What is truth?

[ivanm]

• Tweet

http://carm.org/secular-movements/relativism/what-truth

The following article was written by an ordained minister.  I think he dances around the anwer just as Mornac does. Look at paragraph 5 of the article to see his dancing.

by Matt Slick

"What is truth?" is a very simple question.  Of course, answering it isn't so simple.  We can offer definitions like "Truth is that which conforms to reality, fact, or actuality."  But this basic definition is not complete because its definition is open to interpretation and a wide variety of applications.  What is reality?  What is fact?  What is actuality?  How does perception effect truth?  We could offer answers for each of these questions, but then we could again ask similar questions of those answers.  I am reminded of the paradox of throwing a ball against a wall.  It must get half way there, and then half way of the remaining distance, and then half of that distance, and so on. But, an infinite number of halves in this scenario never constitutes a whole.  Therefore, it would seem that the ball would never reach the wall if we applied the conceptual truths of halves.
 
The ball-against-the-wall scenario simply illustrates that defining and redefining things as we try to approach a goal actually prevents us from getting to that goal.  This is what philosophy does sometimes as it seeks to examine truth.  It sometimes clouds issues so much, that nothing can be known for sure.
 
But, even though it is true that an infinite number of halves (1/2 of "a" + 1/2 of the remainder + 1/2 of the remainder of that, etc.) does not equal a whole, we can "prove" that it does by simply throwing a ball at a wall and watching it bounce off.  Actually, the "1/2" equation above does not equal a whole -- mathematically.  The problem is not in the truth but in its application, as is often the case with philosophical verbal gymnastics.
 

"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ," (Col. 2:.
 
In order for truth to be defined properly, it would have to be a factually and logically correct statement.  In other words, it would have to be true.  But, perhaps we could look further at truth by determining what it is not.  Truth is not error.  Truth is not self-contradictory.  Truth is not deception.  Of course, it could be true that someone is being deceptive, but the deception itself isn't truth.
 
In relativism, all points of view are equally valid and all truth is relative to the individual.  If this were true, then it would seem that this is the only truth relativism would have to offer.  But, the problem is that in reality, relativism isn't true for the following basic reason.  If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?  1) If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false.  2) If you say yes, then relativism is false.  Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that truth is not self-contradictory.
 
Again, what is truth?
 
If there is such a thing as truth, then we should be able to find it.  If truth cannot be known, then it probably doesn't exist.  But, it does exist.  For example, we know it is true that you are reading this.
 
Is there such a thing as something that is always true all the time?  Yes, there is.  For example, "Something cannot bring itself into existence."  This is an absolutely true statement.  In order for something to bring itself into existence, it would have to exist in order to be able to perform an action.  But if it already existed, then it isn't possible to bring itself into existence since it already exists.  Likewise, if it does not exist then it has no ability to perform any creative action since it didn't exist in the first place.  Therefore, "Something cannot bring itself into existence" is an absolute truth.
 
The preceding example is a truth found in logic, but there are truths that are not logical by nature.  It is true that I love my wife.  This isn't logically provable via theorems and formulas and logic paradigms, but it is, nevertheless, true.  Therefore, we can say that truth conforms and affirms reality and/or logic.
 
Is this what relativism does?  Does relativism confirm to reality and logic?  To be honest, it does to some degree.  Relatively speaking, there is no absolute right or wrong regarding which side of your head you should part your hair, if you part it at all.  To this we must concede relative "truths" that are different for different people.  But, these are relativistic by nature.  Examples of relativistic truths are: 1) people drive on the right side of the street in America and the left in England; 2) I prefer to watch science fiction over musicals; 3) snow is better than rain, etc.  These things are relative to culture, individuals, preferences, etc., and rightfully so.
 
If we ever hope to determine if there is such a thing as truth apart from cultural and personal preferences, we must acknowledge that we are then aiming to discover something greater than ourselves, something that transcends culture and individual inclinations.  To do this is to look beyond ourselves and outside of ourselves.  In essence, it means we are looking for God.  God would be truth, the absolute and true essence of being and reality who is the author of all truth.  If you are interested in truth beyond yourself, then you must look to God.
 
"I am the truth"
 
For the Christian, the ultimate expression of truth is found in the Bible, in Jesus who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6).  Of course, most philosophers and skeptics will dismiss His claim, but for the Christian, He is the mainstay of hope, security, and guidance.  Jesus, who walked on water, claimed to be divine, rose from the dead, and said that He was the truth and the originator of truth.  If Jesus is wrong, then we should ignore Him.  But, if He is right, then it is true that we should listen to Him.
 
