A resounding question reverberates off the halls of logic regarding the nature of truth. People often ask how anyone can have the right to declare something true and thereby declare other things false by default. However, this question is fraught with problems brought on by the errant application of ethics to the nature of truth.
When anyone puts forth a proposition of truth that which is contrary to that proposition is logically false. There is no possible way to avoid the reality of the dichotomy of true versus false. Even the person who levies the charge that “it is wrong to present that another’s view as false” is advocating a truth claim, which means, if true, this person is also wrong. It is a self-defeating statement and thus defies rationality.
(to read the rest of the essay please click here to go to Helium.com.
Note (I am not directing this to atheism, but the essay came about from questions I have heard regarding truth outside of this blog).
19 comments:
karla said: Truth, then, is a matter of what lines up with reality.
You like that phrase don't you. You certainly use it a lot.
Anyway, surely that depends on what you view as reality? For example, your idea of truth lines up with your idea of reality - the one with God in it. Whereas my idea of truth lines up with my idea of reality - the one *without* God in it.
How would we determine which view of reality is correct? Because if we can't we shall continue going around the same old arguments getting nowhere fast.
Yes I do like using that phrase because it is often something people need to be reminded of, I have many conversations out side of this forum that just keep coming back to this.
"Anyway, surely that depends on what you view as reality?"
No, my view has no bearing on that statement. Truth is what lines up with whats real regardless if my view of reality is real or not. The whole point is to keep adjusting our view with the real when we encounter what's real.
"How would we determine which view of reality is correct?"
I did provide a practical framework for coming to this in the last few paragraphs of my article. I think it is a continual process of renewing of our minds with what is true.
karla said: No, my view has no bearing on that statement.
I think it has every breaing. We obviously have very differents views about what is real. There is probably some underlying reality to what we are both seeing but - as you also point out quite a lot - we can't both be right.
So - how can we determine which of our views are more correct? How cab we have such vastly differening views in the first place?
karla said: The whole point is to keep adjusting our view with the real when we encounter what's real.
How can we know what's really real if we keep seeing different things - despite looking at the same world?
karla said: I think it is a continual process of renewing of our minds with what is true.
But we can't agree on what is true - can we? We seem to have singularly failed so far.
"I think it has every bearing. We obviously have very different views about what is real."
We do have different views of what is real. But don't we share the view that there is a real and that it remains real regardless of our learning about it's reality?
I'm saying that our views do not change what is, thus have no bearing on the real. They have plenty of bearing on our lives and our handling of what we think is true, but I can believe cows fly all day long and they still won't defy gravity.
"There is probably some underlying reality to what we are both seeing but - as you also point out quite a lot - we can't both be right."
Yes there is truth to what we are both saying but we are interpreting what we observe about the world differently. We both see an orderly nature. We both accept that that nature is real and that we can learn how it works through science. I think we both accept that there is a stable reality out there to know, that is isn't not continually changing and relative.
"So - how can we determine which of our views are more correct? How can we have such vastly differening views in the first place?"
I know you won't like this response, but when we use a little faith to trust God (faith He gives us by the way, you do have it) He can open our understanding to see how all the pieces have been pointing His direction all along. It's like their is a blindness over us that hinders our full sight, we can see enough of the truth to reach out for more and as we do that blind fog that we thought was clear seeing begins to fall away and we begin (not fully--we know in part) to see reality in it's unveiled form and we see it's true glory. Yes, I am speaking of a spiritual process. A process that leads not only to a better understanding factually of the world but a relational oneness with the Truth Himself. A truth that not only satisfies our intellectual inquiry but also our heart's desires. That deeper need within us to be known and be loved.
I'm sorry if this line of response is out of the box for you, but I just felt that I couldn't really answer what you were getting at any other way. And this is the most honest response I can give you. You ask good questions, and you deserve a full answer and that answer is spiritual in nature the way I see it.
"I know you won't like this response, but when we use a little faith to trust God (faith He gives us by the way, you do have it) He can open our understanding to see how all the pieces have been pointing His direction all along."
Karla, this is demonstrably false.
Using a little faith to trust god has given us thousands upon thousands of religions and breakaway sects within those religions. When two groups disagree on a theological point, they end up breaking away from each other and forming two different churches, never to reconcile again. It seems that having faith in the power of god to give you truth actually leads people away from reaching consensus on what truth is. This is undeniable.
Contrast that with science. When there is disagreement, tests are devised and empirical results are found and the disagreement is settled. One side will have lost while the other will have won, because one side will be better at representing reality. (I'm not saying that stubborn people won't still hold to the losing side, but eventually the side of empirical evidence wins out.) There is no analog for this in religion. There is no way to test whether your religious claims are any better than mine, ck's, Ted Haggard's, or anyone else's. You might claim that we can go to the Bible, but that's not a surefire way either, because interpretations of the Bible are also up for grabs. And, this is only for Xian conceptions. If I make up a god that is not Biblically based (or anyone else believes in one) then we are truly at an impasse. You will claim that you believe in god X and it is true, and I will believe in god Y and it is true.
In short, relying on faith is not a help to solving what is true or coming to consensus, it's a hinderance. This is one thing I've been getting at by pointing out that we don't actually learn things from religion, that religion is NOT a way of knowing about the world.
Anon, yes there has been division in the world between people who believe in God and within the Christian circle. Actually in the Church there is a shift right now that is unprecedented in unity where many from the plethora of denominations and movements are coming together regardless of their doctrinal differences and are bonding through their common relationship with Jesus. It's just beginning to take shape, enough that it is noticeable to those on the inside. Soon the world will see it too. I see value in every movement and denomination within the Church and I welcome them all as family.
