The Philosophy of Truth | INFJ Forum

The Philosophy of Truth

Altruistic Muse

Altruistic Muse

Community Member
Apr 6, 2009
593
69
0
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
4?
Having just viewed an interview between Brandon Flowers and Richard Dawkins, I'm now considering the importance of truth. Dawkins substantiates truth as factual and requiring proof. I have since looked up the word and no definition I can find supports this view, and yet Dawkins discounts the entire concept of religion based on "truth". As a Christian, I would suggest that there are two elements of truth. There is factual, objective truth that can be proven by evidential investigation. Then there is spiritual truth, a sense of "knowing" something to be true, which is a feeling, and completely subjective, but no less real. How anyone can try to base feelings on fact, when they lie at opposite ends of a spectrum, is totally beyond me. Any thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: knight in battle
Then there is spiritual truth, a sense of "knowing" something to be true, which is a feeling, and completely subjective, but no less real. How anyone can try to base feelings on fact, when they lie at opposite ends of a spectrum, is totally beyond me. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think the problem is exactly what you said, "faith" (or spiritual truth) is subjective. There is nothing wrong with having "faith", it just isn't science, and it isn't really grounds for a convincing argument in a debate.
 
Altruistic Muse said:
Having just viewed an interview between Brandon Flowers and Richard Dawkins, I'm now considering the importance of truth. Dawkins substantiates truth as factual and requiring proof. I have since looked up the word and no definition I can find supports this view, and yet Dawkins discounts the entire concept of religion based on "truth". As a Christian, I would suggest that there are two elements of truth. There is factual, objective truth that can be proven by evidential investigation. Then there is spiritual truth, a sense of "knowing" something to be true, which is a feeling, and completely subjective, but no less real. How anyone can try to base feelings on fact, when they lie at opposite ends of a spectrum, is totally beyond me. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

One answer might lie in trying to bring science into spirituality

For example Carl Jung, who you've quoted in your signature, interviewed many people in his career which gave him a large sample pool in his research and arguably some scientific credibility when he talks about the intangible realm of the unconscious

I think this divide you are outlining here can be seen in debates going on at the moment on this forum; in my opinion both sides are valid but are supposed to compliment each other not conflict. Each are tools that humanity has to work with. The problem comes when one side doesn't recognise the validity of the other
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kgal
muir said:
I think this divide you are outlining here can be seen in debates going on at the moment on this forum; in my opinion both sides are valid but are supposed to compliment each other not conflict. Each are tools that humanity has to work with. The problem comes when one side doesn't recognise the validity of the other
Click to expand...

Exactly this! As my boyfriend says, science explains the how and when, religion explains the who and why...why can't they both be seen as equally "true". Dawkins does my head in.
 
MrDoobie said:
I think the problem is exactly what you said, "faith" (or spiritual truth) is subjective. There is nothing wrong with having "faith", it just isn't science, and it isn't really grounds for a convincing argument in a debate.
Click to expand...

So what Dawkins is saying, then, is that it isn't valid because it isn't science. Why does it have to be? Ha, I know it's exasperating for the Atheist, but that's what it boils down to. I believe. Why? I just do. Is it proven? No, it doesn't need to be, I just know it's true. Simple as. I'm not trying to compare it to science, I don't know why he is!
 
Altruistic Muse said:
So what Dawkins is saying, then, is that it isn't valid because it isn't science. Why does it have to be? Ha, I know it's exasperating for the Atheist, but that's what it boils down to. I believe. Why? I just do. Is it proven? No, it doesn't need to be, I just know it's true. Simple as. I'm not trying to compare it to science, I don't know why he is!
Click to expand...

Because a lot of the faithful are trying to compare it to science. Look at anyone who wants Creationism taught in science classes.

But his problem is people who are simply satisfied with "I feel that way, so it just is that way!"

Imagine you were talking to someone who was insisting that grass was purple, and they just felt that way, so if they felt that way than it must be true.

Now imagine that a person was willing to kill you. Because they felt that the grass was purple.

There are many reasons to criticize faith and religion.
 
MrDoobie said:
Because a lot of the faithful are trying to compare it to science. Look at anyone who wants Creationism taught in science classes.

But his problem is people who are simply satisfied with "I feel that way, so it just is that way!"

Imagine you were talking to someone who was insisting that grass was purple, and they just felt that way, so if they felt that way than it must be true.

Now imagine that a person was willing to kill you. Because they felt that the grass was purple.

There are many reasons to criticize faith and religion.
Click to expand...

That's a good explanation, and I understand what you're saying. However surely that's adding a whole new level to the problem. Religion is the biggest killer, the root of all evil, blah blah blah. I'm not saying people don't use it as an excuse for power-trips. but it's such a fail-safe, everyone always falls back on it. That isn't the argument here. If the grass is green, and someone is saying it is purple, that's a fact that someone is disputing. A feeling can't change a fact, that's delusion. However in the spiritual realm, when you're talking about divine presence, how can anyone say "no, I think you'll find the Holy Spirit isn't working within you". It's an invisible force and a feeling that is based on a subjective truth! Dawkins can hate religion (and he clearly has a lot of hatred in him, for some reason), but he can't dispute that, or explain it away.
 
is it possible to have a conversation about truth without debating?

can we agree that debating is a waste of time? probably not...

what can we agree on?

i know that one can understand something, yet not know how to put that knowledge into words

sometimes heart perceives what the mind cannot
 
Altruistic Muse said:
Having just viewed an interview between Brandon Flowers and Richard Dawkins, I'm now considering the importance of truth. Dawkins substantiates truth as factual and requiring proof. I have since looked up the word and no definition I can find supports this view, and yet Dawkins discounts the entire concept of religion based on "truth". As a Christian, I would suggest that there are two elements of truth.
Click to expand...

