Ouroboros Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 IMO, I think truth might exist, but we're to confused as a species to really understand it, and science and knowledge is just the best approximation we have to truth, but not necessarily any kind of ultimate truth. (And no, it doesn't mean religion can claim to have it either.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 IMO, I think truth might exist, but we're to confused as a species to really understand it, and science and knowledge is just the best approximation we have to truth, but not necessarily any kind of ultimate truth. (And no, it doesn't mean religion can claim to have it either.) It gets to the same place. In certain things, yes I believe there is a reality that exists, but as you say because of being human there is no way any one person, let alone more that one can completely divorce themselves from all the unique variables that makes them subjective observers of it, and cannot as a result be purely objective about that thing. It is at best an approximation of what that reality is, and "truth" becomes a word that people use when they can agree closely on what they are seeing. But IMO, even that "truth" is really limited in scope, and cannot therefore be absolute in any human use. I'm seeing "truth" is not about finding what something is, but finding how to agree about how to talk about it. Now take that to the purely individual experience, and then "truth" is what language you can use for yourself that you can agree that works for yourself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 You Want The Truth? Or Do You Want To Be Happy In Lies? I have always wanted the truth. The church professed to have the truth. The church professed that humans are horrible and evil people unless they believe the right things. The church professed that believing the right things would bring inner peace. 1. I made sure to learn and keep all the rules and the right beliefs. Disobedience is as the sin of witchcraft, Samuel said to Saul when he kept the best of the Amelekite's stuff. The command had been to annihilate every last human and animal. He disobeyed. As a result, the kingdom was taken away from him. That's a pretty convincing message in a faith community where disobedience can earn you excommunication and social ostracization. 2. Sin was defined as intentionally and wilfully doing something wrong. Since the church preached that everyone was sinful I assumed most people behaved like that. Yet I personally did not live like that, nor did I observe anyone else who did. I read a batch of self-help books just to dig myself out of the pit in which I found myself. Every single one of those books talked about moving from being a poorly functioning person to being a better functioning person. I concluded that all humans are good deep down if only love can connect with this goodness. These conflicting messages I received inside a faith community that placed extreme restrictions on me that were not placed on my sisters. I was not allowed to teach in the community's elementary schools but my sisters were. The community hired outsiders rather than give me a chance. No reason was ever given. I accepted this as God's will and did what I could to find happiness and fulfilment in other work. It never happened. As a last desperate attempt at finding a life worth living I applied for higher education, was accepted, and did well. I took an undergraduate program to prepare to become a clinical social worker. This was inside a Christian insitution. The teachers were Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, a Jewish atheist, etc. The humanist values I had already picked up from reading those self-help books and from working in a public school were reinforced on a daily basis via class discussions and course content. Most of the students were Christians. Finding all these dedicated Christians inside an institution that I had been taught to see as the devil's breeding grounds made me rethink my own faith. It made me postpone deconversion for the better part of another decade. In this decade I explored the foundations of truth regarding the human experience. There were the social work courses. There were also courses in philosophy, religious studies, and cultural anthropology, not to mention theology. After I got rid of the shackles of the OOM church I felt free to talk with Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and others about their beliefs regarding Ultimate Reality. My search for Truth was intense, deep, and prolonged. I am so glad I had the opportunity to do it through formal education in a large secular institution. Yes, the Anglican Church owns the college, but it is affiliated with a large secular university, and secular humanist values are taught and practiced and promoted. Personal or institutional religion was discussed only occassionally, as one factor social workers encounter. There was more open discussion of religion in courses on anthropology, philosophy, and religious studies on the main campus. Of course, the Christian religion is taken for granted in the seminary where I am presently studying. It is not, however, promoted and pushed as the only right way to be. It's just part of the environment like the air we breath. Like the air it's not discussed. Discussion focuses on theoretical issues Christians struggle with, what various theologians considered to be Truth. That's the way most of my seminary profs handled things. The one prof I am studying with this academic year is what I would call a rabid Christian. If I did not need this course for my degree I would NOT be studying with him. No choice. He seems to feel driven to talk about his faith. He glories in the fact that at the seminary he is allowed to do this. I just grit my teeth and compose (in my head) another post for this forum. Haven't written them yet. They're still stewing inside of me. The other profs in there allowed statements of open defiance of the church. I took that for granted. This prof told me in private that he understands that I might have issues with the church but that he does not consider it good use of class time to discuss it there. (GRRRRR!!!!) My intense search for truth come hell or high water or worse led me to conclude that Christianity does NOT have the answers it professes to have. The knowledge Christianity professes to have does not exist. Honesty has led me to say this to people who did not appreciate it, people who ostracized me for saying it, or evangelized me, whatever the case might be. I was only answering questions or joining an existing discussion. Once, rather than lying by default, I offered the information. The cost was high. Attitudes changed and the temperature dropped. Instantly. I don't remember a time ever that I felt totally comfortable with Christian beliefs. There have always been too many unanswered questions. I guess in answer to the original question: I would much prefer to know the truth because I am so terribly uncomfortable with lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 True is true. False is false. This babling about the "truth for them" is bollocks. Beleiving something to be true doesn't make it the truth. If you beleive something to be true and it turns out it was a lie then you were beleiving a lie. You didn't know. If you date a transexual and then discover that they were really a man before the operation then they have not changed from a women to a man during that discovery, only your perseption of them has. It is supremem arrogance to imply that you can have your own truth. Something can be true about you. It can be true that you beleive something, or true that something works for you, but if its true its true, and if its false its false. 