The eyewitnesses wrote what they saw.  They were with Him.  They watched Him perform many miracles, heal the sick, calm a storm with a command, and even rise from the dead.  Either you believe or dismiss these claims.  If you dismiss them, that is your prerogative.  But, if you accept them, then you are faced with decisions to make about Jesus.  What will you believe about Him?  What will you decide about Him?  Is He true?  Is what He said true?
 
Truth conforms to reality.  Jesus performed many miracles and rose from the dead.
 






 
 
 
 
 
 

[ivanm]

I think there are truths that have little to nothing to do with Christ or God, but to Mornac's way  of thinking that may not be the case.  For example,  the pemise that my PC is operating or the claim taht the fluorescent lamps above me are operating are truths to my way of looking at it.

The OP also touches upon relativism, and that also is a favorite theme for Moranac.  The simplistic example of people driving on the right side of the road in America but on the left side in England strikes me as a rather silly example of relativism.  Both situations are true but that does not say that it is some atheistic or immoral situation. It is simply  the facts of the matter.

If Mornac wants to know whether or not a person believes in Christ or God then why doesn't he come right out and ask it rather than wasting a bunch of disk space on the server?  His ramblings fall short of spamming IMO, and as much as I have enjoyed talking with him in hopes of learing something about his beliefs, I think he is taking advantage of Pepsi's hospitality by hogging so much disk space.

Mornac bases his concept of the truth existing and his rerligious beliefs on pure faith, and when  he turns around and disproves the existence of God except as a conceptual entity he blows every argument he can present on what the truth is.

[johnhp]

Ivan

Just a little heads up.  That is one of the worst sites on the net for information about religion from any perspective except the craziest of fundamentalism.

[ivanm]

Ivan

Just a little heads up.  That is one of the worst sites on the net for information about religion from any perspective except the craziest of fundamentalism.

Could be john, but I simply selected it because it addrerssed the idea of truth.  What do you think of what the man has to day?  Granted, a piece by a cleric can hardly be expected to be entirely objective, which brings a question to my mind.

It "truth" only meaningful as a religious concept?  That seems to be what Mornac dwells upon, or at least he casts the discussion in terms of belief in the existence of God
and his divine powers.

Off hand  I don't remember Mornac showing his hand on the issue. 

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

Truth conforms to reality.  

Ivan, I think the first question that should be asked is:  What is reality...and whose reality are we talking about, since it is my belief that we all have our very own perception of THAT reality.

Truth is when two or more people form a consensus that what they have perceived can be agreed upon.

Think about that.

[johnhp]

Could be john, but I simply selected it because it addrerssed the idea of truth.  What do you think of what the man has to day?  Granted, a piece by a cleric can hardly be expected to be entirely objective, which brings a question to my mind.

It "truth" only meaningful as a religious concept?  That seems to be what Mornac dwells upon, or at least he casts the discussion in terms of belief in the existence of God
and his divine powers.

Off hand  I don't remember Mornac showing his hand on the issue. 

i think Matt Slick is one of the worst of hucksters.  Truth as Slick or Mornac try to form the concept is ridiculous on its face.  It supposes some ultimate reality is in play with their pathetic language games.  The term we translate as truth from philosophy and theology, and that is what you seem to be asking about, (aletheia) simply means that something is unconcealed.  It could apply to religious or philosophical concepts but only at an abstract level that is, in the final analysis, meaningless.

Why meaningless?  In a religious context, does it add anything to a religious system for its believers to assume that the God they worship is true is some abstract philosophical sense?  Of course not.  They already believe that without the bullshit language games or they would not fall before their gods in prayer.

[ivanm]

Ivan, I think the first question that should be asked is:  What is reality...and whose reality are we talking about, since it is my belief that we all have our very own perception of THAT reality.

Truth is when two or more people form a consensus that what they have perceived can be agreed upon.

Think about that.

I think that the article speaks of reality and other philosophical questions  that can arise when debating the truth.  I am not interested in debating anything and am more interested in trying to understand what Mornac is getting at.  Reality seems to be a matter of perception or perhaps deduction based on what we have perceived.  Call it an intuitive thing.

I am more of a nuts and bolts guy and prefer to work with something tangible or at least concepts and theories that relate to tangible or measurable things.  For example, the energy and the existence of radar waves cannot be seen by the naked eye but there are instruments that can detect and measure such things. The fact that man can produce radar waves and can control and detect them tells me they are real and not imagined although they have no physical form in terms of mass and dimensions.

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

Reality

Reality in everyday usage means "everything that exists". The term "Reality", in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether it is observable, accessible or understandable by science, philosophy, theology or any other system of analysis. Reality in this sense may include both being and nothingness, whereas existence is often restricted to being (compare with nature).

In the strict sense of Western philosophy, there are levels or gradation to the nature and conception of reality. These levels include, from the most subjective to the most rigorous: phenomenological reality, truth, fact, and axiom.

