Is There "absolute Truth"?

[disEnchanted]

I sometimes read and post on a "christian" website. Lately, I've tried to point out discrepancies in the gospels because someone on the board said there is perfect unity within them. Of course, they don't like what I've come up with and say that I can't accept "absolute truth." When I replied with, "YOUR truth does not equal everyone's truth" I get responses like, "Gravity is absolute truth, even though we can't see it. It's not just my truth or your truth. It is THE TRUTH and my faith is THE TRUTH."

 

Can anyone help me in deciding what to say to that? Of course I believe in some absolute truths (like gravity, for example), but I don't think faith or religion is an absolute. Of course my opinion (to them) means nothing.

[disEnchanted]

This is another quote from a christian on the same site on the same topic:

 

"I could also deduce from your post that you are coming from the premise that:

 

(1) You are not reading for the message just the contradictions.

(2) You don’t believe the Bible is the word of God.

(3) The resurrection narratives are just not true and can’t be trusted.

 

Am I right?

 

Further, I found your statement that “Some contradictions are more than just incidental details” interesting because these incidental details don’t for one moment negate the truth of the resurrection or alter the doctrine in any way.

Also, actually the term “Incidental details” regarding the resurrection narratives didn’t come from me, it came from Jeffrey Lowder the co-founder and former President of the Secular Web Internet infidels, a non profit educational organisation dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the internet. i.e. . (a closed system without God). Lowder, an atheist debater made the following statement about the very subject you are questioning.

 

“From a theological perspective, the Bible does not have to be inerrant in order for the resurrection to be true. And historically speaking,. The fact that the N.T. accounts of the resurrection contradict one another about Incidental details provides no direct evidence against the resurrection itself. Indeed, this is a problem that historians routinely face when assessing historical texts. But historians do not throw out entire groups of documents simply because the documents contradict one another about incidental details instead historians try to determine the best historical explanation for these disagreements, in an attempt to identify the core historical facts.”

 

I also found your quote interesting “I am not however trying to convert you from your Christianity”. No fear of that, I was converted to Christianity from atheism and believe me atheism doesn’t hold a candle to what I believe now.

 

I was pleased to see that you said “TO ME, it is so much work to explain away all of the inconsistencies, that it completely proves TO ME that the Bible is not from any God, but from man”. That is your perspective and you are entitled to it, but that doesn’t make it right. Some of the greatest minds in history, Christian and non-Christian alike have grappled with the Bible for the past 2000 years and it is still going strong & still changing lives today.

 

Moving away from the Bible let me ask you a question:

 

There are in history two contradictory accounts of the Carthaginian general Hannibal and his crossing of the Alps with 26,000 troops (and his elephants) in an effort to catch the Romans off-guard in a surprise invasion of Italy. (2nd Punic war BC 218-202).

Polybius the Greek historian reports in his third book of world history (CA. 200-118 BCE) that Hannibal and his troops (and his elephants) took a Northerly route. While Livy, the Roman historian in his 21st book of the history of Rome from its foundation (59 BCE-17 CE) insists that Hannibal’s route was Southerly.

 

Here we have two reliable ancient historians who give us two contradictory eyewitness reports from the same witnesses, of the same event. Hannibal crossing the Alps by completely different routes.

 

My question to you: Bearing in mind these contradictory facts about Hannibal do you question Hannibal’s arrival in Italy?

 

Reiterating Lowders point “Historians do not throw out entire groups of documents simply because the documents contradict one another about incidental details”.

 

The discrepancy is there but so is the undeniable fact. Now in the same way, whilst there may be discrepancies in the resurrection narratives there remains an unshakable historical core that is even recognised by some of the most prolific sceptics of our time.

 

I will deal further with your questions about Matt, Mark and Luke in my next post but it may be a while because unfortunately I am very busy."

 

 

Anyone want to give this one a try?

[Ouroboros]

How do we know if something is the "Absolute Truth"? What would be the guiding factors to recognize it? And what kind of recognizable characteristics would it have? Those factors and characteristics has to be absolute and fully truthful before we can find the Absolute Truth, so how do we know that those factors and characteristics are absolutes in themselves? And on, and on, and on ...

[Luke Wolf]

It is a very long, and very, very hard road to convience a fundie of anything like that.

There are essentially three paths you can take. One that tries to convience them and try to abandone there faith, a passive approach that tries to get them just to acknowledge facts (the evolution vs. creation debate is common for this), and a fuck off type of debate.

