Truth or Truthiness?
- Thread starter La Sagna
- Start date
Also like in the great Star Trek movie where they met God. If a creature came to earth claiming to be God, parted a few seas, healed the sick, turned water into wine etc... how would we know that creature was really God and not just some advanced alien messing with us? Maybe the creature goes so far as to make endorphin levels rise in our blood stream or whatever chemical makes us feel love so that we are more prone to listen to it. Though in the end, it is not the God of the bible.
One shouldn't conflate moral compunctions with truth. They are not the same.
Truth doesn't require a universal standard either. It doesn't have to be universal, it just has to be true. If I hit somebody and they fall down, then the truth is that I hit them and they fell down. Universality is moot because even if for some strange reason I exist in two worlds and in one of them I never hit anybody, it's still true in the other world. It might not be right, certainly not universal, but it is still true.
Maybe we should just vote for a "truth speaker" and accept that whatever they say is true. Seems simpler.
What truth is and knowing what is true are also totally different things.
Knowing the truth is a whole other ballgame in fact.
I agree with this a billion percent.
I guess a 'universal truth' can exist without the idea of God. The idea of God is essentially a subjective truth.
I suppose there are different types of truths - moral truths, natural truths, physical truths, etc.
A question popped in my head reading this thread... and it reminded me of [MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] : if we believe in a truth enough, does that make it true?
Well like I said earlier, there's what is true and what you think is true.
Often when we say true we really mean "what we consider to be true". Some times it is justified consideration. It may be very well reasoned out, some times even apparently self evident.
But that's not what makes a thing be true. Being true is what makes it true, whether you know or think it is true or not.
What's true in my house? What did I have for lunch? What is in the middle compartment on my desk? There are true things in there and they are true whether you know them or not.
interesting!
I was kind of thinking along the lines of: 'if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound if there's no one there to hear it?' ...it a truth only as true as the belief we have in it?
I think this is getting into philosophical territory that I'm not equip to understand!
I'm going to stick with my pragmatic view - some things are objectively true, and some things are subjectively true - depends on the context and question!
I had to read the article to understand from where that is comming.
In christian doctrine, there is the doctrine of revealed truth, from God. Its called the doctrine of revelation.
Conform to this teaching, truth can not be fully known by our human reasoning. The greatest genius, the smartes philosopher can not discover the truth fully. Just parts of truth, just some of the truth.
This is the ignorance of humanity. Why God let it so? So us to understand how small and incapable we are. So that nobody can come trhought pride before God, just humility. The Bible says God has made the smart ones, the great ones, the poweful ones, the wise one, something foolish, something whithout understanding.
I think this comment:
comes from the perspective of truth as unitar, the unity of truth. There is that saying "All truth is God's truth", meaning that every truth points toward a standard, toward God.
When he is saying "if there is no God, then there is no final authority for right and wrong, truth or falsehood." he makes refference to the laws of reason, that we intuitively recognise as a axiom. From where these laws of reason originate? This is also intrinsically tied to order and sense, because reason is order. So how do we really accept as truthful our valid reasoning against our invalid reasoning? How do we know that some reasonings are valid and some or invalid in a logical sense? In other words, what makes logic and reason to be so? We must accept that valid reasoning is something objective, which has a basis. And if we go on this line, we must accept that the foundation for valid reasoning comes from a mind. Who is this mind? It is the mind of a man, or is the mind of something else? here is a from of the argument by C.S. Lewis:
1. Since everything in nature can be wholly explained in terms of nonrational causes, human reason (more precisely, the power of drawing conclusions based solely on the rational cause of logical insight) must have a source outside of nature.
2. If human reason came from non-reason it would lose all rational credentials and would cease to be reason.
3. So, human reason cannot come from non-reason (from 2).
4. So human reason must come from a source outside nature that is itself rational (from 1 and 3).
5. This supernatural source of reason may itself be dependent on some further source of reason, but a chain of such dependent sources cannot go on forever. Eventually, we must reason back to the existence of eternal, non-dependent source of human reason.
6. Therefore, there exists an eternal, self-existent, rational Being who is the ultimate source of human reason. This Being we call God (from 4-5). (Lewis, Miracles, chap. 4)
So in light of the argument, the answer to your question:
is that if there is no God, we wouldn't be capable of understanding truth. If it wouldn't be God, there wouldn't be reason to know and understand the truth.
Truth is not just about factual and practical propositions.
truth is also about metaphysical propositions, like "Stealing is objectively moraly wrong", or "Logic is non-contradictory in its nature".
Thus truth is absolut, and it does require a universal standard, a absolute standard.
One shoudn't make the very popular error of separating truth from the mind.
If it weren't any minds, any people to think, truth would still exist? NO and NO. Truth is tied inherently to intelligence and understanding, and comprehension. In a absence of a intelligent agent, the concept of truth wouldn't exist. Do you have a mind? You have the concept of truth and knowledge of truth. There is no mind, there is no knowledge, and there is no truth.
In one sense, truth is independent of the mind, but for the very reason that mind exist. If there would be no intelligent agent, no reason, no logic, no order, and finaly no mind, truth wouldn't exist.
