What is the Truth? How do you Define it?

by Amazing 68 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  beksbks

  So none of you bible thumpers can tell me what makes it any more true than any other holy book???
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  I think the sheer amount of opinion on what "truth" is just from this small sampling is telling enough on the reliablitilty of said truth. It simply isn't a verifiable concept.
• 

  Heaven

  I also put this in password's topic NEW BLOG - What is "the truth"?

  At work, we are governed by the International Standards Organization creed as follows:

  1) Do what you say.

  2) Say what you do.

  3) Prove it.

  We cannot obtain contracts with certain large companies such as banks, insurance companies, and governments without the certification. We have to have a Quality Management System that includes change and problem management, continual improvement, and problem prevention. We must document our processes and metrics. We must adhere to the 3 principles outlined above or we lose our Certification -- and our clients. We conduct peer review audits annually. Periodic external audits are also conducted.

  The WTS would NEVER acquire ISO Certification.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  I like to think of the small amount of factual "truth" and "abstract truth" (that we have isolated) as co-ordinates or as reference points. Experiential truth (the more important truth in our lives imo) is to do with our relationships with ourselves and in our communities and interactions with nature and therefore is changing and often unexpected. This is the sort of truth we encounter in our day to day lives and provides significance but obviously cannot be seen as applying universally imo.

  I would go so far as to say no truth is universally fixed.
• 

  nicolaou

  I think the sheer amount of opinion on what "truth" is just from this small sampling is telling enough on the reliablitilty of said truth. It simply isn't a verifiable concept.

  Far too broad a statement Jeff. Empirical truth, by definition, is absolutely verifiable. There's just way too much woolly thinking and over complication on the nature of truth.

  Something is either true, false or unknown. Rational thinkers attempt to learn the truth about the unknown through scientific research and hard work. Others try the futility of faith.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  nicalaou, this is just what I mean. The "facts" that we have established by "empiricism" and the scientific method is very small compared to life as we live it.
• 

  jgnat

  I hadn't realized that existentialism had gone out of fashion. I had just discovered it a few years ago and it resonated with things I just knew. I'd felt like I'd found my missing puzzle pieces. Amazing, if you have some links to articles that support your statement, I would like to read them.

  About the flat earth discussion, Amazing. It was the Christians at the time who most vehemently denied the evidence put before them. Their "truth" model at the time demanded that God - and the Sun - be the center of the universe. Observers who challenged that concept were labelled infidels. I wonder if Christians, in their fierce determination to support their current beliefs, unknowingly slay sharper observers.

  You are right that, once the Christian admits to new fact, his faith must rest on something else.

  Mall Cop - here's an interesting thought. Steven Pinker proposes that there are a dozen instincts that all people possess regardless of culture and upbringing. These seem to be hard-wired in to all of us. Just as a foal instinctively rises to his feet and seeks his mother's teat, every human being is born with these instincts.

  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html
• 

  slimboyfat

  It's good to see you around jgnat - and that's the truth.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  The "facts" that we have established by "empiricism" and the scientific method is very small compared to life as we live it.

  You know, this is where I differ a small bit from some atheists. (I can't and won't speak for any general group wholesale) I agree with the above statement.

  Science and what is available currently through testable premises should always be relevant. I take them seriously. Yet, science can't quantify certain quality of life premises.

  To put it succinctly, we all want to be happy and at peace. (something that JW dogma violated in all of us to one degree or another) What causes that, including the need it seems we all possess to have a purpose in life, so that our life has meaning is not known, either in science or religion. Thus, to call any personal conclusion "truth" instead of personal faith elevates dogma over facts, what is true and false.

  Suffice to say, if we don't have meaning or purpose in life, we seek it. If we don't have it, we are sad, depressed. Psychology is a medical/sociological field that directly intercedes for those who aren't happy and need help. Psychiatry is similar, with more of a reliance on medicine.....

  When it comes to "the great questions" (i.e. how did we get here? "Who" put us here? etc etc etc) the answers seem to go beyond pure science. (for the time being)

  However, it is in my opinion, somewhat dishonest of certain religions (not all, just some) who claim that this void is their realm, at the exclusion of science.

