"what is truth" Pilate

[Guest rubilynne4]

okay, wow! i love this place. i really do like hearing what you people think, even if i don't agree. so humor me will you? my next question/questions: what is truth?/ (i feel like Pilate here. Heather in NC you know what i'm talking about :D). is there such a thing as absolute truth? if something is true, then would the opposite view not be true, how can two opposing views be true? and please give me a better arguement than it may be true for you, but not me. if the world is round, but i think it's flat it doesn't make it true. one of us is not right. and i'm willing to concede i may be the one that's not right, are you? i admit, i already have a formed opinion, but i'm open minded enough to hear your take on it. maybe we should have a new area to post on the forum. philosophy/religion forum. that would be cool.

Edited July 2, 2010 by rubilynne4

[Guest rubilynne4]

gotta go, but i'll be back later. interested to hear everyone's take on it. yep, even if i don't agree.

[jewellsmommy]

I believe that absolute truth exists. Is what I believe always on the right side of it? I, don't know. But, I believe it exists.

 

The existence of absolute truth is not necessarily the same thing as absolute right and wrong, though.

 

ETA: Getting all philosophical here... what I believe to be true does not make truth. My belief is not made true by virtue of it being what I believe. I hpoe that I believe what I believe because it is true, not the other way around. Even if every person on the Earth denounced this "absolute truth" I don't believe that it would cease to be so.

 

Whew, I hope everyone can follow that.

Edited July 2, 2010 by jewellsmommy

[Parrothead]

I think you may be getting into the difference between truth and fact. There is a lot of that in religious discussions.

 

Really the truth can be anything one wants it to be, maybe only in one's mind, but still. Not so for fact. Maybe the easiest thing to say to distinguish between one and the other is that fact can be proven, truth can't. (I know that is simplistic. Please don't :smash:. I've really had enough)

 

There is no way to get around the fact that the sky as seen standing on Earth is blue. That is fact. But a person who is blue/red color blind may see the the sky as a totally different color. Truth for him is the sky is not blue. One can give him the how and why of the sky being blue - the facts, but for him the truth is the sky is gray.

 

Religious beliefs work the same way. Say you had been born into a different family - a Jewish family. You would have been raised to see the truth of Judaism. Their truth is the Massiah has not come yet. Is that a fact? Well, the Christians don't think so. Our truth is yes, the Messiah is Jesus. Which truth is correct? Well, it is going to depend on which actually turns out factual.

 

An example between Christians. Have you ever looked at a Catholic Bible? There are 7 more books in a Catholic Bible than a Protestant Bible. The Catholic Bible contained the Truth for how many, many years? Then Luther decided the books written in Greek were not truly part of the Canon and had them removed. (I think it was Luther. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Now there is a new Truth for the Protestants.

 

The truth is Protestants do not believe those Greek books are relevant. Fact is those books were removed from the Protestant Bible.

 

Truth is Catholics believe those Greek books are relevant.

Fact is those books are still in the Catholic Bible.

 

So truth by its very nature is subjective. Fact, not so much.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Parrothead

[Spy Car]

okay, wow! i love this place. i really do like hearing what you people think, even if i don't agree. so humor me will you? my next question/questions: what is truth?/ (i feel like Pilate here. Heather in NC you know what i'm talking about :D). is there such a thing as absolute truth? if something is true, then would the opposite view not be true, how can two opposing views be true? and please give me a better arguement than it may be true for you, but not me. if the world is round, but i think it's flat it doesn't make it true. one of us is not right. and i'm willing to concede i may be the one that's not right, are you? i admit, i already have a formed opinion, but i'm open minded enough to hear your take on it. maybe we should have a new area to post on the forum. philosophy/religion forum. that would be cool.

 

Your example of the Earth points up some of the difficulties with "absolute" truth.

 

There are some places on Earth that appear to be "flat" or are "flat" with-in certain tolerances.

 

And the Earth isn't really "round" in an absolute sense. The Earth is roughly spheroidal. There is a bulge at the equator, not to mention mountains, valleys, bodies of water and other other geo-physical entities that are in a constant state of flux that defy attributing the Earth with an "absolute" shape.

 

So sometimes "truth" depends on ones tolerance for error. KWIM?

 

Bill

[Guest rubilynne4]

hmmm, you guys gave me some things to think about. i still, personally think there is an absolute truth. not always sure what that is, although i do believe that i have a grasp on some of it. and by the way spy car, as soon as i typed the whole earth is round thing, i knew someone would pipe in about the earth not being exactly round, but more spherical/with a bulge. :D should've known it would be the great debater (no negative intended). i want to talk more, but it's housecleaning day, so i'll be back later. thanks for indulging me guys.

[Parrothead]

hmmm, you guys gave me some things to think about. i still, personally think there is an absolute truth. not always sure what that is, although i do believe that i have a grasp on some of it. and by the way spy car, as soon as i typed the whole earth is round thing, i knew someone would pipe in about the earth not being exactly round, but more spherical/with a bulge. :D should've known it would be the great debater (no negative intended). i want to talk more, but it's housecleaning day, so i'll be back later. thanks for indulging me guys.

There is an absolute truth. Once we puny humans know for a fact what it is life will be good.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Parrothead

[Guest rubilynne4]

There is an absolute truth. Once we puny humans know for a fact what it is live will be good.

:lol:

[Guest rubilynne4]

okay, i'm supposed to be cleaning my house, but i'm addicted to this place. another question: if you believe in absolute truth, do you (anyone who wants to chime in) believe it's possible to know what that absolute truth is? just in case you want to know what i think, i do think it can be known. also, didn't socrates, or one of those guys believe in a perfect form? is this kind of like absolute truth, if not what exactly did he mean by perfect form?

[Tap]

I do believe in absolute truth but I don't think it is easy to come by. Very, very rare indeed. I think that a truth can not be defined. It only is, what it is. Once someone puts language to it, it is fallible. If I held a rock in my hand, I can say the rock is true. But if I try to define what is true about the rock, there is no way I can make it exact enough to really capture the truth in the rock.

