Truth or Truthiness?

This dialogue in the comments of the article makes me think so much! [MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] I think you'd appreciate this:

Jimbo on September 30, 2012 at 10:06 pm said:
Whether or not the Church preaches its dogma in the commonality of objectivity or subjectivity is largely irrelevant, seeing as how there is no plausible way for the Church to truthfully do so objectively.

There is no evidence whatsoever for a God. Not just the God of the Bible, but of any God, of any religion. Nor is there evidence for Jesus having conducted miracles (although I won’t outright deny his existence, for several histories circa 100 BC have written of his existence), or rising from the dead, or being born of a virgin. Even any of those miracles alone would not be evidence of a God, just of a miracle happening, of whose origin no one knows.

Therefore, it would be outright blasphemy to preach the “Word of God” as if it were the undying, undeniable, and undoubted truth of the world; there is nothing showing that this is so. Clearly you can see the farcical logic behind claiming the ideology of Christianity to be objectively true.
Click to expand...

misterrichardson on October 6, 2012 at 8:43 am said:
Jimbo, if there is no God, then there is no final authority for right and wrong, truth or falsehood. These all require some sort of universal standard. Therefore, your comments are equally farcical.
Click to expand...

If there is no God- how do we determine a universal truth?
 
given that something can be true, it is true wheather or not we believe in it.

to a certain extent, we can't prove anything without accepting something.
 
Also like in the great Star Trek movie where they met God. If a creature came to earth claiming to be God, parted a few seas, healed the sick, turned water into wine etc... how would we know that creature was really God and not just some advanced alien messing with us? Maybe the creature goes so far as to make endorphin levels rise in our blood stream or whatever chemical makes us feel love so that we are more prone to listen to it. Though in the end, it is not the God of the bible.
 
say what said:
If there is no God- how do we determine a universal truth?
Click to expand...
One shouldn't conflate moral compunctions with truth. They are not the same.

Truth doesn't require a universal standard either. It doesn't have to be universal, it just has to be true. If I hit somebody and they fall down, then the truth is that I hit them and they fell down. Universality is moot because even if for some strange reason I exist in two worlds and in one of them I never hit anybody, it's still true in the other world. It might not be right, certainly not universal, but it is still true.
 
Maybe we should just vote for a "truth speaker" and accept that whatever they say is true. Seems simpler.
 
sprinkles said:
What truth is and knowing what is true are also totally different things.

Knowing the truth is a whole other ballgame in fact.
Click to expand...

I agree with this a billion percent.

I guess a 'universal truth' can exist without the idea of God. The idea of God is essentially a subjective truth.

I suppose there are different types of truths - moral truths, natural truths, physical truths, etc.


A question popped in my head reading this thread... and it reminded me of [MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] : if we believe in a truth enough, does that make it true?
 
say what said:
I agree with this a billion percent.

I guess a 'universal truth' can exist without the idea of God. The idea of God is essentially a subjective truth.

I suppose there are different types of truths - moral truths, natural truths, physical truths, etc.


A question popped in my head reading this thread... and it reminded me of [MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] : if we believe in a truth enough, does that make it true?
Click to expand...

Well like I said earlier, there's what is true and what you think is true.

Often when we say true we really mean "what we consider to be true". Some times it is justified consideration. It may be very well reasoned out, some times even apparently self evident.

But that's not what makes a thing be true. Being true is what makes it true, whether you know or think it is true or not.

What's true in my house? What did I have for lunch? What is in the middle compartment on my desk? There are true things in there and they are true whether you know them or not.
 
sprinkles said:
What truth is and knowing what is true are also totally different things.

Knowing the truth is a whole other ballgame in fact.
Click to expand...

My post wasnt about knowing, it was about telling.
 
sprinkles said:
Well like I said earlier, there's what is true and what you think is true.

Often when we say true we really mean "what we consider to be true". Some times it is justified consideration. It may be very well reasoned out, some times even apparently self evident.

But that's not what makes a thing be true. Being true is what makes it true, whether you know or think it is true or not.

What's true in my house? What did I have for lunch? What is in the middle compartment on my desk? There are true things in there and they are true whether you know them or not.
Click to expand...

interesting!

