Absolute Certainty, Fact, Faith

[Guest Valk0010]

I used to when I was a kid hear over and over again about this things called, absolute truth. The person that kept telling me this was a christian. He would say things likes 2+2=4 and it can't be anything else and the same applies to religion and things like evolution according to him.

 

I have been thinking about this recently and I though it might be a good thread starter.

 

Is there truly absolute truth?

 

Can there be multiple truths?

 

This same person would say when I talked source criticism and the bible, would repeatedly say

 

"Give me facts not opinions." This is in response to me mention the grow of myth and the time it takes.

 

He would ask me also what were my sources how did I find my information.

 

I would tell him things like how I would watch debates and the like, and I have consulted the anthropology professor at the school I go to, and i have done alot of reading into the bible. And I would talk about meanings and source criticism, what would have likely been in the text originally.

 

He would keep saying

 

"That is just opinions, give me facts"

 

What can I say, when things like myth growth correct me if I am wrong is not a set in stone deal. And source criticism is not correct me if I am wrong absolute.

 

What can I say to that? Am I wrong is he right?

[Carmen]

It sounds as if it was the other way around; he was the one giving you opinions, you were giving him facts.

 

I've heard the absolute truth line said a lot, it seems to be a favorite among Christian apologists. They often build up a straw man about nonbelievers, claiming that all nonbelievers are "moral relativists". Then they infer that we nonbelievers can have no morals and no sense of truth because we don't have an "absolute moral standard". This all ties back to the idea that God is the creator of morality.

 

I do think that there is absolute truth, but I don't think we can ever know it for certain. As Voltaire said: "doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

[Guest Valk0010]

It sounds as if it was the other way around; he was the one giving you opinions, you were giving him facts.

 

I've heard the absolute truth line said a lot, it seems to be a favorite among Christian apologists. They often build up a straw man about nonbelievers, claiming that all nonbelievers are "moral relativists". Then they infer that we nonbelievers can have no morals and no sense of truth because we don't have an "absolute moral standard". This all ties back to the idea that God is the creator of morality.

 

I do think that there is absolute truth, but I don't think we can ever know it for certain. As Voltaire said: "doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

He gave me a few facts in the process about the historical jesus that I wasn't aware of, but mostly it was just typical religious speak and the line was a mantra in the conversation

 

"Give me facts not opinions."

 

Amazing Voltaire quote by voltaire

[Shyone]

I used to when I was a kid hear over and over again about this things called, absolute truth. The person that kept telling me this was a christian. He would say things likes 2+2=4 and it can't be anything else and the same applies to religion and things like evolution according to him.

 

I have been thinking about this recently and I though it might be a good thread starter.

 

Is there truly absolute truth?

 

Yes and no. And that's my absolute answer.

 

I think that mathematical proofs would qualify as "absolute truth" because when done strictly and correctly, they are indisputable and agreed upon by everyone. This includes some extrapolations of math such as geometry and trigonometry.

 

Some statements must be qualified. "He is a good man" may be true generally, but no one is perfect.

 

Sometimes claims must be taken in context. Absolute certainty is not the same as absolute truth. The Muslim suicide bomber is absolutely certain he will get his reward in paradise, but that is unverifiable. And likely false.

 

Can there be multiple truths?

 

Yes. But again, some depend on context. Newton's laws of motion are true, but have been qualified by Einstein's general relativity. They are still true in a practical sense. "Evolution occurs by natural selection" is true, but there may be other contributing factors such as genetic drift. It is still true, but not necessarily exclusively true.

 

For most things, we consider probabilities. "This airplane will not crash" is a prediction that will probably come true, but there is a possibility that it will indeed crash. "Aliens have visited the earth" is possibly true, but without substantial evidence corroborating wild claims it remains largely unbelievable. In reality, each is either true or false, but the plane must fly before we will know, and the alien visitation either happened at some time (perhaps in pre-history) or it didn't.

 

We normally don't consider opinions in the realm of truth because there may be sufficient justification for both positions, however this could be considered "multiple truths."