 

In fact it may only be possible with a truth of opinion, not truth of a fact. How is that for heavy.

 

People add to or deduce from the truth based on many factors such as opinion, experience, knowledge, faith, etc. So, unless you can find someone who has no outside influences, all things seen as true, are altered based on perception.

 

Simple truths are out there. "Today I drove ds to physical therapy". Yep, I did. It is true. But it is only accurate today, not tomorrow, based on the word 'today' in the sentence. So, is that a true truth? It was only accurate from the time we got to PT and the PT occured, until 12am tonight. After that it is no longer accurate. It is no longer THE day 'today' that I was talking about.

 

The more precise a truth is, the harder it is to prove. Even scientifically, there are always variances, and each year we are able to measure things with more and more exacting detail and our definitions changes as more options are available. What was perceived as true last year, may now be discovered to be false or at least accurate. Think of the Pluto is a planet argument. It was seen as fact for many, many years, but now it is not. Pluto hasn't changed, it is true. Only our definition of it has changed. Science made it possible to be more exact and thus prove it untrue.

 

 

 

Even our choice of language alters the accuracy of truth. Our language is limited in the possibility of the words we know. If I remember right, there are more words for the color green in the Mandarin language than English. So, someone who defined the same green grass, would be more accurate in Chinese...would this accuracy make their answer more true or the same true as someone who used a less accurate color of green from the English language?

[Melenie]

I do believe in absolute truth, but I do not believe that any of us have or will see it in our fallible human state. Even if we were to see it, I suspect we would not recognize it.

 

I would have to agree with Plato (I think it was Plato - forgive me if I get it wrong) that universal truth exists, but we can see only shadows of it here on earth.

[merry gardens]

Yes, there is absolute truth. There is also subjective truth. Here are a couple of examples.

 

2+2=4 Math provides examples of truth that doesn't change from person to person. The way we derive at the answers in math might differ on occassion, and sometimes more than one answer might be correct, (like in some algebra problems) but ultimately there is an answer to the question, "What is 2+2 ?"

 

Some "truths" do change from person to person or over time. Those are more like opinions or individual preference that hold true for one person but may not hold true for another. For example, my favorite color might not be the same as someone else's favorite color. I might even decide that I like a different color better at another point.

 

While some truths are subjective, absolute truth is not simple an opinion. Absolute truth does not change based on whims and fashions. Truth is truth regardless of whether anyone believes it or not.

 

The belief in no absolute truth is a self-contradictory statement of faith.

[Aubrey]

I believe in absolute truth, but I also have come to appreciate different perspectives. Perhaps every pov/religion/belief is not correct, but if we are walking up a mountain, even up a single path, there may be green grass & trees at one point and nothing but rock and snow at another. Both are absolutely true, even though they seem contradictory in casual conversation.

 

I place a hierarchy on things that I believe. First, God is Love. We should love others as we love ourselves. Everything else, imo, is less important than those two, so if we disagree? Meh. I love an interesting conversation up to the point before someone gets angry or offended. Then? The conversation itself is violating one of my first principles, & it's not worth continuing.

[Guest rubilynne4]

hmmm again. lot's to ponder and think about. thanks everyone for indulging me. here's my take. i think opinion is different from truth. i think preference is different than truth. i think you can hold an opinion that is truth, but an opinion is not necessarily truth. i also don't think an opinion/preference is necessarily bad/wrong, although it could be. i think opinions/preferences can be subjective or objective depending on what it is. i think truth is not subjective. i think we may not like the truth, or want to agree with the truth, but that doesn't make it not truth. next question, hope you still want to play: so, is morality subjective? are there some things that are just true (maybe "right" would be a better word here) morally, and are there some things that are just wrong morally? for example, what hitler did to the jews was morally wrong, and just because he thought it was right did not make it right. are there some things that are just wrong? the question is not necessarily about the "what" is wrong or right, true or untrue, but do you concede that some things (whatever they may be, that's a different topic which i'm also up for discussing if you want) are just wrong/right, true/untrue morally/phlosophically speaking?

[Guest rubilynne4]

I believe in absolute truth, but I also have come to appreciate different perspectives. Perhaps every pov/religion/belief is not correct, but if we are walking up a mountain, even up a single path, there may be green grass & trees at one point and nothing but rock and snow at another. Both are absolutely true, even though they seem contradictory in casual conversation.

 

I place a hierarchy on things that I believe. First, God is Love. We should love others as we love ourselves. Everything else, imo, is less important than those two, so if we disagree? Meh. I love an interesting conversation up to the point before someone gets angry or offended. Then? The conversation itself is violating one of my first principles, & it's not worth continuing.

well said, and great point. i love a good discussion, even with differing views, but i don't like hurtful mean spirited conversation.

[Guest rubilynne4]

I do believe in absolute truth, but I do not believe that any of us have or will see it in our fallible human state. Even if we were to see it, I suspect we would not recognize it.

 

I would have to agree with Plato (I think it was Plato - forgive me if I get it wrong) that universal truth exists, but we can see only shadows of it here on earth.

thank you for clarifying i thought it was socrates. maybe it what both of them. didn't they have a teacher/student relationship. i think the apostle paul also talked about how certain things were shadows/types of the ultimate truth ( i may be wrong, i am still learning also).

[Guest rubilynne4]

oh yeah, totally unrelated comment, but ya me, i've gone up another level on hive mind. guess these lively exchanges help with that. :D

[Guest rubilynne4]

People add to or deduce from the truth based on many factors such as opinion, experience, knowledge, faith, etc. So, unless you can find someone who has no outside influences, all things seen as true, are altered based on perception.

so, are you of the opinion then that absolute truth, even though it exists, cannot be known? do you think it's possible to know the truth? no negativity intended, genuine question.