It also depends on just how much time you want to put into a response.

 

Personally, I would reply with something along the lines of;

Evolution is also truth. Any unbiased scientist will laugh at anyone who claims it is not scientific, or proven. Are you also aware that gravity is a theory, thus meaning it is not 100% truth? Are you aware of the human artifacts that are over 70,000 years old? That is truth.

While the Bible does have some truths to it, from both history and even metaphysics, the overall theme of an omnipotent vengeful and jealous god that is at the same time loving and forgiving who had to send his son to die for the sins of man is laughable. You take the Bible to be 100% truth, and yet itself says that God could not speak salvation into existance. That means that god is indeed not all powerful, but a violent, blood thirsty god who has killed millions just for not believing in him.

Also, if you have a child, and you to have an argument because your child broke your rules and you cast your child out of your house, are you going to forever ban this child from your house? God is no different. The only difference is, most parents are more forgiving and loving than god, and will allow there child back into the house without them having to prove themselves through living a life a absenence and turning the other cheek.

Mercy is not truth. And even if it is, you "god" does not have much of it. The truth is, your god is has an ego problem, and can't get over the fact that his "greatest" creation messes up, and doesn't always do whats best. A truly loving god wouldn't say "because you did not worship me and accept my son, you must now be punished forever." But rather, this god would allow everyone into the paradise realm after all sins are punished, which certainly would not take an eternity to do.

 

I have nothing better to do. If you want, send me the link and I'll team up with you against all these christians, allthough I may not last long before an admin checks the ban button for my account there.

[HuaiDan]

Han's right. Turn the tables. Don't get a position where you have to be defensive. Hot tip when dealing with these types: YOU be the one asking the question forcing them to answer, or look like fools for refusing to answer. I can see Hans' questions leading to a beautifully formed circular argument from your opponent.

 

So your best strategy here is to answer their questions with questions of your own. Also be aware of the difference between objective truth which can be quantified and subjective "truth" which can not, and the semantic juggling they will do to confuse the two.

[HuaiDan]

To help you put them into a defensive mode, you can use a consistency strategy on them. They want to be consistent with their evangelistic principles, right? So why are they seeking answers from you? In other words, remind them that THEY'RE the ones trying to convert or save YOU. Get them to confirm this in posting. They should be the ones giving the answers, to a poor, misguided lamb like you! Only don't be so obvious about it. Then the rest is like a turkey shoot. Just start firing questions like the ones Hans suggested and watch them writhe in their own ignorance.

[Antlerman]

Normally this would be a topic I'd be all over, but I'm tired right now so I'll be brief. What the hell is truth anyway? Are we talking "laws" such as gravity, or agreed upon impressions? If the former then it has nothing to do with knowing anything about a personality such as what someone would need to say about a god, if the latter than it's anything but an absolute, its consensus of opinion. BTW, are you so sure that gravity is an absolute? And what does that mean anyway? Predicatable?

[Ouroboros]

Huai is right.

 

I've noticed that with time I'm becoming more and more of an "inquisitor" (in the definition of "A person who inquires, especially searchingly or ruthlessly"), rather than just stating thing. Somehow I think that is a better approach to lead people (some of them) to a thought process where they start finding the answers themselves. Just to tell someone this or that works only for a very few people. Most of the time (especially with religious people) they are (like me) tied up in a form of pride of what they know. It can only be losened by making them answer the questions they can't answer.

 

After all, "truth" and "asbolute" is just some words, and I'm not sure we all completely agree on what we define in our minds as such.

[Grandpa Harley]

Master and student are sitting by a pond, feeding a carp.

 

How many ponds are there?

 

4

 

The pond as the student sees it

 

The pond as the master sees it

 

The pond as the carp sees it

 

The pond as it really is

 

and none of the first three will ever directly see that

[Ouroboros]

Well that's something to ponder about.

[Guest Marty]

Since someone mentioned gravity, I would remind them that it is the THEORY of gravity, and, just like they would say about evolution, it is ONLY a THEORY, and so it is not absoulute truth.

 

[disEnchanted]

I knew you guys would be good at rebutting what the fundies throw at me. I've been an atheist for at least the last 3 years of my life but I'm new to debating with the fundies. I'm trying my hand at it on that christian board in preparation of debating in "real life" with people who try to "convince" me that their faith is "JUST THE BEST, AWESOME."

 

Sometimes I feel like I really do well with the debates, but other times, I feel like I am being attacked. Of course, that makes me angry and it's hard to think well when you are angry. I know that's what they're counting on.