 

This same person would say when I talked source criticism and the bible, would repeatedly say

 

"Give me facts not opinions." This is in response to me mention the grow of myth and the time it takes.

 

He would ask me also what were my sources how did I find my information.

 

I would tell him things like how I would watch debates and the like, and I have consulted the anthropology professor at the school I go to, and i have done alot of reading into the bible. And I would talk about meanings and source criticism, what would have likely been in the text originally.

 

He would keep saying

 

"That is just opinions, give me facts"

 

What can I say, when things like myth growth correct me if I am wrong is not a set in stone deal. And source criticism is not correct me if I am wrong absolute.

 

What can I say to that? Am I wrong is he right?

 

This seems to fit into the opinion category.

 

A more "absolute" question might be, "Does the God of the Christian Bible exist?" The answer should be either a yes or a no, and there may be sufficient evidence to show that it doesn't exist, but since this fails to convince everyone we have to form our own opinions.

 

Like the plane analogy, I would fly on it if the probability is low enough. I do. And with Gods, the probability is even lower, so I don't go to church and I live my life without considering the remote (miniscule, insignificant, neglible, infinitesimal, inconsequential) possibility.

 

As for myth growth in particular, it happens and can be demonstrated (Elvis, aliens, ancient gods, etc.). The question would still remain about whether Jesus mythology fits that paradigm. I think that it has been demonstrated based on the inconsistencies of the New Testament given their approximate dates of authorship and the development of theology after the gospels were written.

[Carmen]

He gave me a few facts in the process about the historical jesus that I wasn't aware of, but mostly it was just typical religious speak and the line was a mantra in the conversation

 

"Give me facts not opinions."

 

Amazing Voltaire quote by voltaire

 

 

But the problem is that the facts didn't come first for him; the opinions did. They start out with the assumption that the Bible is 100% infallible, and they only look for data that backs up their opinions.

 

Ironically, I recently posted that Voltaire quote as a facebook status update, and it got some of my fundy friends REALLY upset.

[ContraBardus]

I've gotten into the 'time it takes for myths to form' argument before.

 

It's total bunk really. There isn't much correlation between the two. Some myths spring up very quickly, well within a generation.

 

It's true it's been made easier since the advent of print, but there are a lot of contradictory examples throughout history of this correlation. Urban Legends are a prime example of this, and often spring up and spread very quickly, even before print.

 

Robin Hood is another example of a legend that grew very quickly and didn't necessarily take generations to spread and become popular.

 

I've heard that some prominent historians make the argument, but have yet to see any actual examples of any direct statements to that effect from any Historian.

 

It is true that some myths do take such time, and I have seen some Historians suggest that it's often the case. However, I've never seen any definitive evidence that the 'time/myth factor' is anything more than a relatively common factor, and not necessarily any kind of concrete rule that defines something as a myth or legend. It's by no means any sort of requirement, and isn't in any set of rules for what makes one.

 

Myths and Legends are often passed by word of mouth, and they often alter and evolve over time. I've never seen any good argument that they aren't often created and spread very quickly.

 

American history is full of prime examples of this sort of thing. Davey Crockett, Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, Calamity Jane, Wild Bill, John Henry, and an assortment of other characters all spread to prominence well within a generation or two, many even without the aid of print and became Legends and Myths of their own.

 

Even though some of them are based on real people, it still doesn't change the fact that the tales themselves are myths of their own, and they have evolved over time as well.

 

The claim is just complete crap, and there are plenty of real world examples that disprove it being told around campfires around the world.

 

There's no reason to believe that the story of Jesus has origins that are any different than those tall tales and legends. The only real difference is that people actually seriously believe them and use them as 'a foundation for their lives'.

 

Some of them may indeed have a grain of truth in them, but most are just complete fabrication.