[Melenie]

thank you for clarifying i thought it was socrates. maybe it what both of them. didn't they have a teacher/student relationship. i think the apostle paul also talked about how certain things were shadows/types of the ultimate truth ( i may be wrong, i am still learning also).

 

As I understand it Socrates never wrote anything. Plato wrote some of Socrates' words down and Plato was his student so most likely they both believed it to be true.

 

oo, I wish I knew where Paul said that. I am just getting into Socrates and Plato and having a great time trying to make sense of it all. As if that is at all possible!:tongue_smilie:

Edited July 2, 2010 by Melenie

[Guest rubilynne4]

As I understand it Socrates never wrote anything. Plato wrote some of Socrates' words down and Plato was his student so most likely they both believed it to be true.

 

oo, I wish I knew where Paul said that. I am just getting into Socrates and Plato and having a great time trying to make sense of it all. As if that is at all possible!:tongue_smilie:

i will find it for you, and get back to you. probably later tonight, after my nap. :D

[Melenie]

"so, is morality subjective?"

 

Yes, I believe it is. I understand morality to mean "standards of right and wrong or good and evil in a society." So yes, it is subject to the societal moral code or conduct.

 

However within that society people have their own codes of conduct and standards of morality both good and bad. (Good and bad here referring to our current social code of morality - killing is bad, loving others is good etc.) Individuals or groups effect change in the moral code of society by being part of the society. What was considered the norm to the ancient Greeks, such as sacrificial animals is considered cruel in our current society.

 

In Hitler's case, he had a previous prejudice against a people or nation. By acting the way he did and by ruling a nation in the direction that he did, he shifted the moral conduct or code of that nation. People felt comfortable doing things inside that code, that they would not do in another society with different codes of morality.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Melenie

[MamaSheep]

One thing I find interesting about discussions like these is that people use so many definitions of words like "truth" and "fact" and "reality" all within the same discussion, and so often it seems as though we wind up talking past each other instead of to each other. Often it seems as though the person asking the question and the person answering the question are not using two different definitions, but don't seem to realize it, and that makes for some awkward disagreements. I think there's a little of that going on in this thread already, and I truly hope it doesn't make for any unpleasantness.

 

For my part, yes, I believe in an absolute truth, by which I mean that I believe that there is a concrete, objective reality--a way things really are. I don't believe that any mortal human being is capable of comprehending the complete absolute truth about much of anything, though we do certainly each have a collection of first-hand perceptions or second-hand knowledge about various portions of it. I also do not believe we are capable of adequately expressing this truth--which should not be surprising, considering we cannot fully understand it. Language is limited, and limiting. However, I do see great value in trying to understand as much of it as we are able, and to sort out what is true and what is not. I see great value in learning about other people's perceptions of that underlying reality, as they give me the opportunity to compare my own perceptions and form opinions regarding how the two perspectives might possibly relate to the underlying absolute reality.

 

To me, "truth" is something that accurately aligns with the underlying, or overarching totality of absolute reality. It represents a thing as it really is, individual or personal perception aside. Something that is not true does not accurately represent that reality.

 

One tricky thing about truth, to me, is that absolute truth seems to me to be a vast, integrated whole--it's not a list of "facts", "statements", "rules" or whatever that stand alone, it's the totality of what is real, and it's all interconnected. So part of the problem in talking about it is that we have to isolate a particular part of it for the sake of discussion. We view a part of it (or something we think might be a part of it) separately from all the connections, all the levels and layers. And I think it is possible to look at two parts of the same whole, and THINK that they contradict each other, when they're really just different parts, or aspects, or perspectives of the whole.

 

From some angles, the Earth does appear flat. From other angles it appears round (with a bulge ;) ). And as has been pointed out, from another angle it appears rather bumpy and wet. But these are all perceptions, isolated from the overarching (or underlying, or pervading?) reality of the Earth, which also includes things like plate tectonics, atmospheric moisture, molecular structure, gravitational pull, reflection and refraction of electromagnetic radiation in the form of light (not to mention a pretty much infinite number of other aspects). Do any of those descriptions (ex. "The earth is round.") fully and completely describe the totality of the "absolute truth" regarding Earth? No, of course not. Does that mean they are "untrue"? I don't think so. I think they can be regarded as "true" if they align with the "absolute truth" sufficently for the purposes of the discussion being engaged in at the time. For a different discussion, a different description might be more appropriate. We have to simplify things so that we can talk about them. Or even think about them. It's impossible for us to wrap our minds around all of it at once.

 

Some of the other examples that previous posters have used seem to me to also fall under this umbrella. For example, I don't think that absolute truth changes, but I do think that absolute truth incorporates the ability to change, as well as the parameters within which that change may occur. For example, I might feel happy at one time and sad at another time--my feelings have changed, but I would still regard the "truth" of my emotions to have remained the same because the "truth" regarding my emotional state is that I have a wide range of emotional experience, all of which is incorporated into a single "whole", which includes the whole range, as well as the kinds of stimulus that might result in my experiencing any given emotion, as well as the possible responses I might offer to that emotion. To me, the individual emotion at any given time is a part of the absolute whole that has been isolated for the sake of observation and evaluation, it is is not, in itself, it's own abosolute and unconnected "truth".

 

Similarly, as was pointed out by a previous poster, most of us perceive the sky as being "blue", whereas a person with color blindness might perceive it as a different color. My take on this would not be that they each have their own "truth" about what color the sky is, but rather that they each have their own unique perception of that portion of absolute reality. The "whole truth" of the color of the sky would have to include things like the nature of electromagnetic radiation, where that comes from, the filtering properties of various substances in the atmosphere, the structure and function of each individual's eye and brain, and a whole lot more. Even if it were possible to describe every aspect of color perception it would certainly be unweildy in an everyday conversation, or even a scientific discussion. So we simplify. I say it looks blue, my friend sees it as a shade of grey. We are both accurately reporting our individual perception of an underlying absolute reality. Are they different "truths"? I don't think so, I think they are different perspectives on the same truth. Kind of a blind men and elephants situation.

