Absolute Truth

[Faithfulservant]

Here's a thought: One can take the Bible as a source of information and inspiration, without having some kind of full trust that it is all directly from God and infallible. So, you can certainly learn from it without necessarily "trusting" it to be inerrant or even of supernatural origin.

Here's my thought on this. If the promises of God are Yes and in them Amen.. if I don't accept the bible as inerrant how can I be assured of these promises? How could I even be assured that Jesus is who He said He is? Or any of it. It would nullify anything in the bible as truth because it could be a lie. I personally could never take that risk to my faith. For me it would not honor God's sovereignty over my life.

 

[juantoo3]

Do you mean physical reality? Or something more?

Reality in total. There are aspects of Reality that are (currently) beyond my comprehension and beyond my senses

It doesn't mean these things / matters / issues don't exist, just that they are beyond my understanding, perhaps beyond my ability to understand

 

[Modesty]

I think there are some truths that can be proven or at least demonstrated, like much in the sciences.
I think there is a lot more difficulty or even impossibility of proving or even demonstrating the truth of religious/supernatural claims.
Hence, how common it is for thoughtful people to deny "absolute truth" in regards to spirituality and religion.

Yes, I definitely get what you mean here. Although I think that it's not impossible to demonstrate religious truth, although of course its much different than demonstrating a truth in the sciences. For example, I recently read a book by analytical philosopher Antony Flew (the coiner of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy) that tried to set out his reasons for 'converting' from atheism to a belief in God. He stated he doesn't accept any of the revealed religions or their claims, but he believed that the evidence now available points to a creator God. Fascinating read, regardless of your beliefs, because Flew was a very intelligent man.

When I was little, I was not exactly raised religious. Not explicitly or formally. What I did receive was exposure to some pretty contrasting ideas and mixed messages. The only thing uniting the various ideas in my household is that everyone was critical of regular Christianity. Mixed messages may seem confusing, but it wasn't confusing to me. Far from it. Kind of a gift in a way, as it reflects the reality that NOT EVERYBODY AGREES ON THESE MATTERS. I got really comfortable with uncertainty about some things.

I think that you were super lucky to get exposed to many different ideas early on! I think there's a real intellectual benefit to that.

I drew the conclusion when I was pretty young that all religions were theories, speculative theories based on sometimes-scant evidence from some hard-to-access supernatural reality, and that people were free to pick and choose whatever theory that most spoke to them and/or seemed most logical, realistic, moral, inspiring, or convincing to them, and they could follow their chosen theory as devoutly as they wished,

I think I said earlier in the thread how much I do admire this kind of thinking about faith, but I guess I feel like I don't want to choose or go with what speaks to me. When I was a Catholic believer I heard someone describe their faith as being "confronted by the truth" and that's the kind of spirituality I most resonate with. That it's not so much a calculated decision on my side, but God revealing the truth to me. I'm someone who (both to my benefit and detriment) can't do half-measures.

I don't either, but I think what the trouble was at the time was the effects of substances on one's emotions and behavior. Religions and/or denominations are all over the map when it comes to whether to condemn, tolerate, or ignore substance use of various kinds. Some people who are very faithful Catholics drink quite a lot, Mormons as you mention and SDAs both forbid alcohol and caffeinated drinks and tobacco, while I've also seen some church website that outright say they neither encourage nor condemn tobacco, alcohol, or cannabis! (and don't mention caffeine!) I think this does come around to human opinion and agenda rather than divine revelation being crystal clear on these matters (or any matters for that matter)

Yes, and I think its so interesting how these doctrines are formed. In my subculture of Catholicism, a lot of "trad" men cultivated a certain aesthetic that included drinking whisky and smoking cigars as part of the uniform lol.

 

[Modesty]

If you accept that objective spiritual truth exists, you are then left with the question of... how do you discover and determine it?
Of course I recognize that is what you are trying to do.
My thought is -- it's hard to know. Hence my further thought is, all religions are theories.

You're right, it is hard to know! Frustratingly hard. But I have a maybe foolish confidence it will eventually be shown to me, if I'm diligent in seeking it and open to the truth, whatever it is.

 

[Echogem222]

I've been pondering the concept of absolute truth in regards to religion recently and I'm curious about other people's understanding of this. Namely, whether you believe it exists or not or if its something your religious tradition teaches. For example, my past religious affiliation was traditional Catholicism, and the absolute, infallible truth of the Catholic Church was massively important.