 

I've taken the jist of what you've given me and posted this morning. I'll let you know what I get in return.

[centauri]

I sometimes read and post on a "christian" website. Lately, I've tried to point out discrepancies in the gospels because someone on the board said there is perfect unity within them. Of course, they don't like what I've come up with and say that I can't accept "absolute truth." When I replied with, "YOUR truth does not equal everyone's truth" I get responses like, "Gravity is absolute truth, even though we can't see it. It's not just my truth or your truth. It is THE TRUTH and my faith is THE TRUTH."

 

Can anyone help me in deciding what to say to that? Of course I believe in some absolute truths (like gravity, for example), but I don't think faith or religion is an absolute. Of course my opinion (to them) means nothing.

 

It's been my experience that fundamentalist apologists can rationalize the ears off of a rabbit.

There's an entire industry set up to rationalize and promote Christian assertions and to demonize anything that gets in its way.

If they want perfect unity to exist in the Bible, then it does.

Theological preferences will trump objective analysis every time.

There is little point in arguing with a such a polarized mind.

 

However, to address your question, the Christian claim about absolute truth is self-serving and hollow.

If they like something the Bible says, it becomes an absolute truth, if they don't then it isn't.

Christianity, primarily Paul worshippers, claim that a human sacrifice did away with the need to follow God's moral absolutes as defined in his law.

There are many verses that make this claim including Rom 10:4, Eph 2:15, Gal 5:18, Col 2:14, and a host of others. Such claims are in direct violation of the Old Testament or Hebrew scriptures.

 

The law is everlasting(Psa 119:160), to be obeyed throughout the generations, and is not to be tampered with by adding or subtracting from it(Deut 4:2).

For example, Christianity claims to be exempt from the dietary laws set down in Lev 11.

However, eating pork and shellfish is abomination to God.

Christianity sets aside God's moral absolute on eating these things and claims it's now perfectly acceptable to consume them.

That's the essence of moral relativism, where laws change with the times and are not absolute.

The expected king messiah was supposed to usher in an era of great compliance with the law.

Ezek 37:24

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

 

Jesus certainly did not fulfill this role, as Christianity has turned people away from the law, claiming that a pagan-like human sacrifice replaced the law.

 

According to the Old Testament, salvation is not found by believing in a false messiah or by being covered by his "blood".

It's found by repenting from sin and keeping the laws of God.

Ezek 18:20-22,27

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

 

There is no one size fits all vicarious human sin sacrifice that saves people.

They save themselves by taking proper action, which is repenting and keeping the law.

There is no "covered by the blood of Jesus" to be found anywhere in this.

Jesus wasn't even a valid sin sacrifice according to the law of God.

 

Psalms 119 may be the longest chapter in the Bible and it's devoted entirely to praising the law.

It's a one chapter refutation of Christianity.

It repeats over and over how the law provides wisdom and righteousness.

Those that turn away from the law have no salvation.

Psa 119:155

Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes.

 

Those(like Paul) that do not teach others based on the law have no light in them.

Isa 8:20

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

As far as Gospel inconsistencies are concerned, there are many, but there isn't much point in arguing about them with believers that will mentally rewrite the scriptures to accomodate their need for perfect harmony.

The "truth" will end up being whatever they want it to be and you might as well be having a dialog with a cinder block.

[jasonwhatever]

Well, I think that the book of genesis has been disproven by science. The overwhelming evidence is that man was not just suddenly created from the dust one day in some paradise garden on earth, when man had never existed before, and that God then created woman to be his helper. And man named all the creatures, and whatever name he named them, that was their name. Rather, the evidence shows that man started as an apelike creature that adapted and evolved into what we are today....those who moved to the equator became tall and dark-skinned to be able to live in the heat; those who moved to the forest became pygmies to be able to hunt in the dark and tight forests; those who moved to modern Europe developed more intellectually toward arts; those who moved far north developed short stocky bodies to retain heat, etc And whatever MEN (not MAN) named things as they discovered them, that is what they are called today. We are still discovering species and naming them to this day.

 

The Galapagos Islands are an example of evolution at work.....of how animals and plants adapt to their evironment; when in a closed system like they are on Galapagos, their bodies and behaviors change to be able to live there. There was a cave discovered a couple of years ago I think in the area of Israel, and the cave had been sealed off by an avalanche thousands of years ago, so there was no entrance in or out and little to no light entered. They discovered it recently and found animals that were from around that area and the sea in the cave. But, they had adapted. They were modified versions; for example on of the fish had lost its eyes and developed the ability to find food in the dark.

