Consensus Reality

There are three types of reality; objective reality, subjective reality and consensus reality. Or perhaps more accurately there are these three ways of perceiving reality, and only of them is reality (objective reality), one of them is something in between (subjective reality) and consensus reality is not reality at all. It is an ephemeral construct used for a purpose for a period of time, at best. A mass delusion leading to centuries of murder and enslavement at worst.

Objective reality the reality which exists regardless of us. Something is real even if you and me aren’t. What that is, is another question. Presumably we exist in the objective reality, however we perceive it, for the most part, in our subjective way, which often skews our perceptions in some way. Then there is consensus reality, which is basically only an idea shared by a group of people. The idea may have been devised by a single individual and infused onto others, or it may have been created equally by all participants.

We hear things like the “scientific consensus” on this matter is so and so. It is an oxymoron. A scientific fact, nor a truth, can ever be deduced by a consensus. A truth is a truth, whether or not everyone or no-one believes in it. Consensus belongs to the sphere of politics or hobbies. A group of politicians may come to a consensus on how to enact a certain policy, a group of friends may decide to go play ice hockey together on the weekend. A consensus pertains to decision making, which hopefully is based on some degree of truth, but you cannot have a scientific consensus. The truthfulness behind the decision to play ice hockey would be something like everyone within that group enjoys it. The truthfulness behind the policy is that everyone deciding on the policy benefits from it. A scientific consensus, however, works only the lines of everyone here believes the earth is flat, those that disagree are killed. There, we have a consensus.

If several different researchers come to the same conclusion independently, it is laudable. Hopefully it suggests their findings are correct. However, even if they discuss the findings together and find they agree, does not make it a scientific consensus. The fact that the objective truth and the consensus coincide is coincidental. You can never deduce what the truth is simply by looking at the consensus. All you find out that way is what the consensus is.

Religions, including scientism, which is religion masquerading as science, usually try to convince you that their consensus is reality. They tell you to follow their dogma, and ignore your own reason and intuition. Trust their hierophants and doctors. Even if what they are saying is true, they dilute the truth by trying to make you forgo your own understanding of the matter, and merely follow their consensus teachings. Ultimately, these consensus religions try to convince you that the artificial ideas of man is more important than the natural, or spiritual, reality.

Believing in a consensus is not wrong in itself. We all can, and should, come to an agreement with other people in various issues. However, consensus is related to deciding on a course of action; do we buy a new car or save the money? Matters of taste can be a consensus issue too; you and your mates may agree that Megan Fox is prettier than Natalie Portman. I don’t think any objective truth can be reached on that issue. When you are trying to find scientific and even deeper truths of our world, is when consensus should be discarded. A consensus fits a scenario when a group of researchers are trying to decide on the best course of action to research a complicated issue. A springboard for truth, but once you are getting close to the truth, or believe you are, you must leave all consensus behind.


3 thoughts on “Consensus Reality”

  1. 1. You seem to equivocate the term “religion” with “worldview.” For example, you say that scientism is a religion; it’s not. It may be a systematic way of looking at the world or a philosophical movement in history, but that describes a worldview more generally, not a religion. A religion is a worldview but a worldview is not a religion. That’s something that has to be kept in mind. Here are two social science definitions or descriptions of what a religion is:

    “The anthropologist Clifford Geertz defined religion as a “system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”

    The sociologist Durkheim, in his seminal book The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, defined religion as a “unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things.” By sacred things he meant things “set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.” Sacred things are not, however, limited to gods or spirits. On the contrary, a sacred thing can be “a rock, a tree, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word, anything can be sacred.” Religious beliefs, myths, dogmas and legends are the representations that express the nature of these sacred things, and the virtues and powers which are attributed to them.”

    You may also compare Christianity or Islam or Judaism with Scientism using what is found as the defining traits of a religion in the academic literature: – Once you do, you see that Scientism fails the benchmark to be properly considered a religion.

    2. Moreover, what do you consider to be objective reality in the true sense of the word? Do you think human beings objective have human or natural rights? Do moral truths objectively exist? Is truth comprehensible?

    1. 1. I think the “worldview” is a more general term. I use the word “religion” basically to mean a crystallized belief system with little room for change or revision. There is also a difference between having a scientific, or science-based, worldview, and being a believer in scientism. Richard Dawkins is the best example of someone who believes in scientism and there are many like him.

      I don’t really care what academics define as religion as they’re often the worst purveyors of consensus reality. The best definition I’ve heard of religion is from Mark Passio:
      “From the Latin verb religare: “To hold back; to thwart forward progress; to bind.

      A system of Control based on an unchallenged, dogmatic belief which holds back the progress of Consciousness.”

      Another translation for “religion” I’ve heard is “to bind again”. That is what I see is the function of religion. It offers you promises of understanding of greater truths and escape from your mundane life, but in fact it binds you back again, if you expect someone else to give you the answers.

      2. I think truth is comprehensible. However, whether we can comprehend it in an objective way or merely in a subjective way is the question. Objective reality is what is. I don’t know how well I can perceive that reality. Perhaps I perceive it very well or not at all. I think my perception of it is somewhere between those extremes, but I do not know.

      I guess I’d say humans and all living things have natural rights to be and discover what they are. Of course sometimes the interests of one interfere with the interests of another, such as a predator wanting to devour its prey. It leads to conflicts between their rights. I do however dislike the word right, since it sounds like a legal term to me. I’d also say moral truths exist, but since I’m not so sure what is objective I cannot say are they objective or not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s