  That is why "existentialism" is so important, because I believe it puts the onus of "truth" on the individual to discover for themselves. Even if this personal truth is nothing more then an article of personal faith, at least it comes from the conclusions of the individual, not at the insistence of a group with its dogma.

  We all need to take responsibility for our journey's, and not abdicate them to the dogma of a group.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Amazing, my responses to your offerings

  The problem in our discussion is how we use the term 'universal." To be 'universal' does not demand that a truth be 'known' or 'accepted' by anyone. A 'truth' can by completely unknown, and still be true, and be absolutely universal. I have no doubt that as humans move out into the universe more, we will discover many new truths ... new to us, that is, but timeless truths that have always existed.

  I see your point, but I think in the context that you originally shared in regards to religion, this unnecessarily muddies the waters. We aren't discussing the subject of possible warp drive engines, we are discussing meta physical truth, with god and faith at its end. To imply that these future discoveries you speak of will support religious truth (i.e. higher powers exist, etc) is something I am open to, but certainly have zero reason to count on that, or to think it likely. It isn't likely at all that these new truths will reveal "god" or "truth" as you have contextualized it.

  Likewise, right now, what I accept as 'truth' in the person of Christ is not known by all, or accepted by those who do know. But, it can still be 'truth' and in fact 'universal' truth ... that is, God can be the same everywhere to everyone all the time. Jesus can be his only son, and our savior. Right now, however, I openly admit that this truth in my life, is a matter of faith. Time will prove whether it is a universal truth.

  I appreciate very much your honesty here. Please know in return that while I cannot agree with your truth/faith, your reasonableness leaves me open minded to your points of view. Suffice to say, whatever faith I have is not currently rooted in your beliefs. I thank you for not referring to your faith as a current universal truth though. It is refreshing.

  Existentialism is an enemy of religious truth. Not necessarily metaphysical truth, which cannot be quantified anyhow.

  No, it is not. People with a certain agenda can become enemies of truth. However, existentialism is an outmoded approach to philosophy. This field is still evolving, and currently, philosophers have moved from finding grand theories to establishing mini-theories.

  This isn't what I was referring too. As you can reference from my previous post a few minutes ago, it is my belief that being "existential" has a lot to do with paying attention to our lives and comparing what we are told or taught with what reality is for us. I am very much a believer that each person must do this, though I readily concede many do not even try. But that will always be my encouragement for others, and that is what I mean by existentialism. (which I think works with the generally recognized meaning of "existentialism)

  Agenda's ARE dangerous. It is important to recognize this, and take it into account when weighing evidence and claims of faith/truth.

  Religion/theists/Christians claim that moral/ethics are their sole territory. This is a claim that is getting less credence by the evidence of atheists and agnostics being shown to have morals and ethics too.

  No, they make no such claim ... this is a myth.

  Actually, many do. But I apologize, as I see I made a wholesale statement, and that isn't true of all religions. Mea culpa!

  Again, personal truth is different from truth. And it is clear that personal truth = faith. Real truth has nothing to do with personal truth. It is important though that we each individually have our own personal truth. But you can't push that or promote that to anyone else.

  Personal truth is not necessarily equal to faith. Personal truth may not involve any faith. Faith is an act that one engages in, for different reasons ... some have blind faith, some have faith based on trust and experience, other have faith as a gift. But truth is time honored, and independent of faith. Faith can move us toward truth ... but these two are in inextricably linked.

  Just for the record, while I do not begrudge you your opinion, I must disagree. Truth IS time honored (except for the dark ages, or our time in the borg as two examples) in that truth stands the test of time against the often wild claims of faith based theism. Again, this isn't an attack on faith, just the amount one invests in it while being blind to the weaknesses and holes in their claims.

  Faith can move us to truth, but it can also move one away from truth.

  In a theistic context therefore, truth is a misused word. Even if for you, truth is different because of your faith in Jesus, it still doesn't make it true. And at a certain point, we must defend words and their meanings to avoid phrases like the JW inspired "The TRUTH!" to trick us.

  However, your faith is your own business, and I appreciate the intellectual honesty you have exhibited in discussing this and in sharing your views.