Law of Noncontradiction among the various faiths?

[Jack]

Like..... a dating service?     xD

Sort of. Like, if you write on the dating service that you like video games and opera, you're not likely to get paired up with someone completely incompatible.

Similarly if you know you're good with runes and Norse gods, and you need protection while travelling, you might have better luck asking Thor for help creating a protective bindrune than, say, creating a Hermetic sigil. That doesn't mean Thor is "real" and sigils are "not real" but that you have an affinity for certain things that match what you've already experienced.

[stephyjh]

I was just wondering.... I am someone who, while I'm not entirely sure where the right and wrongs ARE sometimes, I do believe correct and incorrect do exist on most issues of fact.  Where beliefs are mutually exclusive, I tend to believe either one of them is correct or both of them are at least partially, if not totally, incorrect.  

Regardless of the faith or the religion, Pagan or Monotheistic, certain facts must come into play at some point (so-and-so religion says xyz is true, but this other faith says it's not true at all). There will be points of utter contradiction between all the religions.  When this happens, do we say everyone's right or that some are wrong or do we turn the statements of fact into feelings or what do we do?  

Because when two statements of alleged fact are found to be mutually exclusive, something has to give.... we can't just give up on logic or fact or whatever, can we?

As an example... Some will say the Christian and Muslim God are one and the same; others will say they're different (please don't go into that debate... it gets sticky every time I see one of those, and I'll just get a headache.  I'm only using it as one example).  Some will say one thing and some will say others, both claiming it to be factual.  If the two positions cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense, then how is this normally processed? Do we say oh well? Do we say let's just call it all feelings instead? What do we do?

 
One thing that helps me to process it is to realize that for me, personally, as Darkhawk said above, religion isn't about facts. More than anything, religion is about symbol and metaphor. Because different people interpret symbols in different ways, the beliefs derived from the same symbol set by different groups will be different. My faith comes from the symbols I've perceived, interpreted through the lens of the experiences I've had in to a framework that works for me. It's a very personal thing.

[Charis]

Sort of. Like, if you write on the dating service that you like video games and opera, you're not likely to get paired up with someone completely incompatible.

Similarly if you know you're good with runes and Norse gods, and you need protection while travelling, you might have better luck asking Thor for help creating a protective bindrune than, say, creating a Hermetic sigil. That doesn't mean Thor is "real" and sigils are "not real" but that you have an affinity for certain things that match what you've already experienced.

ahhhh  

[stephyjh]

What if george says they exist and harry says they don't?  Well they either exist or they don't.  One is correct.  But when we see mutually exclusive claims (not getting into the merits of said claim), what do we do with it?

 
I don't think we get anywhere if the conversation is "Spirits don't exist!" "Uh-huh! Do too!" "Do not!" However, if the conversation has George saying, "My experience leads me to believe in the existence of spirits," and Harry says, "I've seen no evidence to support that belief," then they've both made accurate statements, which aren't mutually exclusive. Harry doesn't have to interpret George's experiences the way George does; he only has to recognize that it's George's life to interpret as he chooses.

[Charis]

I don't think we get anywhere if the conversation is "Spirits don't exist!" "Uh-huh! Do too!" "Do not!" However, if the conversation has George saying, "My experience leads me to believe in the existence of spirits," and Harry says, "I've seen no evidence to support that belief," then they've both made accurate statements, which aren't mutually exclusive. Harry doesn't have to interpret George's experiences the way George does; he only has to recognize that it's George's life to interpret as he chooses.

 
But one of those is still correct.     It's just that each has a different pool of evidence (or lack of), so they've each come to opposite conclusions.  But one conclusion is still correct.   There is still a fact, albeit without empirical evidence thus far.  

Though yes, I guess the social solution would be to simply state the reasons for each person's respective stance on the issue and then to agree to disagree (while still believing one's own view is correct, based on that person's own info)

However, if the conversation has George saying, "My experience leads me to believe in the existence of spirits," and Harry says, "I've seen no evidence to support that belief," then they've both made accurate statements, which aren't mutually exclusive.

 
And yes, I totally agree there

[Asch]

But one of those is still correct.     It's just that each has a different pool of evidence (or lack of), so they've each come to opposite conclusions.  But one conclusion is still correct.   There is still a fact, albeit without empirical evidence thus far.  

 
Without empirical evidence they can both be incorrect.

[Charis]

i don't think we get anywhere if the conversation is "spirits don't exist!" "uh-huh! Do too!" "do not!"

uh-huuuuhhh!!!!!

[Charis]

Without empirical evidence they can both be incorrect.

Yesh, though the thought of spirits simultaneously existing and not existing or neither makes my brain hurt.... I think I need some rum.  