 

We know from the fossil records that history has been filled with countless species thriving and dying off to be replaced gradually with other species. If God were constantly keeping tab and creating and filling the earth by constant acts of God coming down and creating, there would be evidence of that as well. No, rather, evolution happens. It's true.

 

 

As far as Absolute truth, it seems to me that an absolute truth is that if God cannot lie or deceive, then His word can not be deceptive or have any lies.

[Ouroboros]

Jason, are you sure man didn't come from dust? After all, doesn't Evolution teach that man came from rocks ... At least that's what the tax frauding Ken Hovind says.

 

You do know that I sometimes try to argue with Christians that the Genesis story supports Evolution rather than contradict it, right? An honest Christian should do what you do, look at science and evidence, and realize that the way we read the Bible isn't necessarily the right way. Because even if the Bible is a "true" document, even so, how we read it and interpret it is very important, and we can't really know which way is the "real" way of reading it. The book becomes true (made to be subjectively true), through the eyes of the beholder.

[disEnchanted]

Okay, here was my response (actually one that I used from you guys) to one post:

Evolution is also "truth". Why don't you believe in that "truth"? Any unbiased scientist will laugh at anyone who claims it is not scientific, or proven. Are you also aware that gravity is a theory, thus meaning it is not 100% truth? Are you aware of the human artifacts that are over 70,000 years old? That is "truth".

 

And here is the response:

Nope. Evolution is not Truth. That is why it is properly called "The Theory of Evolution." Certainly you can Google the definition of a Theory. You will find that the word refers to a concept that is not yet verified but explains certain facts (truths) or phenomena (observations); a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory. But scientific theory is not fact. Case in point, the Theory of Evolution has undergone dramatic change in the last few decades, including a complete change of the thought that the Dinosaurs evolved into present day reptiles. The Theory of Evolution now asserts that they survived as (evolved into) present day birds. Theories change as new data are received, new discoveries are made, and new observations recorded. Truth does not. No scientist (I am one) would ever state that the Theory of Evolution is fact or proven, much less laugh at someone who doesn't state that. And BTW, the dating of human artifacts to 70,000 years isn't really Truth - as a it relies on several assumptions and suppositions (none of which can be proven, but are general accepted becuase we don't have a better way - yet). These include the relative amounts of radioactive carbon isotopes in the environment over time, the concept that if I cannot date an excavated object, I can date objects from the same strata and location and then approximate the age of the un-dateable object.

 

What do you think about this???

[Mankey]

If the former then it has nothing to do with knowing anything about a personality such as what someone would need to say about a god, if the latter than it's anything but

an absolute, its consensus of opinion.

True. However, a consensus of opinion is not necessarily worthless. After all, we do have our physical senses and physical needs in common. Emotional needs differ, but because of how we are all geared we are close enough to each other in how we might feel about things.

 

BTW, are you so sure that gravity is an absolute?

Here, ...I'll push you off a building and well see what happens.

 

And what does that mean anyway? Predicatable?

Got a problem with induction?

 

[Ouroboros]

What do you think about this???

Oh, my holy cute bunny, they spin their words so much that their hair curls up. I'll try to give some ideas later today, but I can't think straight after reading that one. It's like drinking bad whiskey from a moonshine batch your uncle made.

[jasonwhatever]

Whether you call evolution an absolute truth or a theory really doesn't matter. It is just a label for a word; the evidence is what it is.

According to the definition of "theory," the Bible is also a theory, since it is not proven to be truly the word of God.

 

I realize that man was created from dust in a sense, but not just in a singular act. It happened through evolution, not from a mold of dirt being formed by God and made into man.

 

Lastly, if The Bible is meant to be intrepreted according to the reader, then how can anyone ever be responsible for obeying it or not? It is all a matter of opinion and personal bias then. Some say hell is figurative, not literal. Then what is there to fear? And if no fear, then why obey? And if there is a hell, how are we to be blamed for not believing a book that was up to us to interpret the way we wanted? Then we are to blame for not interpreting it the way God wanted, which is contradiction.

 

ANY book that is open to interpretation can be found by a person to be valid under their own personal interpretation, because wisdom is justified of her children.

[Mankey]

Antlermans questions are good ones. In my own moronic way I bumped his questions. You even have a word to google "Induction".