I'm actively looking for another religious tradition to follow and I admit I find it hard to understand religions that don't seem to have a concept of absolute truth, such as neo-paganism. To me, something is either true or false. For example, there is a God or there isn't, etc. etc.

And if its true, it should be universally true (I've never understand the 'it's the right religion for me, but not for others' idea). This might just be the way my brain is trained to think because of Catholicism though. I'm interested in hearing other opinions and thoughts on this topic!

The absolute truth in my religion is not fully known, but is believed to be findable, and is a work in progress, however, it requires using logic and educated critical thinking. After all, if you have multiple different beliefs all saying to just trust in their Gods, they all hold the same value, in that you can't reasonably choose one over the other, but if a belief is understood with logic as being more reasonable than others, that belief then holds more value than other beliefs, because that value is understood.

Science works in a similar way that my religion does, in that, we could all have just been created 5 seconds ago, and everything before was just faked memories, so even science requires belief, yet it holds more reasonability over other beliefs, and the reason why is because we use logic to determine it as being more reasonable than other beliefs (most of us do anyway).

(I believe in Flawlessism, you can find more information about it here (it's restricted to 18+ only to prevent the indoctrination of minors who lack critical thinking skills):

Link removed by moderator

 

[juantoo3]

The absolute truth in my religion is not fully known, but is believed to be findable, and is a work in progress, however, it requires using logic and educated critical thinking. After all, if you have multiple different beliefs all saying to just trust in their Gods, they all hold the same value, in that you can't reasonably choose one over the other, but if a belief is understood with logic as being more reasonable than others, that belief then holds more value than other beliefs, because that value is understood. Science works in a similar way that my religion does, in that, we could all have just been created 5 seconds ago, and everything before was just faked memories, so even science requires belief, yet it holds more reasonability over other beliefs, and the reason why is because we use logic to determine it as being more reasonable than other beliefs (most of us do anyway).

Formal Logic?

I ask because I have dealt with so many that claim logic, only to find their reasoning methods had absolutely nothing to do with logic, but consoled themselves by calling their reasoning logic. It is a bit of philosophical sleight of hand.

Most persons I know find a way to justify their faith to themselves, myself included. I justify my faith by my personal experiences.

All religions, even the most logical ones, have issues that do not align with logic and demand a degree of faith. Indeed, logic does not fully align with the unseen aspects of reality. So even if it were possible to have a genuine religion based only in logic, that religion would never fully account for all of reality - or so it would seem to me.

 

[RJM]

The absolute truth in my religion is not fully known, but is believed to be findable, and is a work in progress, however, it requires using logic and educated critical thinking. After all, if you have multiple different beliefs all saying to just trust in their Gods, they all hold the same value, in that you can't reasonably choose one over the other, but if a belief is understood with logic as being more reasonable than others, that belief then holds more value than other beliefs, because that value is understood.

Science works in a similar way that my religion does, in that, we could all have just been created 5 seconds ago, and everything before was just faked memories, so even science requires belief, yet it holds more reasonability over other beliefs, and the reason why is because we use logic to determine it as being more reasonable than other beliefs (most of us do anyway).

(I believe in Flawlessism, you can find more information about it here (it's restricted to 18+ only to prevent the indoctrination of minors who lack critical thinking skills):

Post edited by moderator to remove link containing mature or adult content. Further such links will result in a permanent ban

Unfortunately your link has been removed. Would you care to explain your views here without links to your own tracts or publications?

 

[Echogem222]

Formal Logic?

I ask because I have dealt with so many that claim logic, only to find their reasoning methods had absolutely nothing to do with logic, but consoled themselves by calling their reasoning logic. It is a bit of philosophical sleight of hand.

Most persons I know find a way to justify their faith to themselves, myself included. I justify my faith by my personal experiences.

All religions, even the most logical ones, have issues that do not align with logic and demand a degree of faith. Indeed, logic does not fully align with the unseen aspects of reality. So even if it were possible to have a genuine religion based only in logic, that religion would never fully account for all of reality - or so it would seem to me.

It's classical logic which is used, but you're right, not all of it is based fully on logic, sometimes, estimated guesses need to be made. But no, faith is not gained through what would be considered personal experiences, which is why educated critical thinking is taught to gain faith (you could technically do it through blind faith, but that's not the method taught).

Take for example us not being able to use pure logic to say that the world is actually real (since we could all be living in a computer simulation and just not know it), but if we do believe that the Earth is real, then other things must and may also be true using logic. Flawlessism uses that type of reasoning to make estimated guesses on many different things, so there's a reasonability to it that has nothing to do with trusting in order to gain belief in it.

 

[Echogem222]

Unfortunately your link has been removed. Would you care to explain your views here without links to your own tracts or publications?

A link isn't actually needed since you can just do a google search and find it easily enough, it was just me trying to be considerate. I'll explain my religion somewhat here, but I won't go into a lot of depth.

 

[RJM]

A link isn't actually needed since you can just do a google search and find it easily enough, it was just me trying to be considerate. I'll explain my religion somewhat here, but I won't go into a lot of depth.

Ok. Or you could start a new thread?

 

[Echogem222]

Ok. Or you could start a new thread?

Why would I start a new thread? (I mean, I might do that eventually, but why would you say that in this situation?)

 

[RJM]

Why would I start a new thread? (I mean, I might do that eventually, but why would you say that in this situation?)

Whatever ...

 

[juantoo3]

But no, faith is not gained through what would be considered personal experiences, which is why educated critical thinking is taught to gain faith...

As you wish, I politely disagree. Logic is an exercise limited to the confines of one's reasoning apparatus, and may or may not have external validation. Whereas I have external validation to base my reasoning on to support and supplement my critical thinking. It is called "evidence based," even if the evidence is personal and subjective and not necessarily reproduced on demand.

comme ci comme ça

 

[Echogem222]

As you wish, I politely disagree. Logic is an exercise limited to the confines of one's reasoning apparatus, and may or may not have external validation. Whereas I have external validation to base my reasoning on.

comme ci comme ça

Ok, what is your external validation then? If you mean just your personal experience, how do you believe that your personal experience means more than the personal experiences of others when its been proven that a person's sense of judgement can be flawed?

 

[juantoo3]

how do you believe that your personal experience means more than the personal experiences of others ...?

I don't. My experiences are only valid for me, hence "personal and subjective." If personal and subjective evidence were sufficient, I could have proven G!d exists long ago. That isn't how evidence works. Regardless, it does not negate my personal experiences. There remains the possibility I don't fully understand or somehow misinterpret, even so I think I am closer to the event to comprehend its impact.

How do you justify believing that everyone that "sees" your "logic" understands in the same manner that you do?

 

[Echogem222]

I don't. My experiences are only valid for me, hence "personal and subjective." If personal and subjective evidence were sufficient, I could have proven G!d exists long ago. That isn't how evidence works. Regardless, it does not negate my personal experiences. There remains the possibility I don't fully understand or somehow misinterpret, even so I think I am closer to the event to comprehend its impact.

How do you justify believing that everyone that "sees" your "logic" understands in the same manner that you do?

Not everyone does, but a person can believe that 1+1 doesn't equal 2 if they don't understand what 1+1 means, but I understand what it means, so until someone can prove to me that my logic is flawed, I have no reason to think that it is flawed. Make sense?

 

[talib-al-kalim]

A link isn't actually needed since you can just do a google search and find it easily enough, it was just me trying to be considerate. I'll explain my religion somewhat here, but I won't go into a lot of depth.

If it is your web page and you seriously want to share your ideas, you should review it. I got quite a lot of security warnings, so that I decided to quit.

 

[juantoo3]

Not everyone does, but a person can believe that 1+1 doesn't equal 2 if they don't understand what 1+1 means, but I understand what it means, so until someone can prove to me that my logic is flawed, I have no reason to think that it is flawed. Make sense?

OK, but religion and religious experience do not equate with mathematics, and mathematics is a rather cold and unfeeling / uncaring way of looking at the world and the life within it. What logic is there to love? What logic is there to laughter? What logic is there to hatred? What logic is there to any emotion? Even "red of tooth and claw" is not logical.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Not everyone does, but a person can believe that 1+1 doesn't equal 2 if they don't understand what 1+1 means, but I understand what it means, so until someone can prove to me that my logic is flawed, I have no reason to think that it is flawed. Make sense?

I don't have the impression that "flawlessness" is a religion. Logic is an essential tool of philosophy, not less, but not more.

 

[Echogem222]

If it is your web page and you seriously want to share your ideas, you should review it. I got quite a lot of security warnings, so that I decided to quit.

??? It's Reddit, in other words, a Subreddit on Reddit. It's restricted to 18+, but that's it. If you got security warnings, that implies to me that you're actually under 18, so I'm glad you quit. The specific subreddit is: r/GoodAndEvilReligion (just in case you went to some other site which had issues)