 

It's just a bullshit argument they like to make that most people don't know how to argue against. However, anyone who knows about folklore can easily provide many examples of legends and myths that directly contradict that claim. 'Washington and his cherry tree' started by Mason Locke Weems is the one I usually bring up first. It spread well within a generation, and the source of it's popularity was not that it was printed, but rather wood carvings that were popular in the early 1800's that were produced depicting the story.

 

The story itself is a very good example because it shows the creation of a myth from conception to modern day easily, and is an excellent example of how quickly such stories can spread. It was widely known well before the man's death, within a few short years actually. Most people couldn't read at the time, and it was spread more by it's depiction in art and storytellers than any sort of printed medium.

 

I love hearing the 'myth/time factor' BS get brought up, because it's so easily debunked.

 

There are absolutely no absolutes.

 

I would tire of his repeated mantra and suggest that if he was actually giving facts of his own, he would be able to provide evidence that they were indeed facts outside of a 2,000 year old book of myths, and that he should first consider following his own advice before criticizing others.

 

I could indeed provide evidence against the 'time/myth factor'. In fact, I just did, easily. He's got nothing but a single source of questionable origins, and has no room to be claiming facts of any sort.

 

I have little patience for that sort of thing.

[Guest Valk0010]

Your wonderful and helpful post

In regards to what you said.

What about oral tradition and the intended passing down with accuracy?

 

Or would it matter, because there is a intent on people usually when they tell a story to tell it as accurately as possible.

[ContraBardus]

Your wonderful post

 

I have a question about what you said in regards to Jesus.

 

What about oral tradition?

 

Most of the legends I mentioned were spread that way.

 

Most myths and legends start out that way and continue to evolve. Most of the people who were telling the stories were largely illiterate, ranch hands, cowboys, and other labor who worked outdoors and moved around a lot. They were largely spread by campfire light as a way to pass the time while relaxing once the day's work was done.

 

The evolution of myths often stops or slows when it's put to print, because print then creates a 'correct' version of the story.

 

All the myths were eventually put to print, but they were almost all already well known tales by the time that happened.

 

The oral traditions that passed down the stories of Jesus, or the whole of the Bible really is probably the same thing. Once it was written down and copies of it were spread, the myth stabilized a bit and the stories became more uniform and kept the elements of the hard copy version more easily.

 

Print does make the spreading of legends and myths faster, but it also prevents the story from altering as much. A lot more than a myth being spread by only oral traditions would.

 

Most people who spread oral stories try to be accurate, but it's the 'telephone game' factor.

 

The same principal applies as when you sit a large ring of people around and whisper a phrase into the ear of the person next to you, the more people who are sitting in the circle the more likely what is said when it gets back to the one who started will be different.

 

Oral tradition has the same problem. Everyone adds something, or takes something away, be it from memory lapses, mishearing, or embellishment, until it barely resembles what the original event or story was. It will likely keep some common factors and structure, but probably won't be much like what it started as initially.

[oddbird1963]

And don't forget the element of feeling moved by the spirit. The original telling of the early church traditions didn't answer all the questions that subsequent believers in Greek/Roman cultures had.

 

Somebody would feel compelled "by the spirit" to fill in the blanks with a story that, well, seemed so real it must be from god.

 

People embellish when they feel like god wants them to.

[Antlerman]

I used to when I was a kid hear over and over again about this things called, absolute truth. The person that kept telling me this was a christian. He would say things likes 2+2=4 and it can't be anything else and the same applies to religion and things like evolution according to him.

It's funny, this very analogy came up just last night in a discussion group I am part of. My answer to him was 2+2=4 does not exist at all prior to human context, as those are ways in which we conceptualize the material world. But, and beyond even that, even within a human context, on the quantum level 2+2 could equal something entirely unexpected, like the square root of 457. So that is not an Absolute.

 

And what he says in comparing the science of mathematics to human social institutions of religion, to the scientific model describing the processes of nature. These are not comparable in evaluation. He is caught up in binary thinking, true/false equations. That is unreality. He is created a straw-solider.

 

I have been thinking about this recently and I though it might be a good thread starter.