I was kind of thinking along the lines of: 'if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound if there's no one there to hear it?' ...it a truth only as true as the belief we have in it?

I think this is getting into philosophical territory that I'm not equip to understand!

I'm going to stick with my pragmatic view - some things are objectively true, and some things are subjectively true - depends on the context and question!
 
say what said:
This dialogue in the comments of the article makes me think so much! [MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] I think you'd appreciate this:

If there is no God- how do we determine a universal truth?
Click to expand...
I had to read the article to understand from where that is comming.

In christian doctrine, there is the doctrine of revealed truth, from God. Its called the doctrine of revelation.
Conform to this teaching, truth can not be fully known by our human reasoning. The greatest genius, the smartes philosopher can not discover the truth fully. Just parts of truth, just some of the truth.

This is the ignorance of humanity. Why God let it so? So us to understand how small and incapable we are. So that nobody can come trhought pride before God, just humility. The Bible says God has made the smart ones, the great ones, the poweful ones, the wise one, something foolish, something whithout understanding.

I think this comment:
misterrichardson on October 6, 2012 at 8:43 am said:
Jimbo, if there is no God, then there is no final authority for right and wrong, truth or falsehood. These all require some sort of universal standard. Therefore, your comments are equally farcical.
Click to expand...
comes from the perspective of truth as unitar, the unity of truth. There is that saying "All truth is God's truth", meaning that every truth points toward a standard, toward God.

When he is saying "if there is no God, then there is no final authority for right and wrong, truth or falsehood." he makes refference to the laws of reason, that we intuitively recognise as a axiom. From where these laws of reason originate? This is also intrinsically tied to order and sense, because reason is order. So how do we really accept as truthful our valid reasoning against our invalid reasoning? How do we know that some reasonings are valid and some or invalid in a logical sense? In other words, what makes logic and reason to be so? We must accept that valid reasoning is something objective, which has a basis. And if we go on this line, we must accept that the foundation for valid reasoning comes from a mind. Who is this mind? It is the mind of a man, or is the mind of something else? here is a from of the argument by C.S. Lewis:



1. Since everything in nature can be wholly explained in terms of nonrational causes, human reason (more precisely, the power of drawing conclusions based solely on the rational cause of logical insight) must have a source outside of nature.

2. If human reason came from non-reason it would lose all rational credentials and would cease to be reason.

3. So, human reason cannot come from non-reason (from 2).

4. So human reason must come from a source outside nature that is itself rational (from 1 and 3).

5. This supernatural source of reason may itself be dependent on some further source of reason, but a chain of such dependent sources cannot go on forever. Eventually, we must reason back to the existence of eternal, non-dependent source of human reason.

6. Therefore, there exists an eternal, self-existent, rational Being who is the ultimate source of human reason. This Being we call God (from 4-5). (Lewis, Miracles, chap. 4)

So in light of the argument, the answer to your question:
If there is no God- how do we determine a universal truth?
Click to expand...
is that if there is no God, we wouldn't be capable of understanding truth. If it wouldn't be God, there wouldn't be reason to know and understand the truth.
 
sprinkles said:
One shouldn't conflate moral compunctions with truth. They are not the same.

Truth doesn't require a universal standard either. It doesn't have to be universal, it just has to be true. If I hit somebody and they fall down, then the truth is that I hit them and they fell down. Universality is moot because even if for some strange reason I exist in two worlds and in one of them I never hit anybody, it's still true in the other world. It might not be right, certainly not universal, but it is still true.
Click to expand...
Truth is not just about factual and practical propositions.
truth is also about metaphysical propositions, like "Stealing is objectively moraly wrong", or "Logic is non-contradictory in its nature".
Thus truth is absolut, and it does require a universal standard, a absolute standard.
 
One shoudn't make the very popular error of separating truth from the mind.
If it weren't any minds, any people to think, truth would still exist? NO and NO. Truth is tied inherently to intelligence and understanding, and comprehension. In a absence of a intelligent agent, the concept of truth wouldn't exist. Do you have a mind? You have the concept of truth and knowledge of truth. There is no mind, there is no knowledge, and there is no truth.

