The following two statements summarise just about everything an agnostic friend of mine wrote, and (I think) represent a very common expressions today:

"All religions are the same..it doesn't really matter which one you embrace - but that's just my opinion..."

"All religions are merely illusions..."


(The following are parts of a letter I wrote back to him):
 

Here I'd like to address two items which apply very heavily to your response:
1.  The difference between an OPINION and a TRUTH- or BELIEF-STATEMENT
2.  The problem of SELF-STULTIFICATIONS (or self-referentially absurd statements)

(If nothing else, perhaps you could take this as a philosophy lesson)

I must admit I'm a little surprised that you term much of your letter as a collection of opinions, because they're really NOT opinions at all, but statements of belief and what you believe to be true.
An opinion is : "I think the Commonwealth Games was a success"
A 'truth-statement' is : "The Commonwealth Games was held between 11-21 of September 1998"
An opinion is : "I think apples taste nicer than oranges"
A 'truth-statement' is : "There are five apples and four oranges in the fridge right now" (assuming that there are! haha!).

See the difference?  An opinion is PURELY a statement of individual 'taste', preferences, etc.  It does NOT 'apply' universally, should never be 'proven' and is never an issue in a debate (if you
think wantan meen tastes better than har meen, then that's it!  End of story!).

A truth-statement, on the other hand, CAN and MUST be 'substantiated' and 'proven'.  It's like : "Andrew has a dog named Boxter in his house".  You NEVER say, "IN MY OPINION, Andrew has a dog named Boxter in his house".  It's not an opinion, it's a fact and it's truth!  And it can be proven or disproven!  Why?  Because either he does or he doesn't have one!
Similarly, when we say "God does not exist", we are NOT stating an opinion here (even though we may think we are), but it's really a statement of reality.  Either He exists or He doesn't.

And ALL statements of reality NEED TO BE EVALUATED both philosophically and evidentially.  If the sentence cannot even 'pass' as a consistent statement which doesn't 'self-reduce' to meaningless, then we can't even proceed.  Even if we say, "That's just what I THINK", our words STILL need to be validated and shown to be philosophically consistent.

Look at these sentences :

  • "The human mind cannot formulate sentences".
  • "I can't write the word ERNST AND YOUNG"
  • "EVERYTHING I say is nonsense"

    •  

     

    The problem with three statements above is that they SELF-STULTIFY when applied BACK upon themselves(!).
    If I can't formulate sentences, then what did I just do?
    If I can't write ERNST AND YOUNG, then what did I just write?
    If EVERYTHING I said is nonsense, then what did I just say?

    I'm sure you understand the difference now between an opinion and a truth-statement (please let me know if you don't).

    Now let's look at one of your paragraphs:

    "Ultimately... there is no 'good' and 'bad'... as one should realise, life on this planet is but a passing phase.  We must transcend beyond the flesh, beyond humanity, and beyond the physical limitations of time and space...to realise that all is but an illusion. The laws and doctrines of society... are ultimately nothing...so ultimately... there is no ultimate good or bad... only the patterns of temporary illusions.  And after these have passed... there is only emptyness..."

    You see, when you say that the whole world is an illusion, you run into the philosophical problem of showing that your statements are not illusions!
    It's like saying, "All sentences are MEANINGLESS", you see?  The problem with that sentence is that if all sentences are meaningless, than what is it that was just spoken?  Is the sentence, "All sentences are meaningless" MEANINGFUL or MEANINGLESS??
    If it's meaningful, then you've only shown that there are meaningful sentences!
    If your sentence is meaningless, then you may as well not have said it!   Get it?

    I know you probably didn't see it this way but what you were writing truly constituted some form of philosophy, and so I've merely used certain philosophical 'tools' to analyse them, just like the statement above.

    It's the same with some of your other sentences below:

    1.  "The laws and doctrines of society... are ultimately nothing...."

    This sentence is itself a 'law' and a 'doctrine', did you realise that?
    It's like saying, "Everything people say are ultimately nothing" - does this include what WE say as well?
     

    2.  "One may realise that all is but an illusion."

    Again, the question to ask is, "How do we know that we ourselves are not under an illusion too?"
    And even if it's just an 'opinion' (which it's not - it's a belief-statement), we must realise that our sentence applies to us as well.
    It's like saying : "Everything in existence is an illusion, including myself".  But how can an illusion (you!) REALISE this?!

    The point of all this is that the sentences don't make sense from the very start.  It doesn't help to say it's just your opinion (which I hope you realise by now is simply not the case) because the nature of the sentence sorta blows itself away i.e. it can't 'get off the ground', know what I mean?

    It's like saying, "In my opinion, I can't write a WORD of English".
    One, it's not an opinion.
    Two, I just wrote some English, so what am I saying?
     
     

    Take care,
    AL


    Back to Main Page