Jump to content

Why Is Agreement Of Truth So Hard To Attain


Guest end3
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just thinking even between people that believe mostly the same, there is still a huge difference in finding unity of realtive truth. I mean we can talk to others for years and still never have a really shared unity. Just asking why I guess. I realize there are the easy ones.....experience, culture, etc. but I think it goes deeper than that in that we can have shared experience and culture an still have a pretty decent gap. Probably a myriad of things, but intuitively I wouldn't think it should be this hard for mutual parties to agree on "truth".

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
  • Super Moderator

There is truth, and then there is Truth. Some truths can be demonstrated or proven and we can either accept that as fact or choose to ignore the evidence. Then there is what I call the philosophical truth. That is nothing more than opinion or guesswork on those concepts which have no evidence available to us in this reality. Of course, nobody will agree on such a thing as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is truth, and then there is Truth. Some truths can be demonstrated or proven and we can either accept that as fact or choose to ignore the evidence. Then there is what I call the philosophical truth. That is nothing more than opinion or guesswork on those concepts which have no evidence available to us in this reality. Of course, nobody will agree on such a thing as that.

 

But even with sytems that we can demonstrate "proof", they are still complex on a some scale. So I would speculate that proof would be relative. No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental reason is that people like that misunderstand "truth". Truth is still true even when nobody believes it. Religious people act like the word "true" means "one of my favorite beliefs". Two religious people often have different lists of "favorite beliefs". However they can all be false (which means that none of them are true).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental reason is that people like that misunderstand "truth". Truth is still true even when nobody believes it. Religions people act like the word "true" means "one of my favorite beliefs". Two religious people often have different lists of "favorite beliefs". However they can all be false (which means that none of them are true).

 

So you're advocating an absolute truth without human perception?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental reason is that people like that misunderstand "truth". Truth is still true even when nobody believes it. Religions people act like the word "true" means "one of my favorite beliefs". Two religious people often have different lists of "favorite beliefs". However they can all be false (which means that none of them are true).

 

So you're advocating an absolute truth without human perception?

 

Yes. You cannot violate the law of gravity no matter how you respond to it nor what you perceive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental reason is that people like that misunderstand "truth". Truth is still true even when nobody believes it. Religions people act like the word "true" means "one of my favorite beliefs". Two religious people often have different lists of "favorite beliefs". However they can all be false (which means that none of them are true).

 

So you're advocating an absolute truth without human perception?

 

Yes. You cannot violate the law of gravity no matter how you respond to it nor what you perceive.

 

How or by whom would that be defined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental reason is that people like that misunderstand "truth". Truth is still true even when nobody believes it. Religions people act like the word "true" means "one of my favorite beliefs". Two religious people often have different lists of "favorite beliefs". However they can all be false (which means that none of them are true).

 

So you're advocating an absolute truth without human perception?

 

Yes. You cannot violate the law of gravity no matter how you respond to it nor what you perceive.

 

How or by whom would that be defined?

 

By gravity.

 

Black holes have been running this universe for billions of years before we figured out what is happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Why is it? Well because a bit like how you put a crayon and a piece of paper in someones hands, thinking allows for various ideas, and by just the nature of things, they are not always good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental reason is that people like that misunderstand "truth". Truth is still true even when nobody believes it. Religions people act like the word "true" means "one of my favorite beliefs". Two religious people often have different lists of "favorite beliefs". However they can all be false (which means that none of them are true).

 

So you're advocating an absolute truth without human perception?

 

Yes. You cannot violate the law of gravity no matter how you respond to it nor what you perceive.

 

How or by whom would that be defined?

 

By gravity.

 

Black holes have been running this universe for billions of years before we figured out what is happening.

 

Yikes. I've never seen gravity on Star Trek. Maybe Kirk didn't go to that alien planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental reason is that people like that misunderstand "truth". Truth is still true even when nobody believes it. Religions people act like the word "true" means "one of my favorite beliefs". Two religious people often have different lists of "favorite beliefs". However they can all be false (which means that none of them are true).

 

So you're advocating an absolute truth without human perception?

 

Yes. You cannot violate the law of gravity no matter how you respond to it nor what you perceive.

 

How or by whom would that be defined?

 

By gravity.

 

Black holes have been running this universe for billions of years before we figured out what is happening.

 

Yikes. I've never seen gravity on Star Trek. Maybe Kirk didn't go to that alien planet.

 

Did I spell it wrong? Look, I'm sorry if I spelled it wrong. If the spell checker doesn't warn me I am hopeless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wester

Truth is so hard to attain because it is damn hard to prove that anything is true beyond mathematics.