Why is the rum gone?

[stephyjh]

But one of those is still correct.     It's just that each has a different pool of evidence (or lack of), so they've each come to opposite conclusions.  But one conclusion is still correct.   There is still a fact, albeit without empirical evidence thus far.  

Though yes, I guess the social solution would be to simply state the reasons for each person's respective stance on the issue and then to agree to disagree (while still believing one's own view is correct, based on that person's own info)

 
And yes, I totally agree there

The problem is that you're not going to get a black and white answer to an issue that's made up of a million different colors. Cosmic truths are bigger than the human mind can see or handle, and that's why we're filtered through interpretation. Are you familiar with the story of the blind men and the elephant?

[Asch]

Yesh, though the thought of spirits simultaneously existing and not existing or neither makes my brain hurt.... I think I need some rum.  

Why is the rum gone?

 
I think the closest you'll get to 'fact' in a way that makes the law of noncontradicition useful in the context it seems you'd like to discuss is if it's couched in a more restrictive phrasing. Such as: In religion X with group X belief X is Y. The counter would be, in religion X with group X belief X is C.

[Charis]

The problem is that you're not going to get a black and white answer to an issue that's made up of a million different colors. Cosmic truths are bigger than the human mind can see or handle, and that's why we're filtered through interpretation. Are you familiar with the story of the blind men and the elephant?

 
Not that I necessarily need the answer to the black-and-white question... Just how do people internally react when a black-and-white comes up, as far as the whole mutually-exclusive thing.  Nobody may have evidence necessarily, but each believes one of the answers in question is correct.

Nuuuuu I haven't heard of the blind man and the elephant.  Yet.  

[Charis]

I think the closest you'll get to 'fact' in a way that makes the law of noncontradicition useful in the context it seems you'd like to discuss is if it's couched in a more restrictive phrasing. Such as: In religion X with group X belief X is Y. The counter would be, in religion X with group X belief X is C.

yay, equations!   That's pretty representative of what I was trying to say (you condensed my 2 frakking pages into 2 sentences).  And then two people from the two respective groups start discussing belief x, and they believe that x= c and y respectively.  And then they.... give each other puzzled looks?  


be back in a bit.... going to go lurk in another riotous thread for awhile.  

[stephyjh]

Not that I necessarily need the answer to the black-and-white question... Just how do people internally react when a black-and-white comes up, as far as the whole mutually-exclusive thing.  Nobody may have evidence necessarily, but each believes one of the answers in question is correct.

Nuuuuu I haven't heard of the blind man and the elephant.  Yet.  

 
Three blind men were asked to describe an elephant by feel. The first man felt the elephant's ear and said, an elephant is loose and leathery and waves in the wind like a piece of canvas. The second man felt the elephant's trunk and said, "You're wrong. An elephant is long and flexible, like a vine." The third man felt the elephant's leg and said, "You're both wrong. An elephant is tall and thick and sturdy, and shaped like a tree." They all faced the same piece of evidence, but because they couldn't perceive the whole thing, just as people can't perceive the whole of Big Cosmic Truth, they interpreted the parts they had. Their facts were correct about the parts they perceived, but the truth is much more complex. Truth usually is.

[Asch]

yay, equations!   That's pretty representative of what I was trying to say (you condensed my 2 frakking pages into 2 sentences).  And then two people from the two respective groups start discussing belief x, and they believe that x= c and y respectively.  And then they.... give each other puzzled looks?  


be back in a bit.... going to go lurk in another riotous thread for awhile.  

Except that in my experience unless one claim is clearly inaccurate like group X participates in human sacrifices then the debate may never get to a point where there's a definitive factual correct answer. Persons will cite relevant texts, experts, incidents etc. and possibly sway the other party but, again, neither view is necessarily incorrect. Most will agree to disagree or a schism of some kind occurs.

'Cause religion is seriously fundamentally subjective and faith/trust based.

*shrug*

[Charis]

Three blind men were asked to describe an elephant by feel. The first man felt the elephant's ear and said, an elephant is loose and leathery and waves in the wind like a piece of canvas. The second man felt the elephant's trunk and said, "You're wrong. An elephant is long and flexible, like a vine." The third man felt the elephant's leg and said, "You're both wrong. An elephant is tall and thick and sturdy, and shaped like a tree." They all faced the same piece of evidence, but because they couldn't perceive the whole thing, just as people can't perceive the whole of Big Cosmic Truth, they interpreted the parts they had. Their facts were correct about the parts they perceived, but the truth is much more complex. Truth usually is.

 
Oh, I do recall hearing that somewhere (somewhen*)