ? deliberate, contrived and dishonest ? but the myth ? persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. [/SIZE]John F. Kennedy[/QUOTE]
How do we get from this statement to yet another debate about Abrahamic God and Hinduism? Is every single thread on this site going to be hijacked into this freaking debate? I’m so sick of this I could scream.
Nichole forgive me my friend. I saw your name and clicked on the thread to see what you’d given us to think about today. I like the quote, thanks for sharing. I’m going to think about this one for a bit. What I especially like is that JFK himself was a bit of a liar in his personal life. Is he more a lie or a myth?
[QUOTE=Alix;38083]How do we get from this statement to yet another debate about Abrahamic God and Hinduism? Is every single thread on this site going to be hijacked into this freaking debate? I’m so sick of this I could scream.
Nichole forgive me my friend. I saw your name and clicked on the thread to see what you’d given us to think about today. I like the quote, thanks for sharing. I’m going to think about this one for a bit. What I especially like is that JFK himself was a bit of a liar in his personal life. Is he more a lie or a myth? [/QUOTE]
I think that is an unfair assessment of this thread. This thread is not about the Abrahamic god and Hinduism, it is about myth and faith vs reason and science. So far any mentions of Abrahamic god and Hinduism have been superficial and unimportant to this discussion.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38043]
In [B]Hinduism[/B] and Buddhism faith is seen as an infection of the mind. It is a terrible disease which weakens our intellect and leaves us vulnerable to the germs of ignorance and vice.
This is why I tell everybody to stick to evidence and never venture outside of evidence into faith and speculation.[/QUOTE]
Number one.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;38057]
I have not come across a single creationist argument for instance that stands the test of reason. Also it really depends what you mean by creationism? The usual creationist I see is one who argues that the [B]Abrahamic god[/B] has created the world as described in the bible, and they often oppose evolution and believe in a young earth. [/QUOTE] Number two.
You brought up both points at post #11 and post #13 of this thread. I’m tired of reading about this in every single thread. I avoided going into the religion section tonight as I felt the need for something less antagonistic and gentle. I deliberately clicked on a post by Nichole as something I felt would be either soothing or mildly thought provoking and instead found the same rhetoric being spewed once again.
David, my apologies. Please feel free to remove my rant. I came back to edit my original post as I felt it was too strongly worded and did not actually need to be shared, but I was too late and I’d already been quoted. Edit me at will and I accept any discipline you feel is warranted.