I think this is where you cause confusion. Your assertion that there are two elements of truth.


There is factual, objective truth that can be proven by evidential investigation. Then there is spiritual truth, a sense of "knowing" something to be true, which is a feeling, and completely subjective, but no less real.
Click to expand...

You are stating this as though it were fact. What you know, you may or may not know to be true for yourself.
But it is not true, because regardless of where you have searched for a definition, truth will be something we can all accept as fact. And what you feel has nothing to do with fact. You created an argument out of nothing.
Its a logical fallacy, false analogy or bifurcation. IMO


How anyone can try to base feelings on fact, when they lie at opposite ends of a spectrum, is totally beyond me. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I don't think they lie at opposite ends. I think they have nothing to do with each other.
 
Pilate, the Roman procurator, asked the perrenial question, "What is truth?".

Truth, in my opinion, is that which is ultimately real, genuine and lasting (as opposed to falsehood which is transitory and does not last because it's foundation is fleeting and of an ephemeral nature).

Plato believed that the ultimate truth (or reality) was in the Forms and the things of this world were just pale shadows of that reality. Thus, truth, real truth from which everything derives its being, is beyond our five senses.

Thus, Truth, in and of itself, would have to be an objective reality in order to be true and self-authenticating. Our experience of truth, however, could be subjective and sometimes blurred by our conceptions and world-views.

I would submit, thought, that empirical science cannot discount ultimate reality and truth just because it cannot be measured by our five senses. To discount that which you can neither prove nor disprove is no longer the realm of science but of prejudice (whether for or against).

Christians believe that God is truth because He is the ultimate being and the ground of all reality and the thing from which all reality derives. Since this world is transitory, we believe that it is somewhat of an illusion and that we are actually deceived by our five senses into clinging onto this world as if it was THE TRUTH while we deny the ULTIMATE TRUTH (at least this is the Eastern Orthodox Christianity view). Ultimate Reality, truth, in the EO expression, cannot be measured by the empirical senses but must be grasped by the soul. Since we are fallible humans, truth becomes subjective to us because of a veil that distorts and blurrs our vision but truth, in and of itself, is always objective and not subject to change.

Anyway, that is just my thoughts on the subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
Here is an pretty interesting explanation, from a Kabbalistic perspective, on Reality. Although I may not agree with everything he says, I do, nevertheless, think it does a good job at differentiating our "reality" from "The Reality" and, IMO, I think it hits "the nail on the head" (as the saying goes).

Of course, this is philosophical in nature and cannot be proven but the Original Poster (OP) just asked for "our thoughts" so I am only presenting this as my own, personal opinion and a good philosophical explanation differentiating our reality from ultimate reality and Truth.

Also, a disclaimer: I am not a Kabbalist but an Eastern Orthodox Christian. We believe, however, that truth can be found anywhere and we do not mind enjoying it wherever we may find it. I personally believe there are many similarities (and dissimilarities) between Kabbalah and Ancient Christianity which both have roots in Second Temple Judaism.


[video=youtube;KsH7u23kS0I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsH7u23kS0I[/video]
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
^I agree with that, Patrick.

For me, it's not that subjective feelings or intuited 'knowledge' are unreal/don't exist, it's that the process of bringing them into the realm of reason or 'putting them into words' distorts what they are… and religions are traditionally about this very process.

If there are intuitive 'truths' in the universe, then they're probably inarticulable… talking about/writing about them doesn't actually produce them. It's like trying to explain sadness to someone who has never been sad-- the old cliched scene in Terminator 2 where Arnie keeps asking John Connor why humans cry. Nobody can say why they cry, they just 'know'… and the more you try to talk about it/explain it, the more you're muddling your experience with all kinds of a posteriori conclusions about meaning, nature, etc... because you're not really expressing the 'truths' you feel, you're only expressing interpretations of those truths.

And because all interpretations are inaccurate, and because religions are, essentially, collected interpretations of truths, all religions are therefore inaccurate, or at the very least redundant… and probably corrupt. If the point is to celebrate truth, then the best way to do that would probably be to shut up about it and stop trying to figure it out or tell other people what it is.

On the other hand, I don't really believe in truth… but that's just my personal belief.
 
Patrick Williams said:
Here is an pretty interesting explanation, from a Kabbalistic perspective, on Reality. Although I may not agree with everything he says, I do, nevertheless, think it does a good job at differentiating our "reality" from "The Reality" and, IMO, I think it hits "the nail on the head" (as the saying goes).

Of course, this is philosophical in nature and cannot be proven but the Original Poster (OP) just asked for "our thoughts" so I am only presenting this as my own, personal opinion and a good philosophical explanation differentiating our reality from ultimate reality and Truth.

Also, a disclaimer: I am not a Kabbalist but an Eastern Orthodox Christian. We believe, however, that truth can be found anywhere and we do not mind enjoying it wherever we may find it. I personally believe there are many similarities (and dissimilarities) between Kabbalah and Ancient Christianity which both have roots in Second Temple Judaism.


[video=youtube;KsH7u23kS0I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsH7u23kS0I[/video]
Click to expand...

Good video!

People have mentioned the holy ghost in this thread.....the holy ghost is the feminine principle....it is wisdom, sophia, the anima and it is the guiding light that is mentioned in your kabbalah video.....its that point when you learn to connect with a greater reality

People who are thinking too much with the left brain are not going to understand this and because they don't get it they will keep saying to those who are having a spiritual experience that they are talking rubbish. They need to open themselves up to possibility and let go of old perceptions after all isn't that what has really always driven science forward?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back