 

Is there truly absolute truth?

Absolutely not! Kidding. I personally believe there is, but it is beyond anything we can conceptualize using the tools we have, using the means of perceiving we have available to us. Anyone here who claims to have that is proclaiming the very fact they do not.

 

 

Can there be multiple truths?

Most definitely! Truth is what we understand, or better stated, conceptualize what reality is. That understanding changes and grows, not only in us as individuals, but in us a societies, as cultures, as a species.

 

Conceive of it as rungs on a ladder. When you are on the first rung, you are looking at the world from you vantage point and it looks a certain way to you. You have your system of language you have developed to describe that world you perceive, and those words and symbols become a part of your experience of that world as it appears to you. They become embedded into it, and become a part of the truth of it.

 

Now to someone on that same ladder up on rung 12, their vantage point offers another picture of the world, and they create languages to describe what they see, which likewise becomes a part of their experience of what they see, which they interact with symbolically with other rung 12'vers in a shared reality, a shared truth. But what about the rung 1'er? is he deluded?

 

Now beyond rung 12'ers you have those up at rung 80, or 200, or 1,000. And each of them see's the world from that rung, with their language, with the symbols, with their social interactions, with their shared truth. They all are experiencing reality from the vantage point of where they are at. Now the interesting bit is that those who are on rung 12, cannot conceive of what the world looks like from rung 80, because they have never seen it that way. If they hear descriptions, they hear the language that speaks of reality in truth terms from the rung 80'ers, to the rung 12'ers, they are simply crazy or deluded. That is not reality, it is falsity, a lie! But someone on rung 80, can potentially understand how someone on rung 12 sees the world and why they speak of it as they do, since rung 80 is built upon and dependent on rung 12 in order for their to be a rung 80. They can put themselves there into their past to see it as in the past, but it doesn't go the other way around.

 

All that to say, most definitely there are multiple truths, and more often than not they are simply ways of talking about the same things from different points of vantage. And to make it truly complex, that perception is completely influenced by one's own physical body, their mental states, their social states, their cultural states, all of the above's history, its language symbols, its myths, and on, and on, and on. So your friend is oversimplifying matters, in the extreme. His argument collapses under the weight of how we determine truth.

 

This same person would say when I talked source criticism and the bible, would repeatedly say

 

"Give me facts not opinions."

Simple response is that if he had facts, then why does he argue for faith?

 

This is in response to me mention the grow of myth and the time it takes.

Myths do take time, and they did. The evidence of mythmaking is prolific in the NT texts. The Gospels were not written in 33 AD. Or is he relying on Josh McDowell's unsupportable claim that "not enough time passed"? I would put the burden of proof on him to show exactly his sources that conclude 40 plus years is not long enough time for myths to be created and evolved. That is an error on his, and Josh McDowell's part.

 

Myths can and do evolve quite quickly in the right environment, the right social mix. The world of Jesus' time was ripe for such a flurry of mythmaking activity. He needs to qualify his statements and give you more than his opinion.

 

He would ask me also what were my sources how did I find my information.

You want some sources for this? Point him to the Christian scholar Burton Mack, for one of many.

 

"That is just opinions, give me facts"

He doesn't have facts either. At best we have is the weight of evidence, what answers the problem best. It's about degrees of certainty. And from his rung on that ladder, that evidence best supports how he conceives of the world. That evidence supports his truth. But to you, from your rung, that evidence he has doesn't fit what more you are seeing. To him, you can't see how clear it all is. But to you, you can see how his evidence doesn't go far enough, or fit well enough with how you see it. You are talking in modern English, he is speaking in Old English, conceiving of the world in a mythological framework.

 

What can I say, when things like myth growth correct me if I am wrong is not a set in stone deal. And source criticism is not correct me if I am wrong absolute.

 

What can I say to that? Am I wrong is he right?

Nothing is set in stone. That's to power of evolution, of human growth potentials, of understanding and depth. He conceives of the world as set in stone.

