RE: What If There Is No Big "T" Truth?
The idea of a Truth versus truth is common. I think there are Truths of all kinds and that denying this is contradictory to logic and reason. There are mathematical and scientific Truths, whether or not we know they are there. Before the Pythagorean theorem was discovered, it still worked. That to me defines Truth in those terms.
However, there are moral Truths as well. For instance, murder is always wrong. There are scenarios where killing is ok, such as self defense. These have to be discovered through logic and reason and stem from some belief system, whether theistic or atheistic. We as people who live about 80 years on this Earth cannot comprehend the totality of Truth, but that does not mean it's their.
If you look at Greek thought and other old philosophy, not only is there commonalities on what they find to be True, but they deduce how the world works through thought. Atom is derived from Greek because it was the sophists and philosophers that decided the universe has to be broken down to some unit of element. The ability to use our intuition and intelligence to comprehend parts of the universe mean that there is an order that can be understood. That order is Truth. It is what always works, or always can be rediscovered, even if it is lost from man's library of knowledge.
Yes, but they were wrong about the Atom, right? We now know there are quarks, fermions, bosons, etc. The LHC is finding more elementary particles like the Higgs. What we think we know as a big "T" Truth might be unproven or understood completely different at higher planes and dimensions we can't comprehend. What if what we think is a Truth has so much more to it? How do we know we're not like two-dimensional beings being told to "look up" by those on a third dimension?
To me, we've not found anything like Plato's Perfect Forms or Truths, we've just found conventions which work for us. Yes, the Pythagorean theorem worked before we knew about it, and there may be others as well, but again, how is that different than finding a useful convention for our own benefit in a universe of entropy? We can say it exists as a thing before we know of it, but couldn't it also not exist or not even be definable since it comes into being when imagined by conscious beings and written down somewhere or put into a computer or a calculator? It's non-material after all, so why do we say "it exists" if no consciousness can put it to use? The conditions of the 3 dimensional physical universe which cause it to work can be said to exist, however. And that... that is something.
The fact that there is something that makes up atoms just means people jumped the gun when we gave what we called atoms their name. The principle Truth remains True that there is some sort of building-blocks that compose the universe.
If something is true, time and time again, then it is True. That's how these laws of physics, nature, and morality all work. Without having Truth, we have no progress. Because if there is no true north, then there is no way to find direction. If there is no Truth, then there is no order. But as long as there is order that we can comprehend and use to our advantage, there is Truth. You can call it a useful convention if you'd like, but as long as there is a law that exists in nature you cannot disprove, it is considered Truth.
But that's just a convention we've come to see as useful because, like you said, it has shown to be useful over and over (again, by convention).
I'd say without shared consensus on useful conventions, we don't have progress. There have been inaccurate scientific claims in the past which still brought about progress because as more people used them, we eventually found flaws and improvements which led to even better conventions and new discoveries.
We only "prove laws in nature" by our shared conventions such as the scientific method. We find direction based on how effective our epistemology is for predicting future events and describing physical reality as we observe it.
Tip! Regarding your "conversion" - I suggest you not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You do not need to completely reject/embrace either idealism or materialism (theism/atheism) - the Truth (whether cap T or not) is simply "what is" despite what we may feel (think) about it.
Here is a sciency :-) POSSIBILITY (I am stressing that word) that I just ran across the other day that promises to show the beginnings of a reconciliation between materialism (atheism) and idealism (theism).
Basically, it posits that the very underlying structure of reality itself (that in which we live, move and have our being) consists of points of decision (implying intelligence/consciousness) that is a self-referential simulation transcending time such that it's future communal consciousness is co-creating the past/present (god knows the end from the beginning) in conjunction with . . . us (images of god).
This is a really well made kickstarter funded video this group produced, but don't neglect the rest of the (more sciency :-) stuff on the website - I think it is more accessible than most assume.
Good luck.
http://www.quantumgravityresearch.org/portfolio/what-is-reality-movie
I'll check it out, but often the people who talk about this quantum woo stuff are not actually quantum physicists. When I've looked into it before, it seems like another version of the God in the Gaps using something we don't yet understand well from a practical use standpoint (quantum theory) to explain things we don't understand at all (our point of origin, meaning for existence, etc).