 

So yes, I think it's absolutely POSSIBLE for two seemingly contradictory ideas, statements, or perceptions to both be true--IF they both accurately represent some aspect or portion or perception of the underlying absolute, concrete, objective reality.

 

But I also think it's absolutely possible for one of them to be right, and the other to be wrong ("wrong" meaning not accurately representative in any way or to any degree of fundamental objective reality). Or for both of them to be wrong. There are misperceptions, mistakes, misunderstandings, imaginations, hallucinations, incorrect traditions, and even intentional deceit.

 

(I'm not sure I'm doing a good job explaining all this....sigh...sorry.)

 

At any rate, I do find it useful to consider, in hearing anybody's point of view that may differ from mine, that it's possible that we're both "right", but just seeing different parts of the picture, that we're both wrong, or that one of us might be right and the other wrong. And it might be me. It's been known to happen. Actually, I really enjoy hearing other people's point of view because whether I agree with them or not, their different perspective often gives me a new angle to consider that I would not have thought of on my own.

 

And now dh is home with some KFC and I'm going to take my monster headache out there and try to eat some of it. Intriguing discussion. I'll have to check back in again later.

[Parrothead]

okay, i'm supposed to be cleaning my house, but i'm addicted to this place. another question: if you believe in absolute truth, do you (anyone who wants to chime in) believe it's possible to know what that absolute truth is? just in case you want to know what i think, i do think it can be known. also, didn't socrates, or one of those guys believe in a perfect form? is this kind of like absolute truth, if not what exactly did he mean by perfect form?

Yes, depending on the subject matter. A PP already gave an example of absolute truth in mathmatics. Absolute truth about God? I think it is possible, anything is possible. I think only one human has ever known the truth. But that isn't truth. That is faith.

 

so, are you of the opinion then that absolute truth, even though it exists, cannot be known? do you think it's possible to know the truth? no negativity intended, genuine question.

Again it depends on the subject. From a religious stand point, I do think it is possible to know the truth, but not during our life here on Earth.

 

hmmm again. lot's to ponder and think about. thanks everyone for indulging me. here's my take. i think opinion is different from truth. i think preference is different than truth. i think you can hold an opinion that is truth, but an opinion is not necessarily truth. i also don't think an opinion/preference is necessarily bad/wrong, although it could be. i think opinions/preferences can be subjective or objective depending on what it is. i think truth is not subjective. i think we may not like the truth, or want to agree with the truth, but that doesn't make it not truth. next question, hope you still want to play: so, is morality subjective? are there some things that are just true (maybe "right" would be a better word here) morally, and are there some things that are just wrong morally? for example, what hitler did to the jews was morally wrong, and just because he thought it was right did not make it right. are there some things that are just wrong? the question is not necessarily about the "what" is wrong or right, true or untrue, but do you concede that some things (whatever they may be, that's a different topic which i'm also up for discussing if you want) are just wrong/right, true/untrue morally/phlosophically speaking?

Yes.

 

I also believe morality is subjective. Lots of things used to be morally acceptable - slavery, the marriage of 13- 14- year old girls, human sacrifice, and the list can go on and on. Those things are not acceptable in many modern societies. The fact that we can't say all modern societies is in itself proof that morality is subjective.

[Guest rubilynne4]

i think what hitler did, whether today, in our society, or in his society , and in his day was morally wrong. enough people in his day thought it was wrong as well, even within his own society that he had to imprison some of his own people. one such notable person was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a german theologian and lutheran Pastor. so who was right, who was wrong? were hitler's morals at that time right because they were the prevailing ones in his country? i disagree that morals become right or wrong depending upon the society and time. i personally am of the belief that there are some things that are wrong, and some that are right morally speaking. if we allow that morality is subjective, then we can allow for all kinds of atrocities, such as what hitler did. just because a society, or time allows for something does not make it right, even in that society, or time. with that reasoning if enough people in a given time/sociaety say that something is right, then should we who are in the minority just accept that in this particular time/society. after all it's what the society/time dictates is right. change is often fueled by people who stand up and say, no, this is not right, we must stop this. of course the change can also be for good or bad. i am rambling, i just awoke from my nap, but i will be back again. i will bring that reference from the aposlte Paul too.

Edited July 3, 2010 by rubilynne4

[Guest rubilynne4]

one more quick thought. i propose that just because a society/given time has certain prevailing morals it doesn't make them right. i think we are talking about two different things, and it's my fault. the original question may not have been stated well. i will try to rephrase. perhaps morals are subjective to the society, but what i'm getting at is, morally speaking, are some things just morally wrong/right? i propose that there are some things (again what those things are is up for debate as well) that are morally wrong/right whether a given time/society adheres to, or believes it or not. there, does that make more sense. now that it's rephrased how do you answer/what do you think?

Edited July 3, 2010 by rubilynne4

[Guest rubilynne4]

One thing I find interesting about discussions like these is that people use so many definitions of words like "truth" and "fact" and "reality" all within the same discussion, and so often it seems as though we wind up talking past each other instead of to each other. Often it seems as though the person asking the question and the person answering the question are not using two different definitions, but don't seem to realize it, and that makes for some awkward disagreements. I think there's a little of that going on in this thread already, and I truly hope it doesn't make for any unpleasantness.

 

For my part, yes, I believe in an absolute truth, by which I mean that I believe that there is a concrete, objective reality--a way things really are. I don't believe that any mortal human being is capable of comprehending the complete absolute truth about much of anything, though we do certainly each have a collection of first-hand perceptions or second-hand knowledge about various portions of it. I also do not believe we are capable of adequately expressing this truth--which should not be surprising, considering we cannot fully understand it. Language is limited, and limiting. However, I do see great value in trying to understand as much of it as we are able, and to sort out what is true and what is not. I see great value in learning about other people's perceptions of that underlying reality, as they give me the opportunity to compare my own perceptions and form opinions regarding how the two perspectives might possibly relate to the underlying absolute reality.

 

To me, "truth" is something that accurately aligns with the underlying, or overarching totality of absolute reality. It represents a thing as it really is, individual or personal perception aside. Something that is not true does not accurately represent that reality.

 

One tricky thing about truth, to me, is that absolute truth seems to me to be a vast, integrated whole--it's not a list of "facts", "statements", "rules" or whatever that stand alone, it's the totality of what is real, and it's all interconnected. So part of the problem in talking about it is that we have to isolate a particular part of it for the sake of discussion. We view a part of it (or something we think might be a part of it) separately from all the connections, all the levels and layers. And I think it is possible to look at two parts of the same whole, and THINK that they contradict each other, when they're really just different parts, or aspects, or perspectives of the whole.

 

From some angles, the Earth does appear flat. From other angles it appears round (with a bulge ;) ). And as has been pointed out, from another angle it appears rather bumpy and wet. But these are all perceptions, isolated from the overarching (or underlying, or pervading?) reality of the Earth, which also includes things like plate tectonics, atmospheric moisture, molecular structure, gravitational pull, reflection and refraction of electromagnetic radiation in the form of light (not to mention a pretty much infinite number of other aspects). Do any of those descriptions (ex. "The earth is round.") fully and completely describe the totality of the "absolute truth" regarding Earth? No, of course not. Does that mean they are "untrue"? I don't think so. I think they can be regarded as "true" if they align with the "absolute truth" sufficently for the purposes of the discussion being engaged in at the time. For a different discussion, a different description might be more appropriate. We have to simplify things so that we can talk about them. Or even think about them. It's impossible for us to wrap our minds around all of it at once.

 

Some of the other examples that previous posters have used seem to me to also fall under this umbrella. For example, I don't think that absolute truth changes, but I do think that absolute truth incorporates the ability to change, as well as the parameters within which that change may occur. For example, I might feel happy at one time and sad at another time--my feelings have changed, but I would still regard the "truth" of my emotions to have remained the same because the "truth" regarding my emotional state is that I have a wide range of emotional experience, all of which is incorporated into a single "whole", which includes the whole range, as well as the kinds of stimulus that might result in my experiencing any given emotion, as well as the possible responses I might offer to that emotion. To me, the individual emotion at any given time is a part of the absolute whole that has been isolated for the sake of observation and evaluation, it is is not, in itself, it's own abosolute and unconnected "truth".

 

Similarly, as was pointed out by a previous poster, most of us perceive the sky as being "blue", whereas a person with color blindness might perceive it as a different color. My take on this would not be that they each have their own "truth" about what color the sky is, but rather that they each have their own unique perception of that portion of absolute reality. The "whole truth" of the color of the sky would have to include things like the nature of electromagnetic radiation, where that comes from, the filtering properties of various substances in the atmosphere, the structure and function of each individual's eye and brain, and a whole lot more. Even if it were possible to describe every aspect of color perception it would certainly be unweildy in an everyday conversation, or even a scientific discussion. So we simplify. I say it looks blue, my friend sees it as a shade of grey. We are both accurately reporting our individual perception of an underlying absolute reality. Are they different "truths"? I don't think so, I think they are different perspectives on the same truth. Kind of a blind men and elephants situation.

 

So yes, I think it's absolutely POSSIBLE for two seemingly contradictory ideas, statements, or perceptions to both be true--IF they both accurately represent some aspect or portion or perception of the underlying absolute, concrete, objective reality.

 

But I also think it's absolutely possible for one of them to be right, and the other to be wrong ("wrong" meaning not accurately representative in any way or to any degree of fundamental objective reality). Or for both of them to be wrong. There are misperceptions, mistakes, misunderstandings, imaginations, hallucinations, incorrect traditions, and even intentional deceit.

 

(I'm not sure I'm doing a good job explaining all this....sigh...sorry.)

 

At any rate, I do find it useful to consider, in hearing anybody's point of view that may differ from mine, that it's possible that we're both "right", but just seeing different parts of the picture, that we're both wrong, or that one of us might be right and the other wrong. And it might be me. It's been known to happen. Actually, I really enjoy hearing other people's point of view because whether I agree with them or not, their different perspective often gives me a new angle to consider that I would not have thought of on my own.

 

And now dh is home with some KFC and I'm going to take my monster headache out there and try to eat some of it. Intriguing discussion. I'll have to check back in again later.

i thought you said it very well. i hope that no one thinks i am trying for unpleasntness in any way. although i do have my own formed thoughts about this discussion, i really am interested in what others think, and why. soetimes knowing what others think helps me to clarify my own thinking on an issue. as far as definitins go, that is why i restated my last question. i think i did not phrase it well, and perhaps it still isn't. anyway your post was very thought provoking. i agree with many points you made. on others i had a hmmmm, i need to think about that type of moment. ultimately i don't think anyone can know all the intricacies of absolute truth, but i think we can know it in general. i don't know if we are saying the same thing here or not. i also think we can know that there are certain things that are absolutely wrong/right, but not all of the things that are absolutely wrong or right. i definitely think that there are times depending on the perspective a person is coming from that both could be right, both could be wrong, or one or the other only could be right and the other wrong, and the wrong person could be me. however, i also believe that i could sometimes be right and know that too. even if we can't know all the intricacies of absolute truth, it sure is fun searching it out.

Edited July 3, 2010 by rubilynne4

[MamaSheep]

i thought you said it very well. i hope that no one thinks i am trying for unpleasntness in any way. although i do have my own formed thoughts about this discussion, i really am interested in what others think, and why. soetimes knowing what others think helps me to clarify my own thinking on an issue. as far as definitins go, that is why i restated my last question. i think i did not phrase it well, and perhaps it still isn't. anyway your post was very thought provoking. i agree with many points you made. on others i had a hmmmm, i need to think about that type of moment. ultimately i don't think anyone can know all the intricacies of absolute truth, but i think we can know it in general. i don't know if we are saying the same thing here or not. i also think we can know that there are certain things that are absolutely wrong/right, but not all of the things that are absolutely wrong or right. i defintielt think that there are times depending on the perspective a person is coming from that both could be right, both could be wrong, or one or the other only could be right and the other wrong. even if we can't know all the intricacies of absolute truth, it sure is fun searching it out.

 

It sounds to me like we probably agree on this, at least for the most part. I don't think we can know the intricacies of all of it, but I think we can know some of it, and can begin to see a general outline or pattern, even though we don't understand all the details, and we can learn to recognize some things that do and don't "fit".

 

Regarding morals, I know some people won't agree with me, but I believe there are universal moral laws just as there are universal physical laws, and that both are parts of that absolute truth/reality I was talking about before. I also think that it is possible to have different portions of, or perspectives about, those universal moral laws, just like it's possible to focus on a different portion of, or express a different perspective on things like the shape of the earth or the color of the sky--with varying degrees of accuracy and/or completeness of alignment with reality (aka "truth").

 

P.S. I didn't think you were trying to stir up anything unpleasant at all, and didn't mean to come across as suggesting that you were. I was thinking of other, similar conversations and hoping that this one can remain pleasant, even though I've seen conversations on this topic get unfriendly elsewhere. :)

Edited July 3, 2010 by MamaSheep

[Charles Wallace]

I believe that absolute truth exists. Is what I believe always on the right side of it? I, don't know. But, I believe it exists.

 

The existence of absolute truth is not necessarily the same thing as absolute right and wrong, though.

 

ETA: Getting all philosophical here... what I believe to be true does not make truth. My belief is not made true by virtue of it being what I believe. I hpoe that I believe what I believe because it is true, not the other way around. Even if every person on the Earth denounced this "absolute truth" I don't believe that it would cease to be so.

 

Whew, I hope everyone can follow that.

 

I think I get it.

 

Two plus two equals four. It doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree, am Jewish or Christian, on Earth or on Venus or on Andromeda. Two plus two equals four.

[Guest rubilynne4]

Regarding morals, I know some people won't agree with me, but I believe there are universal moral laws just as there are universal physical laws, and that both are parts of that absolute truth/reality I was talking about before. I also think that it is possible to have different portions of, or perspectives about, those universal moral laws, just like it's possible to focus on a different portion of, or express a different perspective on things like the shape of the earth or the color of the sky--with varying degrees of accuracy and/or completeness of alignment with reality (aka "truth").

:iagree:

[Guest rubilynne4]

P.S. I didn't think you were trying to stir up anything unpleasant at all, and didn't mean to come across as suggesting that you were. I was thinking of other, similar conversations and hoping that this one can remain pleasant, even though I've seen conversations on this topic get unfriendly elsewhere. :)

thank you, i do understand what you mean. i also hope it can remain pleasant, even if we disagree. seems that way so far. this is a great training ground for me. i would very much like to be able to express my self with clarity while remaining civil, even in the face of uncivility. i want to be able to reason, and express myself, and my beliefs well, and also remain open to the fact that i don't know it all, and can learn from others. i do have an ulterior motive though, i want to be able to teach my children to do the same. :D i figure if i can learn to do it, then i can teach them as well. i want my children, as well as myself to be able to have discourse with those of differing views without resorting to name calling, accusations, and unfounded generalizations. i think people of all faiths/beliefs do this, but i think there are those in all faiths, beliefs that also do the other as well, remain civil, and try to have open discourse. i want to be in the latter group. i think this is how we learn from one another. Edited July 3, 2010 by rubilynne4

[Guest rubilynne4]

ETA: Getting all philosophical here... what I believe to be true does not make truth. My belief is not made true by virtue of it being what I believe. I hpoe that I believe what I believe because it is true, not the other way around. Even if every person on the Earth denounced this "absolute truth" I don't believe that it would cease to be so.

 

Whew, I hope everyone can follow that.

i get it. very well put.

[Rosie_0801]

I have tried to read the rest of the thread, but I'm not sure my over tired brain has absorbed much of it. I think absolute truth requires far less attention than it gets and there is a lot less of it than we'd like there to be.

 

Rosie

[Shawna in Texas]

I have tried to read the rest of the thread, but I'm not sure my over tired brain has absorbed much of it. I think absolute truth requires far less attention than it gets and there is a lot less of it than we'd like there to be.

 

Rosie

:iagree:

[Guest rubilynne4]

i respectfully disagree. i think that absolute truth was important, and is important enough that many of the great minds of the world past, and present pondered it, and discussed it in great depth.

[Rosie_0801]

i respectfully disagree.

 

With me?

 

i think that absolute truth was important, and is important enough that many of the great minds of the world past, and present pondered it, and discussed it in great depth.

 

I'm not sure anyone could disagree with that. It is not in conflict with what I said, so I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.

 

 

Rosie

[Guest rubilynne4]

I think absolute truth requires far less attention than it gets and there is a lot less of it than we'd like there to be.

 

thank you for helping me to clarify. :D your original statement, and my previous statement are not necessarily in disagreement. i think i assumed something you did not mean. i apologize for that. i do think however, that absolute truth is important enough to require the amount of attention it gets, and perhaps more. i think it would depend on what exactly the absolute truth is. it might be imperative that we give it more attention. now about the second part of your statement i guess i don't know if i agree or disagree, i guess it would depend on how much absolute truth you actually believe there is. we may be in agreement on that part of your statement, or we may not. does this make more sense.

[Rosie_0801]

thank you for helping me to clarify. :D your original statement, and my previous statement are not necessarily in disagreement. i think i assumed something you did not mean. i apologize for that. i do think however, that absolute truth is important enough to require the amount of attention it gets, and perhaps more. i think it would depend on what exactly the absolute truth is. it might be imperative that we give it more attention. now about the second part of your statement i guess i don't know if i agree or disagree, i guess it would depend on how much absolute truth you actually believe there is. we may be in agreement on that part of your statement, or we may not. does this make more sense.

 

 

:D I think those who go in for organised religion are assuming a much larger amount of absolute truth than those who don't go in for organised religions assume. I don't go in for organised religion, so I don't see much absolute truth and what I do see will go along its way without our philosophising. The philosophising needs to be done, it's part of growing up but I'm a rather more practical than theoretical type so I think that chewing and rechewing unanswerable questions is irritating (:banghead:) rather than enjoyable. Pick the answer you like best and move onto a mystery you can solve for goodness sake! (Argh!!!!) Go and DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE for crying out loud!!! And yes, I know some people think contemplating unanswerable questions is productive, but unless they are independently wealthy I still think they need day jobs. :lol:

 

I think conversations about universal truth are a bit like conversations about old fashioned dating rules. They are so confining in some ways, but so liberating in others because at least you know what the right thing to do is!

 

Rosie

[Guest rubilynne4]

:D I think those who go in for organised religion are assuming a much larger amount of absolute truth than those who don't go in for organised religions assume. I don't go in for organised religion, so I don't see much absolute truth and what I do see will go along its way without our philosophising. The philosophising needs to be done, it's part of growing up but I'm a rather more practical than theoretical type so I think that chewing and rechewing unanswerable questions is irritating (:banghead:) rather than enjoyable. Pick the answer you like best and move onto a mystery you can solve for goodness sake! (Argh!!!!) Go and DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE for crying out loud!!! And yes, I know some people think contemplating unanswerable questions is productive, but unless they are independently wealthy I still think they need day jobs. :lol:

 

I think conversations about universal truth are a bit like conversations about old fashioned dating rules. They are so confining in some ways, but so liberating in others because at least you know what the right thing to do is!

 

Rosie

hmmm, it's late, so i'm going to ponder this later. thanks for responding. i do know that i defintiely like to ponder these things, both because i think it's important, but also because i think it's fun. i have the luxury to ponder away because i don't have a day job per se (well, i guess being a full time mom counts, how do i find the time to ponder these deep things, and be a mom too :D). thanks for being respectful of my ramblings, i hope you feel that i also have been respectful to you.

[Heather in Neverland]

I am super busy this weekend and NOW you post a great thread?? :D I can't do a lengthy response but here are my views in a nutshell (and I doubt they will surprise anyone):

 

To paraphrase John Piper: There IS such a thing as absolute truth whether it suits you or not. It is objective and it exists outside of you. You do not create it or define it and one day we will all bow to it.

 

As for morality: Good is that which pleases God. Bad is that which displeases God.

 

If one does not believe in an absolute standard of good or evil by which which to establish morals, then morality becomes nothing more than majority rules. So then if the majority of people in a society decide that a certain thing is OK then it becomes OK until the pendulum swings in another direction. So without absolute truth, morality is nothing but group-think and majority opinion.

 

Kind of scary if you ask me.....

[Peela]

In my understanding, the world of form is made of polarities, so anything manifest- whether it is a thought, a feeling, a quality or a chair- can only be relatively true, never absolutely true.

Hot is hot only in relative to cold. Anger is only anger relative to peace. Even a chair is only a chair because thats what we have decided to call it- otherwise its not really anything.

My understanding is that God (or GUS) is the only thing that is absolute, and everything else exists within and is part of GUS- comes from it and returns to it.

So to me...GUS is the absolute, and everything else is relative.

I dont think we can conceive absolute truth with our human minds, only relative truth. But philosophy and religion are all about getting as close as we can.

[Melenie]

NM

Edited July 3, 2010 by Melenie

[merry gardens]

:D I think those who go in for organised religion are assuming a much larger amount of absolute truth than those who don't go in for organised religions assume. I don't go in for organised religion, so I don't see much absolute truth and what I do see will go along its way without our philosophising. The philosophising needs to be done, it's part of growing up but I'm a rather more practical than theoretical type so I think that chewing and rechewing unanswerable questions is irritating (:banghead:) rather than enjoyable. Pick the answer you like best and move onto a mystery you can solve for goodness sake! (Argh!!!!) Go and DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE for crying out loud!!! And yes, I know some people think contemplating unanswerable questions is productive, but unless they are independently wealthy I still think they need day jobs. :lol:

 

I think conversations about universal truth are a bit like conversations about old fashioned dating rules. They are so confining in some ways, but so liberating in others because at least you know what the right thing to do is!

 

Rosie

Hi Rosie,

I'm a practical person too. I want to share something regarding your statement about some people who "go in for organised religion." Some of us believe Truth is a Person. The Way, the Truth and the Life stood in front of Pilot when Pilot asked, "What is Truth?"

 

You wrote about an unanserable question, and being a practical person you don't waste too much time on it. If one sees religion as a way of trying to have a relationship with the Truth, then taking an organized approach (such as seeking the experience of those who went before us) should make perfect sense to a practical person.

 

Like anything or anyone that we have a relationship with, we can know Truth more or less. How much we know about anything depends upon how much we're willing to get to know the subject, combined with what we've learned from others and our own limitations.

 

And YES! you are very right when you write that we should go and do something productive! Truly religious people don't just sit around pondering theology all day. Truly religious people know and serve The Truth better by knowing and serving others. Service to to others can be hap-hazard, but we can usually accomplish more service by being organized. :)

Edited July 3, 2010 by merry gardens

[Guest rubilynne4]

I am super busy this weekend and NOW you post a great thread?? :D I can't do a lengthy response but here are my views in a nutshell (and I doubt they will surprise anyone):

 

To paraphrase John Piper: There IS such a thing as absolute truth whether it suits you or not. It is objective and it exists outside of you. You do not create it or define it and one day we will all bow to it.

 

As for morality: Good is that which pleases God. Bad is that which displeases God.

 

If one does not believe in an absolute standard of good or evil by which which to establish morals, then morality becomes nothing more than majority rules. So then if the majority of people in a society decide that a certain thing is OK then it becomes OK until the pendulum swings in another direction. So without absolute truth, morality is nothing but group-think and majority opinion.