1=1 if it looks like 2 to you because you have double vision or something then its still 1. On a seperate note, 1+1 doesn't always equal 2 but thats to do with vector mathmatics and adding in different directions so its not really relevent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 It seems to me that this thread in threatening to become a philosophical discusssion. I mean, aren't we once again hovering around the question, what is truth? I know that Ex-believer has a PhD in philosophy or is on his way to having one. I think though that he rarely leaves the Ex-C life forum. Maybe we could persuade him to come and join us in this discussion however. "Philosophy may be ignored but not escaped; and those that most ignore least escape" -David Hawkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 True is true. False is false. This babling about the "truth for them" is bollocks. Beleiving something to be true doesn't make it the truth. If you beleive something to be true and it turns out it was a lie then you were beleiving a lie. You didn't know. If you date a transexual and then discover that they were really a man before the operation then they have not changed from a women to a man during that discovery, only your perseption of them has. It is supremem arrogance to imply that you can have your own truth. Something can be true about you. It can be true that you beleive something, or true that something works for you, but if its true its true, and if its false its false. 1=1 if it looks like 2 to you because you have double vision or something then its still 1. On a seperate note, 1+1 doesn't always equal 2 but thats to do with vector mathmatics and adding in different directions so its not really relevent. I'm sorry you see these ideas as bablings and “bullocks”. I just think things are far more complex in the human experience then to be put into boxes of black and white absolutist thinking. Are you really suggesting that Truth with a capital T should be the goal for all of us, and those who see things differently are just plain wrong and need to see the Truth as we see it? We can have a true religion, and be fully justified in rejecting all others or eliminating all those that stand in the way The Truth, which happens to be the one we believe? Out of curiosity, exactly how does someone determine absolutely what this Truth is? Also, are we talking about scientific truth about the natural world, or all Truth for all things in the human experience? I think I've been trying to make it clear how I'm addressing what "truth" means. I have been and will continue to make a distinction between objective truth and individual truth. Like you say if someone believes something is true and it turns out it isn't, then as I see it is was true to them, it served them as truth, just as when they see it a different way, a more objective way, it will continue to serve the same role for them. (Granted they can probably do more with it since it fits better what that thing really is). It really all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Yes of course, believing an apple is a horse doesn't make the apple a horse in reality, but how they relate to it one way or the other is the same thing in practice. Here's a thought for you sure to give you a good knee-jerk reaction like above. God exists. He exists because people believe he does. He is given essence through belief. However, I do not accept that there is a being that exists independent of that belief. God is not an objective reality. However he is a reality in personal and collective experiences. If this planet were smashed into oblivion by a stray planet colliding with it, and all trace of everything that humans ever impacted anywhere in the universe were utterly obliterated, then God would be gone. God is an idea created by language that in turn directly impacts reality. In this sense, it can be measured. “God” can be measured scientifically. Of course I’m fully aware it’s the effect of the belief we’re looking at and not God as an independent agent outside of human experience. But “God” in reality is nothing more than a word signifying what the belief is, which is what the belief creates, which in turn impacts the people who created it. “God” is a biocultural feedback loop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 God exists. He exists because people believe he does. He is given essence through belief. I wonder if you've read the book "American Gods" Antlerman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 God exists. He exists because people believe he does. He is given essence through belief. I wonder if you've read the book "American Gods" Antlerman. No I never have. I assume it's along thoughts like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 God exists. He exists because people believe he does. He is given essence through belief. I wonder if you've read the book "American Gods" Antlerman. No I never have. I assume it's along thoughts like this? Yeah, it's a work of fantasy. You would find it in the sci-fi/fantasy section of a book store. I won't spoil it, but the whole thing is about how the gods in America must vie for the attentions and sacrifices of believers in order to maintain their existence. I thought it was well written and I think it won a couple of awards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 My little addition to Antlerman's comment "He is given essence through belief." There's a theory that gods only come into existence (or essence) through language. Religion and faith is carried and held up only by words and phrases. And it makes sense, since belief is a meme, and language is the code it's programmed in. This also means that our understanding of a certain god or faith comes from our understanding of a particular language (religious mostly, but also cultural). That's why especially the Christian religion is changing, because it's changing with culture and language. People's conceptions are controlled by the language that describes them. So God "exists" only because people say so, if they stop saying it, he will disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 However, I do not accept that there is a being that exists independent of that belief. God is not an objective reality. However he is a reality in personal and collective experiences. If this planet were smashed into oblivion by a stray planet colliding with it, and all trace of everything that humans ever impacted anywhere in the universe were utterly obliterated, then God would be gone. God is an idea created by language that in turn directly impacts reality. In this sense, it can be measured. “God” can be measured scientifically. Of course I'm fully aware it's the effect of the belief we're looking at and not God as an independent agent outside of human experience. But “God” in reality is nothing more than a word signifying what the belief is, which is what the belief creates, which in turn impacts the people who created it. “God” is a biocultural feedback loop. Oh Antlerman, you must know that I would say something to this... There was a time when humans did not exist. Surely you wouldn't say that whatever force of nature that brought about life on this planet would also disappear. Does life come from non-life, or can life just assemble itself in different ways? What is life? Are you addressing a certain understanding of what God/s is/are or are you addressing that which cannot be known (by sensing)? You know I luv ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carolyn the Red Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 According to Richard Dawkins on "Ideas" on the CBC a few weeks back, the world and science are not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine. I like this idea, that what is useful to our kind of life colours what we can understand. I want to know the truth, but somehow, in all of its mystery, I'm pretty sure I won't understand it. I guess that's OK, I'll just chip at the edges. Then again, I think many people aren't looking for the truth. Most don't "get" the idea of pure science, and look for applications. In looking for "spiritual truths", I think many people have the same engineering mindset. When I hear or read accounts of conversions, people don't talk about the truth, they talk about feelings, how a belief or a practice resonates with them, and how they find meaning in it. They don't become muslim because they are presented with evidence that a man name Mohamed was a true prophet, or become christian because of evidence for a historical Jesus. At least, that's not the way it seems from the language I hear and read. It's something I wish I understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 However, I do not accept that there is a being that exists independent of that belief. God is not an objective reality. However he is a reality in personal and collective experiences. If this planet were smashed into oblivion by a stray planet colliding with it, and all trace of everything that humans ever impacted anywhere in the universe were utterly obliterated, then God would be gone. God is an idea created by language that in turn directly impacts reality. In this sense, it can be measured. “God” can be measured scientifically. Of course I'm fully aware it's the effect of the belief we're looking at and not God as an independent agent outside of human experience. But “God” in reality is nothing more than a word signifying what the belief is, which is what the belief creates, which in turn impacts the people who created it. “God” is a biocultural feedback loop. Oh Antlerman, you must know that I would say something to this... There was a time when humans did not exist. Surely you wouldn't say that whatever force of nature that brought about life on this planet would also disappear. Does life come from non-life, or can life just assemble itself in different ways? What is life? Are you addressing a certain understanding of what God/s is/are or are you addressing that which cannot be known (by sensing)? You know I luv ya! I wasn't directly expecting you, but I was thinking there would be a general knee-jerk reaction out there amongst a few, and I might hear some response. It doesn't surprise me you took it up. I have a lot more I want to explore in this that you might actually find intriguing, but I will plan to bring it up later when I'm ready in a separate thread I hope to start sometime soon. But to add to my "babblings and bullocks'" here ... Humans can never directly perceive the reality of anything. All we can ever do is make language models to make some sense out of what our limited perceptions tell us. We relate to the world through symbol systems as we cannot directly interface with it. Language shapes our concepts of that reality, and where vocabularies don't exist, neither do the concepts or our sense of that reality; or even our ability to conceive of it. "Reality" is completely tied to language in the human experience. So when anyone speaks of The Truth, I have to laugh. What? You found the direct conduit to reality that overcomes the need for language? If you're still dependent on language, then how can you claim to know reality absolutely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Totally agree Antlerman. By redefining our language, we'll redefine God and even the exprience of such a God. Just the same way as morals are defined by culture, society and language. For instance where we draw the line for "murder" and "manslaughter", that's why law is tested by the peers, to test the case against what culture in common say. Also, the idea of consciousness (do some cross-threading here) being a result of language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Totally agree Antlerman. By redefining our language, we'll redefine God and even the exprience of such a God. Just the same way as morals are defined by culture, society and language. For instance where we draw the line for "murder" and "manslaughter", that's why law is tested by the peers, to test the case against what culture in common say. Also, the idea of consciousness (do some cross-threading here) being a result of language. I saw that thread there and haven't read it yet, but will do so especially in light of this connection. I find myself saying all the time these days that "lanuage is God". We create God and God creates us. I'm trying to organize all the pieces of some thoughts I'm having to talk about them more directly, but these little bits and pieces keep spilling out in these little babblings because my mind is focused on them right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Antlerman, have you read Philosophy in the Flesh? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Blue and Red, Black and White, what's the difference? Truth does not equal reality, but if you pursue truth you will eventually have to look at reality to find it. And I shouldn't say "find it", because truth is never found it is only refined. Why because it is always relative, didn't you know? Science is a pretty good instrument for looking at reality, but it is not perfect and never will be if only because of the uncertainty principle. However, that is only physics. There is another uncertainty principle for humans, our individual embodied minds. This is an instrument that evolved sufficiently to aid in the success of procreation and had no evolutionary pressure to go beyond that! That we can go a bit beyond this is just an artifact of the unfocused wobble of the evolutionary process. The instrument of the body/mind can resolve reality to a certain gross level that goes a bit further then the need for survival, but cannot go beyond that. This is something like the Hubble telescope before glasses. Now we've learned to make glasses for ourselves in science, but even this will not resolve reality completely. Truth then is always relative to quality of resolution. There are some other relative rubs: 1. Not all people have equal access to tools of resolution greater than that which they were born with. 2. All people must relate to the data found through natural equipment and/or better instruments via their body/mind which is still an instrument of gross rather than refined resolution. 3. All people must interpret data found with their mind/body or mind/body+artificial instruments via their individual and each somewhat unique psychological/physical structure. That is, the understanding of the data, however refined the data may be, is relative to the structure of the person. Since we are somewhat the same the interpretation stands a chance of being roughly similar, but since we are not exactly the same no interpretation will exactly overlay another, and some will not overlay together at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Yes of course, believing an apple is a horse doesn't make the apple a horse in reality, but how they relate to it one way or the other is the same thing in practice. Here's a thought for you sure to give you a good knee-jerk reaction like above. God exists. He exists because people believe he does. He is given essence through belief. However, I do not accept that there is a being that exists independent of that belief. God is not an objective reality. However he is a reality in personal and collective experiences. If this planet were smashed into oblivion by a stray planet colliding with it, and all trace of everything that humans ever impacted anywhere in the universe were utterly obliterated, then God would be gone. The concept of god exists. The idea of god exists. People's belief in god exists. God doesn't exist unless....:drumroll:.....god exists. existance in reality is not subjective on this scale. I get the impression that when you say "reality in personnel and collective experiances" you mean the same thing as I do when I state the first line of this post. But there is an important difference which i think should be maintained, even in the language used, as saying things like "real to me" or "real in my heart" add a sense of reality to something that is wholly not so. Even relating to something as real when it is not, as you describe above, though it may make their actions and thoughts towards it real, doesnot make that thing real. real is by definition an absolute concept and, as such, should be used carefully. Then again, I laugh at physics jokes so you may wish to ignore me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 The concept of god exists. The idea of god exists. People's belief in god exists. God doesn't exist unless....:drumroll:.....god exists. existance in reality is not subjective on this scale. I get the impression that when you say "reality in personnel and collective experiances" you mean the same thing as I do when I state the first line of this post. But there is an important difference which i think should be maintained, even in the language used, as saying things like "real to me" or "real in my heart" add a sense of reality to something that is wholly not so. Even relating to something as real when it is not, as you describe above, though it may make their actions and thoughts towards it real, doesnot make that thing real. real is by definition an absolute concept and, as such, should be used carefully. Then again, I laugh at physics jokes so you may wish to ignore me. But this is where it all gets interesting. Can anyone know reality in the truly objective sense? Do you agree that having an observer alters the thing being observed? No human has a direct link to that reality, bypassing our senses or the language we use to interpret that thing. So immediately that reality has become infused with us. We become a part of that reality. Is it correct then to say that in science what we try to do is have as much agreement as possible on a common language that describes that thing? If so, that language is still infused with culture. It's a consensus reality about an external reality. It isn't real reality, but for all intents and purposes it is reality to us. What I have been considering are the philosophical definitions of truth and reality. As an example: On the other hand, particularly in discussions of objectivity that have feet in both metaphysics and epistemology, philosophical discussions of "reality" often concern the ways in which reality is, or is not, in some way dependent upon (or, to use fashionable jargon, "constructed" out of) mental and cultural factors such as perceptions, beliefs, and other mental states, as well as cultural artifacts, such as religions and political movements, on up to the vague notion of a common cultural world view or Weltanschauung. The view that there is a reality independent of any beliefs, perceptions, etc., is called realism. More specifically, philosophers are given to speaking about "realism about" this and that, such as realism about universals or realism about the external world. Generally, where one can identify any class of object the existence or essential characteristics of which is said to depend on perceptions, beliefs, language, or any other human artifact, one can speak of "realism about" that object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 "Truth" is a goal to persue, not achieve. Same with "reality". Our subjective minds can only get so close to obejective reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts