Absolute Truth

[muhammad_isa]

..It is important to note that the replication crisis does not mean that all science is wrong. Many scientific findings have been replicated and are well-established. However, the crisis does mean that we need to be more critical of scientific findings and to be aware of the potential for bias..

Indeed, a person with a scientific leaning can understand that, and is naturally skeptical..
i.e. they will evaluate according to their level of knowledge, and trust it accordingly

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Is there a difference between truth and 'a believed idea'? Isn't belief in X the basis on which the truth of that X is taught and spread? We all have an experience and, based on our beliefs, we accept its explanation as true if we believe the source of its explanation or deny much as lie/mistake if we don't. True personal experience is the only truth a mind can know, instead of believe. So much further pondering on some experience may be formed and accepted with information that comes from secondhand and non-personal experience.

Children are taught what science says is true in schools. Depending on the school, the class may be presented the information merely in the form spoken or written forms. Actual experiments of the subjects may not be done. They trust the teachers and the teachers themselves may only know from secondhand sources. It is the physical experiment that proves it as true to us, not the words or lectures on it. Yet how many times have we as individuals actually tested what science claims in true/untrue? Instead of just believed because we trust? Magazines may use the claim of something being true due to it being proven in a study as a way to build trust in the info of an article but commonly use weak studies as a basis for a claim. Even so-called proven studies may actually contain false information by the experimenter(s) if they feel they may gain something by promoting the falsity.

Science teaches us that Man has been to space. While I believe that, I have to admit it is only belief and not knowledge. I have read written text and heard others speak on it. I have seen pictures and watched video related to that subject. All secondhand knowledge. I, myself, have never been to space. Have you?

Pretty much everything is subjective and there is almost nothing I can believe is true for all humans. Maybe stuff like "all living beings need energy to stay alive" or somesuch. Depending on the truth of what "alive" is, and the truth of what a "virus" is, even that is not certain since viruses, I have read, can exist in a non-living state indefinitely until they become active in a host. This is why it is so hard for me to accept that there is any absolute truth.

In contrast to you, I don't see absolute truth bound to anything being said, taught or even experienced. It's absolute, the state of the world, not it's observation.

In this sense, it's absolutely true that I have been in France, independently from whether you believe me or not, or whether I remember that I've been there or not.

 

[Modesty]

In contrast to you, I don't see absolute truth bound to anything being said, taught or even experienced. It's absolute, the state of the world, not it's observation.

Yes, this is exactly how I see absolute truth. Even if humans disappeared from the earth and there was no one around to have human experiences or knowledge, absolute truth would still remain. It would still be true that earth exists in the milky way galaxy, along with our sun and our moon and Jupiter, etc. (just an example), even if there were no astronomers to observe them.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, this is exactly how I see absolute truth. Even if humans disappeared from the earth and there was no one around to have human experiences or knowledge, absolute truth would still remain. It would still be true that earth exists in the milky way galaxy, along with our sun and our moon and Jupiter, etc. (just an example), even if there were no astronomers to observe them.

..like 1 + 1 = 2, you mean?

 

[Vasu Devan]

One has to be aware of any data for it to become a truth or untruth in perception. If you are unaware of any data/idea/concept, it does not exist for your mind. You must have experience of it in some form related to a physical sense. The congenitally blind or deaf do not know what colors or sounds are, respectively, because they have never experienced them.

Truth, for me at least, is a concept of the human mind. It is one thing to have an experience. Animals have experiences. But only human animals can question what we sense or think. Animals can only accept them blindly. We, solely, may be the only ones who can question our experiences because, thanks to imagination, we can perceive concepts beyond what we have experienced. We can mentally construct an alternate reality based on what we already know and then try to match it to or manifest it in our physical reality, no?

Even I accept many scientifically proven facts as truth. Like the universe, space, time, matter, forces, workings of life forms etc. Searching for the absolute truth of gods and religions is much harder because spiritual experiences and the histories of humanity's explanations of god is rife with uncertainties. People like me, who have had spiritual experiences, are much more willing to accept the potential, but unproven, reality that 'god exists' may be a truth. Depending on the strength of our experiences, we may even be certain its true. But atheists, who possibly rarely, if at all, have what they would deem as a spiritual experiences will find it much harder to reconcile their concept of the 'true' world with a theist's concept of the 'true' world.

I don't think too many people in this thread are seeking the absolute truth about scientific data. I would have assumed the absolute truth sought is more of a theistic nature. Of course, I could be wrong. The truth of truth itself has never been established absolutely by humans yet.

 

[Craz]

One has to be aware of any data for it to become a truth or untruth in perception. If you are unaware of any data/idea/concept, it does not exist for your mind. You must have experience of it in some form related to a physical sense. The congenitally blind or deaf do not know what colors or sounds are, respectively, because they have never experienced them.

Truth, for me at least, is a concept of the human mind. It is one thing to have an experience. Animals have experiences. But only human animals can question what we sense or think. Animals can only accept them blindly. We, solely, may be the only ones who can question our experiences because, thanks to imagination, we can perceive concepts beyond what we have experienced. We can mentally construct an alternate reality based on what we already know and then try to match it to or manifest it in our physical reality, no?

Even I accept many scientifically proven facts as truth. Like the universe, space, time, matter, forces, workings of life forms etc. Searching for the absolute truth of gods and religions is much harder because spiritual experiences and the histories of humanity's explanations of god is rife with uncertainties. People like me, who have had spiritual experiences, are much more willing to accept the potential, but unproven, reality that 'god exists' may be a truth. Depending on the strength of our experiences, we may even be certain its true. But atheists, who possibly rarely, if at all, have what they would deem as a spiritual experiences will find it much harder to reconcile their concept of the 'true' world with a theist's concept of the 'true' world.

I don't think too many people in this thread are seeking the absolute truth about scientific data. I would have assumed the absolute truth sought is more of a theistic nature. Of course, I could be wrong.

I have met so many people who are strong believers in their religion/belief system as being the absolute truth, each one being totally sincere, that I do not believe that there is an objective absolute truth to be discovered.

I see we all sit in our own versions and personally, I enjoy interfaith as the medium for people learning about each other other than 'I am right and you are wrong' discussions.

Or, maybe, something universal can be arrived when we all just accept and enjoy each other. For all I know, this can be the route to a real peace.

 

[EricPH]

Or, maybe, something universal can be arrived when we all just accept and enjoy each other. For all I know, this can be the route to a real peace.

Atheists, Catholics, Muslims, Hindu, will never agree on doctrine. It is far easier for all of us to agree on a moral truth of kindness, how should we treat each other? I firmly believe the most important absolute truth that has any meaning, is a moral truth.

This moral truth will have more meaning, if it comes from God

 

[Modesty]

I have met so many people who are strong believers in their religion/belief system as being the absolute truth, each one being totally sincere, that I do not believe that there is an objective absolute truth to be discovered.

I see we all sit in our own versions and personally, I enjoy interfaith as the medium for people learning about each other other than 'I am right and you are wrong' discussions.

Definitely. I think when it comes to interfaith dialogue its not super helpful to be constantly throwing your beliefs in other people's faces as a way to 'prove them wrong'. When I approach other people's beliefs, I genuinely want to learn about them. However, in my personal spiritual journey, I do believe in absolute truth, and I can't settle for less.

 

[juantoo3]

It's a very old story. No matter what conclusions the blind men come to, if we saw them, we would know they are touching different parts of an elephant.

A salient point is that all the men were from one social group, they were a close community.

One could draw analogy between the various Protestant sects in addition to the Catholic Churches (incl Greek and Egyptian Coptic), and say each sees things a little different than his brother...but they all see the same thing.

Calling something true, can only make it true, if it is true.

If only that were true.

Allow me to ask, what are you personally defining "truth" as? Keep in mind I will hold you to it.

And none of this "it could also mean...," that ain't gonna fly. The whole point is, there is only one Absolute Truth. It is impossible to have two.

Could God love each and every one of us as he loves himself? Can there be any greater reason to create children in the image of God.

That statement is either true or false, regardless as to what people might believe. Can we do anything greater than love God; and love all our neighbours as we love ourselves?

Bull's Eye!

 

[juantoo3]

In contrast to you, I don't see absolute truth bound to anything being said, taught or even experienced. It's absolute, the state of the world, not it's observation.

In this sense, it's absolutely true that I have been in France, independently from whether you believe me or not, or whether I remember that I've been there or not.

Why cannot both Vasu and you be true? Seems to me you are both saying the same thing from different angles.

 

[juantoo3]

One has to be aware of any data for it to become a truth or untruth in perception. If you are unaware of any data/idea/concept, it does not exist for your mind. You must have experience of it in some form related to a physical sense. The congenitally blind or deaf do not know what colors or sounds are, respectively, because they have never experienced them.

I'm sorry, I disagree here.

The stars within the farthest galaxies exist whether you or I do. Reality is the elephant...not just in the room, in the universe as we know it. What each of us "sees," grasps, experiences, contemplates, bemuses, seduces or is seduced, is going to be completely different for each and every single person. Even if you could take a homogenous community, let's say a monastery, each individual monk will have a unique experience for life.

But each experiences life...and a difference between us and animals is that we deliberately steer our lives by our choices. Animals don't have the luxury of rational thought, it is all emotive thought.

But Reality IS, regardless of experience. I can agree with you that the mind categorizes memories, so each individual will have a different memory library, based on their personal experiences...each experiences the whole, but in a unique way.

Reality exists whether we believe it or not, it simply is.

 

[Vasu Devan]

The stars within the farthest galaxies exist whether you or I do. Reality is the elephant...not just in the room, in the universe as we know it. What each of us "sees," grasps, experiences, contemplates, bemuses, seduces or is seduced, is going to be completely different for each and every single person. Even if you could take a homogenous community, let's say a monastery, each individual monk will have a unique experience for life.

But each experiences life...and a difference between us and animals is that we deliberately steer our lives by our choices. Animals don't have the luxury of rational thought, it is all emotive thought.

But Reality IS, regardless of experience. I can agree with you that the mind categorizes memories, so each individual will have a different memory library, based on their personal experiences...each experiences the whole, but in a unique way.

Reality exists whether we believe it or not, it simply is.

I do not say that reality does not exist. A reality exists both in conscious waking and subconscious dreaming for all of us. It is known through experience. To see light, hear vibrations, touch matter, taste flavors, smell scents is not the same as determining their nature beyond the experience itself. For all we know, this reality could be a dream in the mind of a sleeping god trying to forget its divine nature and wanting to experience the challenges of mortal life.

Something exists. What that something is will possibly never be determined absolutely simply due to the contrary nature of Man. Even if it is, any aspect of this changing universe, with its constant but uncertain future, cannot really be set in stone for sure. But that is just my own opinion and just as likely to be indeterminate as anything else.

Feel free to disagree with me as I am not here to convert others to my point of view. Simply to share mine and find that of others.

 

[juantoo3]

I do not say that reality does not exist. A reality exists both in conscious waking and subconscious dreaming for all of us. It is known through experience. To see light, hear vibrations, touch matter, taste flavors, smell scents is not the same as determining their nature beyond the experience itself.

Something exists. What that something is will possibly never be determined absolutely simply due to the contrary nature of Man. Even if it is, any aspect of this changing universe, with its constant but uncertain future, cannot really be set in stone for sure. But that is just my own opinion and just as likely to be indeterminate as anything else.

You don't have to agree with me as I am not here to convert others to my point of view. Simply to share mine and find that of others.

If I'm following what you say here, we're saying the same thing in different words. Reality exists outside of each individual, "us." How each of us perceives that reality differs. I believe what you pointed to earlier is how/what each of us experiences, and thereby shapes our perception...but none of us is "big enough" to take in the whole of reality.

Would you say this is correct?

 

[Vasu Devan]

If I'm following what you say here, we're saying the same thing in different words. Reality exists outside of each individual, "us." How each of us perceives that reality differs. I believe what you pointed to earlier is how/what each of us experiences, and thereby shapes our perception...but none of us is "big enough" to take in the whole of reality.

Would you say this is correct?

Pretty much on the dot. We can debate the yes/no aspects of practically anything in this reality, that we are all part of, to the end of human life itself. If everyone agreed 100% with each other all the time, the world would be very monotonous and devoid of interest. Possibly just like if the experience of suffering in the human mind ended. The change and uncertainty of what-is-being is prolly critical to the functioning of the human mind. But that's a whole another debate, I think....

Also, you may be interested to know that, some say, the you "big enough to take in the whole of reality" can be realized. Essentially, the enlightened human of many Eastern texts. One may not like the truth it offers though especially if the illusion clears only for a few moments and then you are rudely pushed back into it.....knowing the truth but still being subject to the illusion.

 

[EricPH]

A salient point is that all the men were from one social group, they were a close community.

One could draw analogy between the various Protestant sects in addition to the Catholic Churches (incl Greek and Egyptian Coptic), and say each sees things a little different than his brother...but they all see the same thing.

I am always troubled by how we see truth, and more importantly how we use truth. It would be far easier if there were a thousand Jesus Christs, we could all go off in our little groups and make up our own rules.

My analogy, and it is a bad one. One church will only allow people in with green shoes, the church down the road, will only allow people in with red shoes. After a while, the welcomers start to notice lots of shades and variations of red shoes. The hierarchy then get together to decide on a red standard, no variations allowed through the door.

Now our church has a red standard, so what does our purpose become? Do we open up shoe shops and sell red shoes? Or should there be some greater moral purpose?

 

[juantoo3]

Now our church has a red standard, so what does our purpose become? Do we open up shoe shops and sell red shoes? Or should there be some greater moral purpose?

I think your analogy is a pretty good one.

What I've been trying to say all along is that shoes are not even required. We all can walk just fine without them, although we would have to learn not to walk on broken glass or through briar patches...and both of the churches, red *and* green shoes, would ostracize the one with no shoes, not understanding that shoes were not required at all to walk.

 

[juantoo3]

Also, you may be interested to know that, some say, the you "big enough to take in the whole of reality" can be realized. Essentially, the enlightened human of many Eastern texts. One may not like the truth it offers though especially if the illusion clears only for a few moments and then you are rudely pushed back into it.....knowing the truth but still being subject to the illusion.

I hesitate, in part because while I do understand there are persons adept enough to glimpse and maybe even brush against the core of reality, to actually be engulfed by such would eliminate any return to this plane of existence. This is essentially an out of body experience, likewise astral projection.

There is also correspondent with "go into the light" when one passes from this life.

Is it possible to wander among the sideroads of the dead? I believe that is so, but unless guided and protected it is easy to wander aimlessly and to become lost. If G!d wishes me to travel those roads, He will provide safe passage. If I attempt to do so on my own, I will face obstacles of which I am unaware and unprepared to meet.

So my hesitation is one of caution, not of disbelief or academic incomprehension.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Why cannot both Vasu and you be true? Seems to me you are both saying the same thing from different angles.

It's a question of definition. For me, "absolute" means "independent from any condition or context", which contradicts the (existing and valid) definition of truth as the opposite of lie, which refers to something said. But with the adjective "absolute", it cannot be used in this sense; and combining both, Vasu Devan is right in that there is nothing that would fulfill the criteria.

 

[juantoo3]

It's a question of definition. For me, "absolute" means "independent from any condition or context",

OK, whereas I see absolute as penultimate, from which all derive and to which all point.

 

[EricPH]

What I've been trying to say all along is that shoes are not even required. We all can walk just fine without them, although we would have to learn not to walk on broken glass or through briar patches...and both of the churches, red *and* green shoes, would ostracize the one with no shoes, not understanding that shoes were not required at all to walk.

Beliefs on their own can do no harm. It is what we choose to do with our belief that can cause good or evil.