[Mankey]

Pardon me Jason. My mistake.

 

 

 

[Ouroboros]

Whether you call evolution an absolute truth or a theory really doesn't matter. It is just a label for a word; the evidence is what it is.

According to the definition of "theory," the Bible is also a theory, since it is not proven to be truly the word of God.

Kind'a. I guess. I'm not sure if I can understand the meaning of the phrase completely: "the bible is also a ...", since the Bible is a mere object and not a subject or something like that. Basically my question here is what kind of theory is the Bible Theory? Do you mean in the sense of what the things it claims to be true, or theology or...

 

I realize that man was created from dust in a sense, but not just in a singular act. It happened through evolution, not from a mold of dirt being formed by God and made into man.

Amen.

 

Lastly, if The Bible is meant to be intrepreted according to the reader, then how can anyone ever be responsible for obeying it or not? It is all a matter of opinion and personal bias then. Some say hell is figurative, not literal. Then what is there to fear? And if no fear, then why obey? And if there is a hell, how are we to be blamed for not believing a book that was up to us to interpret the way we wanted? Then we are to blame for not interpreting it the way God wanted, which is contradiction.

That's exactly the problem with religion, theology and holy books. They can be read so many different ways (and contradictory) that they really can't be the guidelines for any fully, complete and all encompassing (all agreed) truth.

 

ANY book that is open to interpretation can be found by a person to be valid under their own personal interpretation, because wisdom is justified of her children.

Yup. That's why there's a problem with ideas like "absolute truths".

[dr_funkenstein]

Master and student are sitting by a pond, feeding a carp.

 

How many ponds are there?

 

There is one pond. The master, student and carp are merely experiencing the pond through their brains based on the data given by their senses. These experiences of the pond are not separate ponds, merely images of the one true pond within the minds of the observers.

[HuaiDan]

In a sense, yes. But in another sense each awareness is its own universe. When people think buddhism, chances are this is one existential dilemma they encounter; to what extent is reality subjective, and to what extent is it not?

The pond example doesn't even go that deep into universal doubt, where we stray into a Matrix like world, where one can't be certain whether the man is dreaming he is a moth or a moth is dreaming it is a man. The pond example explicitly allows for an external, objective reality to exist, even going so far to say it is the 'truest' pond, the one that can not be known, whereas the other 3 are limited by the organic senses. Notice how this little parable even shames the master, who is as stuck in his universe of illusion and delusion as is the carp.

[dr_funkenstein]

In a sense, yes. But in another sense each awareness is its own universe.

Not "in a sense" at all. We know through scientific inquiry that this is indeed the case. What I see is not the thing I look at, but rather my brain's interpretation of the thing I'm looking at - including interpolations and whatever else my psyche chooses to overlay on top of that. However, for the most part, our eyes are good enough at forming an image of what exists around us (at our medium-level scale), combined with our other means of ascertaining information about the world around us, for us to know that when we see a 3-dimensional object it is likely to be really there (with some important exceptions of course).

 

To claim that the awareness each entity experiences is a universe unto itself requires either a misunderstanding of, or complete redefinition of what we understand the word universe to mean. It is generally understood to mean the entire set of all matter, energy and time. So to say that each person that views the pond has their own private universe completely changes the meaning of the word universe.

 

It is true however that each person does experience a different awareness, and based on the information available to them, forms their own opinion of truth. However just like the image in their mind of the pond is based on the information given them by their own senses, so the totality of sensory input they receive contributes to a general awareness, and as the brain interpolates and tries to make sense of this information, each brain may arrive at a different conclusion despite the fact that all are gathering their information from reality.

 

Does that mean that sometimes one person's conclusion bears more resemblance to truth than someone else's? Absolutely. In fact, when a person's ability to make sense of the world differs in a very significant way from reality, we understand that it is caused by problems within that person's brain. Such a condition is called schizophrenia.

 

I'll finish up by just saying this. Some things definitely reside within the realm of "shades of grey". By that I mean that there is a great deal of contention with regard to forming conclusions about the truth of some notions. But with others, ascertaining truth is a much more trivial affair.

 

The fact that there is a coffee cup sitting on my table right now is true. It is absolute truth. How do I know this for certain? You can't, as has been so eloquently pointed out. That doesn't mean it's not true. The fact that we cannot hold absolute knowledge about the existence my coffee cup has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the coffee cup really exists. I can know enough about the cup and its relation to the rest of the universe to have a reasonable belief that the cup exists.