 

Kind of scary if you ask me.....

well said. yes, it could be very scary. i think of hitler. he was a dictator, but surely he couldn't have done what he did without a lot of people following/supporting him. i don't remember correctly wasn't he initially elected by a majority? :confused:

[Guest rubilynne4]

Hi Rosie,

I'm a practical person too. I want to share something regarding your statement about some people who "go in for organised religion." Some of us believe Truth is a Person. The Way, the Truth and the Life stood in front of Pilot when Pilot asked, "What is Truth?"

 

You wrote about an unanserable question, and being a practical person you don't waste too much time on it. If one sees religion as a way of trying to have a relationship with the Truth, then taking an organized approach (such as seeking the experience of those who went before us) should make perfect sense to a practical person.

 

Like anything or anyone that we have a relationship with, we can know Truth more or less. How much we know about anything depends upon how much we're willing to get to know the subject, combined with what we've learned from others and our own limitations.

 

And YES! you are very right when you write that we should go and do something productive! Truly religious people don't just sit around pondering theology all day. Truly religious people know and serve The Truth better by knowing and serving others. Service to to others can be hap-hazard, but we can usually accomplish more service by being organized. :)

well said.

[ourjourneys]

This is an awesome discussion... I just wish I had time to read all of the posts!

I have been having an ongoing discussion/turned debate with a good friend about absolute truth. She is a fundamental in believing that everyone must find what she feels is the absolute truth (Jesus' salvation) or there is no heaven for them. I have presented the case of the many people who have died not ever accepting her truth (and many not ever having the 'opportunity' to hear that truth).

How can one say that any human being has the absolute truth? I just can not imagine that God Or GUS would be so unfair as to make some people special and hungry for what a group says is the absolute truth and allow others to fall away without accepting. Thus spending eternity in hell as some would prescribe.

My personal opinion about an absolute truth is that there may be one philosophically, but as human beings (without the mind of God - gus) we can only suppose...

As Robert Frost once said... "We dance around the ring and suppose, but the secret sits in the middle and knows"

 

Keep the opinions rolling :lol: This is a wonderful discussion! It is great to hear so many different sides from educated people...

[Guest rubilynne4]

This is an awesome discussion... I just wish I had time to read all of the posts!

I have been having an ongoing discussion/turned debate with a good friend about absolute truth. She is a fundamental in believing that everyone must find what she feels is the absolute truth (Jesus' salvation) or there is no heaven for them. I have presented the case of the many people who have died not ever accepting her truth (and many not ever having the 'opportunity' to hear that truth).

How can one say that any human being has the absolute truth? I just can not imagine that God Or GUS would be so unfair as to make some people special and hungry for what a group says is the absolute truth and allow others to fall away without accepting. Thus spending eternity in hell as some would prescribe.

My personal opinion about an absolute truth is that there may be one philosophically, but as human beings (without the mind of God - gus) we can only suppose...

As Robert Frost once said... "We dance around the ring and suppose, but the secret sits in the middle and knows"

 

Keep the opinions rolling :lol: This is a wonderful discussion! It is great to hear so many different sides from educated people...

i think it's a great discussion too. :D i will have to think about what you said, and get back to you. maybe Heather in NC has an answer about the ppl not hearing thing, etc.

[Guest rubilynne4]

In my understanding, the world of form is made of polarities, so anything manifest- whether it is a thought, a feeling, a quality or a chair- can only be relatively true, never absolutely true.

Hot is hot only in relative to cold. Anger is only anger relative to peace. Even a chair is only a chair because thats what we have decided to call it- otherwise its not really anything.

My understanding is that God (or GUS) is the only thing that is absolute, and everything else exists within and is part of GUS- comes from it and returns to it.

So to me...GUS is the absolute, and everything else is relative.

I dont think we can conceive absolute truth with our human minds, only relative truth. But philosophy and religion are all about getting as close as we can.

i must admit, Peela, that i don't know about the perfect form thing in any depth. i have only learned about it through my conversation with others who have read plato, and such. but now i am more spurred on to read about it. maybe that can be our next thread. :D i do apologize if i misrepresented what perfect form is? i am much more well read on the Bible, than Plato. in my home we read and discuss the Bible in great depth.

[Rosie_0801]

Hi Rosie,

I'm a practical person too. I want to share something regarding your statement about some people who "go in for organised religion." Some of us believe Truth is a Person. If one sees religion as a way of trying to have a relationship with the Truth, then taking an organized approach (such as seeking the experience of those who went before us) should make perfect sense to a practical person.

 

 

I understand, already understood, this point of view, I just don't share it. I thought my pp demonstrated that, but I guess not. Ah well.

 

:)

Rosie

Edited July 3, 2010 by Rosie_0801

[merry gardens]

I understand, already understood, this point of view, I just don't share it. I thought my pp demonstrated that, but I guess not. Ah well.

 

:)

Rosie

Hi again Rosie.:) I understood that you didn't share that viewpoint. Yes, your pp demonstrated that clearly. However, it sounded to me in that post as if you implied that was because you were a "practical person" and that a practical person would not trouble herself much about absolute truth or organized religion. I'm a "practical person" who holds a different opinion on absolute truths and the value of organized religion.

 

I find organized religion to be very practical. You say you don't, so I can totally understand why you say that you don't see much absolute truth. It's not just that those who see more absolute truths practice religion--it's that those who practice religion often discover more absolute truths.

 

That's how I see it. I know you don't share my views-- at least not at the present time.;)

[Heather in Neverland]

i think it's a great discussion too. :D i will have to think about what you said, and get back to you. maybe Heather in NC has an answer about the ppl not hearing thing, etc.

 

I can definitely give an answer to her question but it would be a MAJOR thread hijack. If you are TRULY interested in an answer feel free to PM me. Wouldn't want to proselytize someone who isn't interested, ya know? ;)