In one sense, truth is independent of the mind, but for the very reason that mind exist. If there would be no intelligent agent, no reason, no logic, no order, and finaly no mind, truth wouldn't exist.
 
say what said:
I agree with this a billion percent.

I guess a 'universal truth' can exist without the idea of God. The idea of God is essentially a subjective truth.

I suppose there are different types of truths - moral truths, natural truths, physical truths, etc.


A question popped in my head reading this thread... and it reminded me of @Skarekrow : if we believe in a truth enough, does that make it true?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....a question that has been around since mankind evolved....and I have the answer? lololol
I have ideas....lol
Everything must be filtered through our senses....which do not give us a whole picture of anything...that includes our mind.
Certain animals see in UV (and some people believe it or not after having cataract surgery) so where you would see a plain yellow flower...a cat for example would see a pattern of stripes on it....or would be able to see where a fellow cat or animal has marked their territory. It has even been inferred that they can see electromagnetic fields somewhat. Well you combine their visual experience, with their sense of smell and hearing, then the process through their mind...their view of reality is incredibly different than ours is.
Our problem as humans is that we take what we have at face value many times and don’t stop to realize that we are not the end-all on what reality actually is.
Do voices actually exist for a schizophrenic? For them, it is absolutely true...it is a truth to them...you can tell them it’s in their own head...and they may even realize that they have a mental illness...but telling yourself it doesn’t exist would actually be a lie...because it is, in fact happening.
I used the sky being blue as an example on another post...it isn’t really blue....that is our perception of the variable in the light frequently and wave...it is how we interpret it. And besides that, who is to say that because it looks blue to me that what I have been taught to be blue from birth, actually looks green to you...but you were taught it was blue, and so for you, it IS blue - would that then be a truth? Perhaps to you... ex falso quodlibet, "from a falsehood, anything follows” or
ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet, "from a contradiction, anything follows”.
We could never say anything to be absolutely true because our perspective is not all encompassing.
If an ant were walking across a sidewalk it’s perception is incredibly different....it doesn’t know, nor would it understand that we are on a round planet flying through the universe....all it can know is the reality within the confines of it’s intellect.
Semper excelsius - means ‘always higher’ it is the thought and idea that there is no absolute, there is only the next step. There is something beyond our intellect...and then again beyond that...it is the ego of mankind that makes us think we are the pinnacle of thought and evolution physically, mentally, and spiritually.
Society generally CHOOSES what it wished to hold and make true...but that doesn’t mean it is.
Perhaps only mathematics holds some form of truth...1+1=2...although, it can be picked apart if one were so inclined....lol.
Here's an example on the Web that proves 1 = 2: http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~eww6n/math/Fallacy.html

And here's a "proof" that 1 + 1 = 1:

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/problems/mayer9.4.97.html

and another that 2 = 1:

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/problems/wall10.3.97.html

Finally, here's a good discussion of several "proofs" like this:

http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/
Even after we die...we may not see the whole picture...we either blink out, or continue on...but once again....I believe there will always be a higher state of reality and truth.
 
Last edited:
Truthiness is a kind of gut feeling right? I'd say gut feelings are what can be compared to scientific theory in that 'this person is going to treat me badly because as I am watching him treat others I am gathering that he doesn't respect others unless they agree with him and I don't agree with him on many things.' Gut feelings are deductions, whether you know that you're doing it or not you're deducting whether or not you would be ok or safe or happy or sad or whatever with a certain group of people, things, what-have-you. Gut feelings is one coming to a conclusion based on facts. It's theorizing where you belong in a certain place and whether or not it would be good for you. Those first five minutes of talking to someone you already have a gut feeling about them regardless of you knowing the exact details as to why, you feel that he/she is a good or bad person. From there you choose to go against your gut or with it. It is still a theory though, based on facts. It's why the phrase 'trust your gut' exists.
 
IS TRUTH RELATIVE?

(A dialogue between Socrates and Protagoras)

Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion.

Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?

Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective.

Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?

Protagoras: Indeed I do.

Scorates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.

Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.
 