Well, if you want absolutes I wouldn't bother. Atheism (requiring absolute proof) is just another religion as there is NO absolute truth available unless/until you become absolute. So radical atheism requires just as much "faith" (belief without proof) as religion. But if you are willing to entertain uncertainty (possibilities and probabilities) then . . . ?
We seem to have different understandings of atheism. To me, it's about not pretending to know things I don't know. My whole post was about not wanting or needing absolutes because it's possible they don't exist and are just conventions which work for us. To go from my post to thinking I want absolutes must mean I did some very poor writing or you're reading into a label and applying things to me I didn't say.
I was just going off this you said:
Sounds pretty absolute to me.
Sometimes the words we use indicate that our true underlying viewpoint/philosophy is different than what proceeds from "out of our mouth".
When I say "things we don't understand" I'm basing that off lectures from actual quantum physisits I've heard say those things. They know more about their field than I do. That comes across as an absolute? To me it's just a perspective based on available evidence. If it was a point of contention, we could resolve it by sharing various expert opinions in the field or even meta analysis of the current state of quantum theory research to come to a rough approximation of how much people in that field believe they understand and how much they believe they don't yet understand.
Are you seeing absolutes where there are none? I'm fully open to being wrong about my perspective on the current state of understanding when it comes to quantum theory. We are just now creating quantum computers and even then, from what I've seen, it's very difficult stuff. It's not yet at a practical level of understanding where these concepts could be commoditized and put into application (such as relativity has with GPS satalites).
Yes, I am sure most of what I see is colored by my own . . . stuff and I am possibly mis-reading/interpreting your words.
Here is a link to just a few practical applications to which quantum mechanics has ALREADY been put: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/08/13/what-has-quantum-mechanics-ever-done-for-us/
Here is one definition of agnostic: "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience." - http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic
Note that last part
And here is one for atheist: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." - http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist
I find disbelief and belief equally . . . unreasonable.
And finally: Yes, even though we have differing opinions, we can be "brothers in peace" and accord each other the freedom to come to our own grasp of reality in our own time.
I have enjoyed our exchange.
I think "not pretending to know things you don't know" better fits agnosticism. In my experience, most atheists are as rabidly (unthinkingly) ANTI-anyconceptionofunderlyingintelligence as rabid fundamentalists claiming the earth is flat (or whatever) becuz the "good book sez so" making them equally reliant on faith (as there is no definite proof of/against but LOTS of observational evidence of SOMEsortof intelligence at work at the basis of reality (creation).
Agnosticism says it can't ever be known. That it's unknowable. To me, atheism is a more humble approach of "Yes, it could be possible, I just haven't seen convincing evidence yet so I won't claim to know it for sure." For example, we could be living in a simulation and at some point in the future we might even be able to prove this with useful contstructs. In that framework "god" becomes the simulation creator.
As for arguments via intelligent design, have you seen arguments for unintelligent design? Things which evolved in very poorly "designed" ways or aspects of the universe which are extremely hostile for the existence of life? Neil Degrasse Tyson has an interesting lecture on this topic.
Either way, we are drifting away from the core message of my post which is this: even if we disagree in our worldviews, can we agree on the importance of increasing wellbeing? Can we work together to decrease harm? Can we measure the usefulness of various approaches by how much they improve wellbeing?
If so, we can be brothers and live in peace.
Hmmm, "unintelligent design" . . . sounds like an oxymoron to me.
I have seen ATTEMPTS to argue it but they always seem to arrive at the same point - FAITH! In which you just have to BELIEVE that xyz is/worksin such and such a way.
The concept of "randomness" for example, there is no evidence that it is valid except that some processes "look" (presently) like they proceed unintelligently (no algorithm).
Well, it once LOOKED as if the Sun revolved around the Earth as well.
The only reason the concept of "randomness" (and MANY, MANY other "normal concepts) is BELIEVED is because of a reliance on absolute "determinism" (disbelief of all other possible explanations).
The word "random" is just a magical stand-in for "we-don't-know-how-this-works" and the only reason why we BELIEVE it is anything other than "magic" is because we discount (DISbelieve) ALL other possible explanation.
Perhaps what we see as "random" events are the result of a "decision" made on/at a level that we are not even aware of yet. (see, for instance: panpsychism (or etc.))