 

Please read this. It may help you. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/logic.htm

[skepticalme]

I used to when I was a kid hear over and over again about this things called, absolute truth. The person that kept telling me this was a christian. He would say things likes 2+2=4 and it can't be anything else and the same applies to religion and things like evolution according to him.

 

While 2+2=4 is correct in most cases it is not always. In base 3 math 2+2=11 and in base 4 math 2+2=10.

 

I have been thinking about this recently and I though it might be a good thread starter.

 

Is there truly absolute truth?

 

No, there are only probabilities. For example, if you know a particles velocity then that particle does not have an absolute position. It exist as a field of probable positions. In fact, the greater degree of precision to which you know its velocity the larger its field of probable positions. This is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. All of quantum mechanics is ruled by probability and uncertainty. If a single particle has no absolute truth then what does that tell us about all the other things we think we know. Now, on the macro scale there are probabilities that are so great that they can be treated a truth, but since they are still probabilites then they cannot be absolute.

 

Can there be multiple truths?

 

Of course. See, superposition.

 

This same person would say when I talked source criticism and the bible, would repeatedly say

 

"Give me facts not opinions." This is in response to me mention the grow of myth and the time it takes.

 

Most people treat thier opinions as fact and all all facts contrary to thier 'facts' as opinion.

 

He would ask me also what were my sources how did I find my information.

 

That was probably the only reasonable thing that they asked. Its always important to know how you know things. Just remember that is a two-way street for them as well. Challenge them on how they know the things they think they know.

 

I would tell him things like how I would watch debates and the like, and I have consulted the anthropology professor at the school I go to, and i have done alot of reading into the bible. And I would talk about meanings and source criticism, what would have likely been in the text originally.

 

He would keep saying

 

"That is just opinions, give me facts"

 

Again, challenge them on thier 'facts'.

 

What can I say, when things like myth growth correct me if I am wrong is not a set in stone deal. And source criticism is not correct me if I am wrong absolute.

 

What can I say to that? Am I wrong is he right?

 

I'm not really sure what you mean by myth growth, its not an argument I'm familliar with (or at least know by that name). What is the argument you were presenting and how were you using it?

[Guest Valk0010]

 

I'm not really sure what you mean by myth growth, its not an argument I'm familliar with (or at least know by that name). What is the argument you were presenting and how were you using it?

 

I was saying that in the amount of time that pasted between the supposed time of the events and there documentation that myth could become apart of the story

 

He said that that couldn't off happened peoples memories are to good for something like that to happen.

[ContraBardus]

People's memories are never good.

 

That's why science does not accept eye witness testimony. It's the absolute lowest tier of evidence there is.

 

Even in courts eye witness testimony is only supportive evidence that must be backed up by physical evidence.

 

The only thing worse than eye witness testimony is hearsay. Which is indirect eye witness testimony.

 

There's a reason police reports are not admissible as evidence in court you know.

 

I'm not really sure what you mean by myth growth, its not an argument I'm familliar with (or at least know by that name). What is the argument you were presenting and how were you using it?

 

Check my first post on this page, it explains what he means by that pretty well.

 

It's basically the mistaken idea that myth takes a certain amount of time to form, evolve, and spread, where as true accounts spread faster.

 

In other words, it's the idea that if I create an account of something and it spreads quickly enough, the account must be true because lies take more time to form and spread over a region.

 

The basis is that myths take a century or two to develop and spread, where as accurate accounts spread within a few years.

 

I've heard apologists try to pull this one before, and it's easily debunked by anyone with a passing knowledge of folklore and urban myths.

[Antlerman]

I was saying that in the amount of time that pasted between the supposed time of the events and there documentation that myth could become apart of the story

 

He said that that couldn't off happened peoples memories are to good for something like that to happen.

See what I said above about this. He is making a bald assertion and basing his entire premise supporting his beliefs on that. Let's see him support that assertion first. Until then, he has nothing. Again, point him to those Christian scholars who in fact accept that the NT is laced with created mythologies. You have him on this point.