From truthnet.org:

Can Truth be relative? (Subjective)
The question of morality being relative is directly linked to its source. If truth is relative then morality can be relative. “Relative Truth” means that truth is subject to the holder of truth.
A great test for relative or subjective truth is the “Gravity Test”. To administer this test one climbs to a high tower such as the Eiffel Tower. If the holder of subjective truth, believes he/she can fly, and since truth is subject to our beliefs then the person should be able to fly. Once the person jumps away from the tower the test begins. They will fly or fall. If they fly without aid then subjective truth is true if they fall and connect with the ground then objective truth is true. Those on the ground will witnesses “Correspondece”. If the person flies then subjective truth will correspond to reality (The flight being real). If the person falls objective truth will correspond to reality. (Gravity being real)

Subjective truth is a popular view held by many people, could all these people be wrong?

What are the main reasons people give for holding the subjective view.
Things appear to be true only at some times and not at others.
At one time people believed the earth was flat but today we know it’s a sphere. Someone might say you see truth has changed.
The world was a sphere even when people believed it was flat. Truth did not change, rather we changed from holding a false belief to a true one. Our belief now corresponds with the facts.
Things appear to be true only for some people but not for others.

Janice Smith lives in New York City and she feels cold at 9:00 AM Eastern Time on October 1, 2003. Oliver Jones lives in Hawaii at the same time and day but he feels hot. Isn’t this an example of relative truth?
No, the fact is, “Janice Smith is cold on 10/1/2003 at 9:00 AM” is true for Oliver Jones and for the rest of the universe. The fact stands on it’s own it is “absolute”. One hundred years from now that fact will still be absolute for everybody who has ever lived. Oliver feelings of heat have nothing to do with the fact regarding Janice. They are two separate facts.
Click to expand...
 
Can Truth be relative? (Subjective)
The question of morality being relative is directly linked to its source. If truth is relative then morality can be relative. “Relative Truth” means that truth is subject to the holder of truth.
A great test for relative or subjective truth is the “Gravity Test”. To administer this test one climbs to a high tower such as the Eiffel Tower. If the holder of subjective truth, believes he/she can fly, and since truth is subject to our beliefs then the person should be able to fly. Once the person jumps away from the tower the test begins. They will fly or fall. If they fly without aid then subjective truth is true if they fall and connect with the ground then objective truth is true. Those on the ground will witnesses “Correspondece”. If the person flies then subjective truth will correspond to reality (The flight being real). If the person falls objective truth will correspond to reality. (Gravity being real)
Click to expand...

Interesting. But I think in this case the difference between knowing something is possible and knowing something can be done is key.
The person's belief that they can fly will be likely surrounded by doubts, fears and so much 'evidence' to say that he can't. Not to mention feelings about the spectators.
It would require absolute certainty in every aspect of his being to actually fly...which is more or less impossible for almost all humans. Too many distractions.
But certainly people can do remarkable things when they know for sure that they can and usually have understanding as to why this is possible.
I think the apparatus is in place, but largely unused for good reason.
 
Cornerstone said:
Interesting. But I think in this case the difference between knowing something is possible and knowing something can be done is key.
The person's belief that they can fly will be likely surrounded by doubts, fears and so much 'evidence' to say that he can't. Not to mention feelings about the spectators.
It would require absolute certainty in every aspect of his being to actually fly...which is more or less impossible for almost all humans. Too many distractions.
But certainly people can do remarkable things when they know for sure that they can and usually have understanding as to why this is possible.
I think the apparatus is in place, but largely unused for good reason.
Click to expand...

You have a 'belief' that humans can fly under certain circumstances. That doesn't make it a truth. It is a theory that if certain factors are in place the result would be a human flying. It may be the truth but unless there is proof it cannot be considered an objective truth. The lack of proof doesn't make it untrue but without proof you also cannot discount the possibility that it is untrue.

It's the same with any belief system. There is an objective truth but without concrete proof it cannot be called an objective truth because it would be objective only if there was a consensus that it was true, otherwise it is subjective. The truth may be that there is a God, and anybody can adopt this belief as a subjective truth, but without a consensus and concrete proof you cannot call it an objective truth or 'the truth'. That is why it is called 'faith'.

1faith noun \ˈfāth\

: strong belief or trust in someone or something

: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs

: a system of religious beliefs
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top