If it weren't any minds, any people to think, truth would still exist? NO and NO. Truth is tied inherently to intelligence and understanding, and comprehension. In a absence of a intelligent agent, the concept of truth wouldn't exist. Do you have a mind? You have the concept of truth and knowledge of truth. There is no mind, there is no knowledge, and there is no truth.
In one sense, truth is independent of the mind, but for the very reason that mind exist. If there would be no intelligent agent, no reason, no logic, no order, and finaly no mind, truth wouldn't exist.
Hmmmm....a question that has been around since mankind evolved....and I have the answer? lololol
I have ideas....lol
Everything must be filtered through our senses....which do not give us a whole picture of anything...that includes our mind.
Certain animals see in UV (and some people believe it or not after having cataract surgery) so where you would see a plain yellow flower...a cat for example would see a pattern of stripes on it....or would be able to see where a fellow cat or animal has marked their territory. It has even been inferred that they can see electromagnetic fields somewhat. Well you combine their visual experience, with their sense of smell and hearing, then the process through their mind...their view of reality is incredibly different than ours is.
Our problem as humans is that we take what we have at face value many times and don’t stop to realize that we are not the end-all on what reality actually is.
Do voices actually exist for a schizophrenic? For them, it is absolutely true...it is a truth to them...you can tell them it’s in their own head...and they may even realize that they have a mental illness...but telling yourself it doesn’t exist would actually be a lie...because it is, in fact happening.
I used the sky being blue as an example on another post...it isn’t really blue....that is our perception of the variable in the light frequently and wave...it is how we interpret it. And besides that, who is to say that because it looks blue to me that what I have been taught to be blue from birth, actually looks green to you...but you were taught it was blue, and so for you, it IS blue - would that then be a truth? Perhaps to you... ex falso quodlibet, "from a falsehood, anything follows” or
ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet, "from a contradiction, anything follows”.
We could never say anything to be absolutely true because our perspective is not all encompassing.
If an ant were walking across a sidewalk it’s perception is incredibly different....it doesn’t know, nor would it understand that we are on a round planet flying through the universe....all it can know is the reality within the confines of it’s intellect.
Semper excelsius - means ‘always higher’ it is the thought and idea that there is no absolute, there is only the next step. There is something beyond our intellect...and then again beyond that...it is the ego of mankind that makes us think we are the pinnacle of thought and evolution physically, mentally, and spiritually.
Society generally CHOOSES what it wished to hold and make true...but that doesn’t mean it is.
Perhaps only mathematics holds some form of truth...1+1=2...although, it can be picked apart if one were so inclined....lol.
Here's an example on the Web that proves 1 = 2: http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~eww6n/math/Fallacy.html
And here's a "proof" that 1 + 1 = 1:
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/problems/mayer9.4.97.html
and another that 2 = 1:
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/problems/wall10.3.97.html
Finally, here's a good discussion of several "proofs" like this:
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/
Even after we die...we may not see the whole picture...we either blink out, or continue on...but once again....I believe there will always be a higher state of reality and truth.
Last edited:
Truthiness is a kind of gut feeling right? I'd say gut feelings are what can be compared to scientific theory in that 'this person is going to treat me badly because as I am watching him treat others I am gathering that he doesn't respect others unless they agree with him and I don't agree with him on many things.' Gut feelings are deductions, whether you know that you're doing it or not you're deducting whether or not you would be ok or safe or happy or sad or whatever with a certain group of people, things, what-have-you. Gut feelings is one coming to a conclusion based on facts. It's theorizing where you belong in a certain place and whether or not it would be good for you. Those first five minutes of talking to someone you already have a gut feeling about them regardless of you knowing the exact details as to why, you feel that he/she is a good or bad person. From there you choose to go against your gut or with it. It is still a theory though, based on facts. It's why the phrase 'trust your gut' exists.
IS TRUTH RELATIVE?
(A dialogue between Socrates and Protagoras)
Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion.
Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?
Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective.
Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?
Protagoras: Indeed I do.
Scorates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.
Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.
(A dialogue between Socrates and Protagoras)
Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion.
Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?
Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective.
Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?
Protagoras: Indeed I do.
Scorates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.
Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.
Interesting. But I think in this case the difference between knowing something is possible and knowing something can be done is key.
The person's belief that they can fly will be likely surrounded by doubts, fears and so much 'evidence' to say that he can't. Not to mention feelings about the spectators.
It would require absolute certainty in every aspect of his being to actually fly...which is more or less impossible for almost all humans. Too many distractions.
But certainly people can do remarkable things when they know for sure that they can and usually have understanding as to why this is possible.
I think the apparatus is in place, but largely unused for good reason.
You have a 'belief' that humans can fly under certain circumstances. That doesn't make it a truth. It is a theory that if certain factors are in place the result would be a human flying. It may be the truth but unless there is proof it cannot be considered an objective truth. The lack of proof doesn't make it untrue but without proof you also cannot discount the possibility that it is untrue.
It's the same with any belief system. There is an objective truth but without concrete proof it cannot be called an objective truth because it would be objective only if there was a consensus that it was true, otherwise it is subjective. The truth may be that there is a God, and anybody can adopt this belief as a subjective truth, but without a consensus and concrete proof you cannot call it an objective truth or 'the truth'. That is why it is called 'faith'.