Other philosophies, particularly those founded in Buddhism, have different explications of reality. Conceptions of reality in Buddhism include: dharma, paramattha dhamma, samsara and maya.

Phenomenological Reality

On a much broader and more subjective level, the private experiences, curiosity, inquiry, and selectivity involved in the personal interpretation of an event shapes reality as seen by one and only one individual and hence is called phenomenological. This form of reality might be common to others as well, but at times could also be so unique to oneself as to be never experienced or agreed upon by any one else. Much of the spiritual experience of an individual occurs on this level of reality.

Truth

When two or more individuals agree upon the interpretation and experience of a particular event, a consensus about an event and its experience begins to be formed. This being common to a few individuals or a larger group, then becomes the 'truth' as seen and agreed upon by a certain set of people. Thus one particular group may have a certain set of agreed truths, while another group might have a different set of truths that have reached consensus.

This lets different communities and societies have varied and extremely different notions of reality and truth of the external world. The religion and beliefs of people or communities are a fine example of this level of reality. This is well expressed in the famous quote by Henry Thoreau, "It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and another to hear." However, humans are fallible and are limited to individual experience. Truth cannot simply be considered truth if one speaks and another hears because individual bias and fallibility take away any assertion that the idea of truth, itself, exists.

Other views of truth assert that truth is that which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence, regardless of subjective inference. Truth can not merely be discerned by deductive reasoning but can only be more deeply understood by inductive study and skepticism.

Fact

A fact or factual entity is a phenomenon that is perceived as an elemental principle. It is rarely one that could be subject to personal interpretation. Instead it is most often the observed phenomena of the natural world. The proposition 'the sun rises in the east', is a fact. It is a fact for people belonging to any group or nationality regardless of which language they speak or which part of the hemisphere they come from.

The Galilean proposition in support of the Copernican theory, that the sun is the centre of the solar system is one that states the fact of the natural world. However during his lifetime Galileo was ridiculed for that factual proposition, because far too few people had a consensus about it in order to accept it as a truth. Fewer propositions are factual in content in the world, as compared to the many truths shared by various communities, which are also fewer to the innumerable individual phenomenological realities. Much of scientific exploration, experimentation, interpretation and analysis is done on this level.

This view of reality is well expressed by Philip K. Dick's statement that "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Axiom

Axioms are self-evident realities, the existence of which is accepted as given and on which further conceptions are generated.The facts of a natural world would hold true only in the systemic construction of that world. Hence in a different system, the facts of another world might no longer hold valid. The fact that 'the sun rises in the east', might not be valid in a different solar system where the planet might be tilted in a different angle, or revolving in a different direction around its star, so that the star might rise on the planet's horizon in the west instead of the east. Hence the facts of a systemic entity might not be universal outside the realms of that system. However, exceptionally rare conceptions might be universal in ethos.

Mathematical formulations and propositions in mathematical logic are based on axioms, and hence these fields are often referred to as pure disciplines. The validity of the set theoretic proposition would hold true in any systemic process or universe. Its validity is self evident in ontological existence and works on the axiomatic level of reality.Some portion of ultimate reality may lie beyond our scope to examine or even imagine. Many of the concepts of science and philosophy are often defined culturally and socially.

This idea was well elaborated by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). Most of the cultural conflict in the world occurs when certain individuals or groups try to impose their phenomenological realities or truths on other people or communities.

http://www.crystalinks.com/reality.html

[johnhp]

More ridiculous hucksterism.

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

More ridiculous hucksterism.

Nihilist Cocksucker.

*Case Closed*

[johnhp]

Nihilist Cocksucker.

*Case Closed*

i just think it is ridiculous to base thinking on what is, at best, glorified palm reading.

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

i just think it is ridiculous to base thinking on what is, at best, glorified palm reading.

Whose "thinking?"

Yours?

You sure have a "glorified" perception of your own "self," don't you?

[johnhp]

Whose "thinking?"

Yours?

How is it that you are unable to figure out that i am referring to the site to which you linked?

You sure have a "glorified" perception of your own "self," don't you?

No.  People like yourself often project your own inferiority complexes as the superiority complex of another person. 

[ivanm]

"The term we translate as truth from philosophy and theology, and that is what you seem to be asking about, (aletheia) simply means that something is unconcealed.  It could apply to religious or philosophical concepts but only at an abstract level that is, in the final analysis, meaningless."

In what context is Mornac speaking of the truth? He tries this exercise every now and then on people.  What is he tryng to say or accomplish?

[SufferedMoreThanJesus]

How is it that you are unable to figure out that i am referring to the site to which you linked?

Oh, sorry.  Wasn't aware you read all 5,000 pages of the site in three minutes.

You took the Evelyn Woods Speed Reading Course, didn't you?

So did I.  I read The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire in 15 minutes.

It was about Rome.