 

We can all agree that 2 + 3 = 5, but beyond that, you're on your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth is often hard to convey because people have structures of reality they want to maintain at all cost, these structures can be supported by evidence but then there are those that are supported by fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really bothers me about the "factual" brand of perception is it appears so limiting.....nothing out of the box. If a body is a conglomeration of "living", then what is the earth? What is the Universe? No, let's just stick with factual thought.....it's safer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really bothers me about the "factual" brand of perception is it appears so limiting.....nothing out of the box. If a body is a conglomeration of "living", then what is the earth? What is the Universe? No, let's just stick with factual thought.....it's safer.

 

Living in fact is not exactly limiting of imagination, only what imaginative ideas can be proven into facts once they come into existence by hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth is often hard to convey because people have structures of reality they want to maintain at all cost, these structures can be supported by evidence but then there are those that are supported by fear.

 

Yes, but there are also walls built of evidence out of fear as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really bothers me about the "factual" brand of perception is it appears so limiting.....nothing out of the box. If a body is a conglomeration of "living", then what is the earth? What is the Universe? No, let's just stick with factual thought.....it's safer.

 

Living in fact is not exactly limiting of imagination, only what imaginative ideas can be proven into facts once they come into existence by hypothesis.

 

Sounds rather sterile to me K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

What really bothers me about the "factual" brand of perception is it appears so limiting.....nothing out of the box. If a body is a conglomeration of "living", then what is the earth? What is the Universe? No, let's just stick with factual thought.....it's safer.

 

Living in fact is not exactly limiting of imagination, only what imaginative ideas can be proven into facts once they come into existence by hypothesis.

 

Sounds rather sterile to me K.

Its more true to reality.

 

For example, are you just going to believe cause it feels good or because its true. Maybe I don't care so much about avoiding nihlism. But I would figure fact is more important then purpose any day. If you are trying to answer the why before we got a answer for how, like say you get in religious cosmological arguements for god, then your in trouble because its a house of cards to data. And for your bible that isn't exactly good enough. It doesn't say sort of believe on jesus and be saved, it says believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really bothers me about the "factual" brand of perception is it appears so limiting.....nothing out of the box. If a body is a conglomeration of "living", then what is the earth? What is the Universe? No, let's just stick with factual thought.....it's safer.

 

You don't seem to mind using computers and internets created from that "so limiting" perception. I'm sure you also use cars designed from such a limiting perception. And phones. And buildings designed under that perception . . . and on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Since you like rough Christian analogies end I will make one.

 

Alot of early christians, would say that, applicable concepts to christianity that had been seen in paganism were signs of the pagans getting closer and closer to the truth of christianity. Now I find that hard to believe for a different reason then I will mention here but the principal is the same there as it is in science.

 

You wittle down the dumb ideas that are without evidence and just plain wrong, till you get ultimately a accurate sense of reality from the best of your knowledge. Its the same kind of principal that Christians badly applied to paganism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental reason is that people like that misunderstand "truth". Truth is still true even when nobody believes it. Religions people act like the word "true" means "one of my favorite beliefs". Two religious people often have different lists of "favorite beliefs". However they can all be false (which means that none of them are true).

 

So you're advocating an absolute truth without human perception?

 

Yes. You cannot violate the law of gravity no matter how you respond to it nor what you perceive.

 

How or by whom would that be defined?

 

I doesn't need to be defined to exist. Our definitions can only approximate truth. Think of it this way, Pi has an exact value, but any attempt we make to assign a sequence of numbers to define it is only an approximation. It exist natually and would still be there governing the shape of stars and planets even if nobody was around to define it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thinking even between people that believe mostly the same, there is still a huge difference in finding unity of realtive truth. I mean we can talk to others for years and still never have a really shared unity. Just asking why I guess. I realize there are the easy ones.....experience, culture, etc. but I think it goes deeper than that in that we can have shared experience and culture an still have a pretty decent gap. Probably a myriad of things, but intuitively I wouldn't think it should be this hard for mutual parties to agree on "truth".

 

Excellent question, End!

 

 

"Why Is Agreement of Truth So Hard to Attain?"

 

Because each and every one of us has our own agendas, our own vested interests and our own world-views. There may well be one absolute truth, but each of us has our own individual model of it inside our heads. Imho, these models, "in here" (taps forehead with index finger) are very rough approximations of the absolute reality that is "out there" .

 

Agreement as to what the Truth is, is hard to attain because of something called the human will.

 

Even if everyone could somehow agree to use the same methodology, the same descriptions and the same processes of logic there still wouldn't be complete harmony and agreement as to what the Truth really is. This wouldn't be because of a failure of dialog or lack of data or anything like that. No. The stumbling block lies in each of us. Since we all have our own inner models of reality, when the external evidence shows us that our own model of reality is wrong we are then forced to make a decision. This is where the human will comes into play. Or should I say, the human won't...?

 

It's up to us to exercise our powers of choice and do the following.

 

1. ACCEPT.

To accept the evidence, to realize that our inner model of reality is wrong and to change our view of what is True.

 

2. DENY.

To reject the evidence, to consciously choose to stick to our cherished inner model (in spite of the contradictory evidence) and to continue believing that our inner model is the Truth.

 

3. SELECTIVELY ACCEPT.

To consciously choose to accept only some of the evidence and to reject the rest, altering our inner model just a little, so that what we believe to be True now agrees with some of the evidence, but not all of it.

 

As you'll know End, I'm an amateur astronomer, so here's two worked examples of what I mean.

 

This guy... http://en.wikipedia....ki/Eratosthenes accepted the evidence of his eyes and used his brain to work out the circumference of the Earth, the distance to the Sun and other remarkable facts about the natural world. He did this in a time of superstitious beliefs, where Gods, Demigods, spirits, ghosts and witchcraft were accepted and believed by almost everyone. However, Erastothenes freed himself from all of this and used his inquiring mind to discover important truths about the world. Sadly, his insights and achievements were swept away and forgotten for centuries.

 

Now fast forward 1,800 years to when this guy... http://en.wikipedia....Galileo_Galilei started using a telescope to discover new facts about the Moon, the planets and the stars. At this time the Roman Catholic church held it as a matter of absolute truth that while the Earth was blighted and corrupted by sin, the heavens were the perfect and unchanging abode of God and His angels. Therefore, when Galileo used his telescope to project an image of the Sun, onlookers couldn't accept what their eyes told them.

 

They saw dark imperfections and blemishes (sunspots) on what should have been the perfect and flawless face of the Sun. Unable to accept that the infallible Church was wrong about the heavens, Galileo was accused of placing dark spots in the tube of his telescope to make the Sun appear flawed and imperfect. These devout people made the conscious choice to deny the evidence because acceptance of it threatened their cherished and comforting inner models of reality and truth.

 

Now lets bring ourselves right up to date.

 

People are still choosing to deny and reject rigorously tested and accredited evidence, even when this comes in the shape of accurately confirmed predictions. They aren't exercising their human will so much as their human won't - consciously and deliberately refusing to accept anything that challenges what they believe SHOULD be the Truth.

 

Agreement of the Truth is so hard to attain because there are those who never accept what the evidence says it is, in favor of what they WANT it to be.

 

This explains why there are hard core Christian fundamentalist Creationists who deny that the Earth is a sphere. Because the Bible describes the world as flat - that's an end of the matter. Some Creationists deny that the Earth goes round the Sun - for the same reasons as above. Ditto Evolution, Quantum Physics, Cosmology, Anthropology, Genetics and anything else that doesn't square with scripture.

 

It's got nothing to do with a lack of evidence or the poor quality of the evidence or even where the evidence comes from, End. Nope. It's got everything to do with what people want and that's a matter of personal choice.

 

So, my answer to your question is as follows...

 

...it's so hard to reach agreement on the Truth because there will always be those who want it to conform to what they WANT. They cannot and will not accept any evidence that contradicts their inner models of what they think the truth SHOULD be. That's why I began by talking about personal agendas and vested interests. Some people will always serve their agendas and their interests, even if it means denying the evidence of their own eyes and ears.

 

Hmmm... that's kinda sad, don't you think?

 

BAA.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really bothers me about the "factual" brand of perception is it appears so limiting.....nothing out of the box. If a body is a conglomeration of "living", then what is the earth? What is the Universe?

I like it when you bring about thoughts like this, but ...

 

No, let's just stick with factual thought.....it's safer.

This is a potshot because you don't like naturalists. Your sarcasm shines through your writing.

 

Make up your mind. Do you want to discuss issues or do you want just open up discussions for cheap punches?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really bothers me about the "factual" brand of perception is it appears so limiting.....nothing out of the box. If a body is a conglomeration of "living", then what is the earth? What is the Universe? No, let's just stick with factual thought.....it's safer.

 

Living in fact is not exactly limiting of imagination, only what imaginative ideas can be proven into facts once they come into existence by hypothesis.

 

Sounds rather sterile to me K.

In other words, you don't want to discuss the issues or your question but just get a chance to yell "I don't like it!"

 

Your question is interesting, but your attitude forces me to leave the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.