Language and Reality (Humans)

by dhw, Thursday, April 07, 2011, 13:54 (4978 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: I never said that language and reality were compatible, especially since language has such an impact on our thought processes and states things as existing that do not exist without any differentiation.-But that, as I see it, is precisely the problem. We don't KNOW what is and isn't reality. We have words to describe all aspects of life and the universe, and we use more words in order to differentiate. The word "darkness" does not "state things as existing that do not exist". Darkness simply means an absence of light. It is you who state that it doesn't exist/is not real. That is why I asked you to define what you meant by "reality".-You listed certain attributes which you considered essential to your concept of reality: "it would either have to be observable or comprehensible", and you then named photons as something "real", with the added attribute that they can be measured. Matt argues on the philosophical level that "everything is subjective", because objective reality is unknowable and our only access to it is through subjective perception. Since observation, comprehension and measurement are dependent on our human perception, presumably then you do not accept this argument. When I suggested that time fulfilled all three of your criteria, you objected that the measurement of time may vary (I can't see the relevance of that as a criterion for reality), and although I thought we'd reached agreement on the rest, your comment above suggests that my observation and comprehension of darkness, blackness, nothingness are still not acceptable to you even on the commonsense level.-I'd now like to take this discussion one step further to the point which I'm sure you've been expecting me to raise. First, though, let me state yet again that I accept the philosophical argument that ultimately we cannot know what reality is. However, while acknowledging its vital importance in keeping us aware of the subjectivity of all our perceptions, I favour the commonsense argument that allows for the possibility that our perceptions are not wrong (despite their obvious limitations), and that the words we use may describe things that do exist and are real (the approaching bus being an obvious example).
 
So here comes the crunch. We have many words for a possible conscious power that may have created life. One such word is "God". You argue that reality has to be observable, comprehensible, or measurable, and the measurements must be unchanging (like your photons). How is God observable, comprehensible, measurable? Since you exclude whatever fails to match up to your own rigid interpretation of your criteria, by your standards God is not real and does not exist. I'm an agnostic, but I reject your rigid criteria, and despite all my doubts I still acknowledge the possibility of God's existence. If you were an atheist I might be able to understand your insistence on these strict boundaries ... though on a commonsense level I wouldn't agree ... but you are a theist. I'm anxious not to cause offence, and I'm genuinely trying only to straighten out arguments that seem to me highly confusing, but if this is not too personal, may I therefore ask you a direct question: by what criteria do you adjudge God to be real?