I see truth in all religions which is not the same as saying all religions are true. Soon the false will be apparent and the true and the real will be recognizable more than it is now to those watching from afar. I can't prove that to you, and I'm not going to try.
What I said to Cyber still stands and it was just me talking to Cyber in the manner in which I see relevant.
karla said: I'm saying that our views do not change what is, thus have no bearing on the real.
You *really* should read up on Quantum Mechanics then..... [grin]
karla said: I know you won't like this response, but when we use a little faith to trust God (faith He gives us by the way, you do have it) He can open our understanding to see how all the pieces have been pointing His direction all along.
So you keep saying. Personally I view "opening up to God" as a way to cloud our view of 'the real' rather than illuminate it.
karla said: Yes, I am speaking of a spiritual process. A process that leads not only to a better understanding factually of the world but a relational oneness with the Truth Himself.
I do not personify Truth, Reality or whatever. Nor do I recognise so-called 'spiritual processes'. I regard such things as noise and gibberish.
karla said: I'm sorry if this line of response is out of the box for you, but I just felt that I couldn't really answer what you were getting at any other way.
It's not 'out of the box' - at least not from you - it's simply completely meaningless to me. But at least you didn't quote Scripture for which I am grateful.
karla said: And this is the most honest response I can give you.
Then it appears we have a serious communications problem - but I already knew that!
karla said: You ask good questions, and you deserve a full answer and that answer is spiritual in nature the way I see it.
Oh, I like asking questions - as you can tell. I'm afraid though that I get few answers here that I think of as actual answers.
Karla,
Rising numbers of congregants in megachurches doesn't denote a coming together of Xians in unity. Face it, the statement you made is in error, regardless of who it was directed to. You stated that we need to put faith in god to come to truth, yet that's not what happens, as is shown by the empirical evidence. Even if it is true for you personally, the fact that so many other religions persist is evidence that the statement is not true in general.
"Soon the false will be apparent and the true and the real will be recognizable more than it is now to those watching from afar. I can't prove that to you, and I'm not going to try."
You're right not to try and to admit that you can't, because the evidence is against you. The numbers of religions has grown over the years, not shrunk.
"What I said to Cyber still stands..."
I don't see how you can make that statement in defiance of the empirical evidence.
Anon, I'm not going to argue with you. Your response shows you don't understand what I meant, and I really don't have a reason to press it with you.
Cyber, if God is the real than He would be the way to true knowledge. So my statement is consistent with His existing.
Karla,
Your responses show that you really have no clue what you are talking about. You can't get to "truth" by imagining what it is and then trying to fit the world into what your preconceptions are. That's the process that you are talking about when you say that one must first have faith in god in order to get to "truth." This is the wrong way around, and it is empirically falsified. If that's not what you meant, then you should clarify. If it is what you meant, then you should face the facts and adopt your "worldview" to fit with the facts, the way you claim that you do.
I'm not imagining the reality of God. I am trusting in Him because of the evidence of His reality and I see that He is the firm foundation of knowledge and thus it is from Him that I seek to gain understanding about the world as well as through the senses and reasoning tools He has designed me with. My faith is thus rested securely and not blindly in Him giving me sight and clarity to see the real by His enabling.
"I'm not imagining the reality of God."
You've already admitted to me before that you can't know that god exists. So, therefore, you are assuming god and then using that assumption as an absolute and trying to fit everything to that assumption. That's a textbook case of begging the question.
Or, are you going to tell me that you do know that god exists and make us go around and around again on your claims of infallibility, etc.
Anon, I most certainly maintain that you can know God exists and that you can know Him personally, as I do. I know that He exists and I have relationship with Him. I believe it was you who told me it was dishonest of me to make these claims, but I have stuck by them.
Except you don't know those things. A demon could be tricking you. Your imagination could be tricking you. There's all kinds of explanations for why your personal feelings seem to indicate to you that a god might exist, but you don't know it is so.
So, it's all begging the question. You can't base "truth" on a logical fallacy. Assuming your conclusions just leads to confirmation bias and bad conclusions. That's how we got epicycles, for instance.
So you'll allow for one supernatural creature to argue against the other? I'm sorry that doesn't really hold water, you'd be using the Christian worldview to defeat the Christian worldview.
"So you'll allow for one supernatural creature to argue against the other?"
I'm sorry, but are you really that dense? I've answered this multiple times already, and yet you keep coming back at me with the same pablum? Really.
One more time...even if we accept a supernatural event, there's no way of telling one from another. It could be a demon or another god, etc.
"I'm sorry that doesn't really hold water, you'd be using the Christian worldview to defeat the Christian worldview."
Do you honestly think that only the Xian worldview holds to supernatural causes or demons? Do you think that another god (like Shiva) couldn't be responsible? C'mon. This is simply ridiculous.
But you don't accept a supernatural event, so you would need to give me a natural explanation when giving a response instead of saying things you don't believe like it could have been a demon or another god.
Also, you have a lot of opinions about what I can't know, yet you can't prove I don't know it.
"But you don't accept a supernatural event, so you would need to give me a natural explanation when giving a response instead of saying things you don't believe like it could have been a demon or another god."
I'm sorry, but this is just dense. As I said (for the umpteenth time) - and please try to pay attention - even if we accepted a supernatural explanation, which I don't, you can't determine which supernatural explanation is responsible. It's ridiculous that you can't understand simple logic.
"Also, you have a lot of opinions about what I can't know, yet you can't prove I don't know it."
You prove it yourself by spouting off utter nonsense. But, WRT the demon vs. god thing, you yourself have admitted as much.
Post a Comment