Can 'truth' change?

by wholewheat 69 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  refiners fire

  The double standards of Religionists who quote Science when it suits them , and castigate science when it suits them , irritate me.

  Scientific "fact" is subject to scrutiny. In my understanding a scientific "theory" must be valkidated by two seperate disciplines of science before it is called a theory and accepted. It may, for example, be demonstrated to work by "proofs" from the fields of both Geology and Paeleontology. The proof of scientific "theory" is in the accuracy of its predictions, Predictions are made based on the "theory" and if they fail, the theory is in error. I was watching something on Tv a few months ago where scientists were drilling into deep ice and they had predicted that at 60 feet they would find a specific lichen. It was found with 2 mm of where it was expected. Now a religionist would say that they drilled, found the Lichen, and then filmed themselves making the prediction after the event.In other words they decieved the viewers. I doubt that. That is what religionists do. They Judge science by their own standards.

  Religious truth is not like Scientific truth.. It is declared to be fact and truth, and when it fails the predictive test, shonky reasonings such as "present truth", and "sifting" are concocted. To cover the failed prediction.

  Edited by - refiners fire on 30 June 2002 19:43:29
• 

  expatbrit

  Refiners:

  I think "present truth" is a religious variety of an ad hoc hypothesis. http://www.skepdic.com/adhoc.html

  Expatbrit
• 

  ISP

  Truth is truth. There is no precedent for God putting forward falsehoods in the bible. Note the quotation below

  *** ts 46 Is This Life All There Is? Knowing these things, what will you do? It is obvious that the true God, who is himself the God of truth and who hates lies, will not look with favor on persons who cling to organizations that teach falsehood. (Psalm 31:5; Proverbs 6:16-19; Revelation 21:8) And, really, would you want to be even associated with a religion that had not been honest with you?

  Good questions, don't you think?

  ISP
• 

  Nathan Natas

  Do you like kasha knishes, Buckwheat? I'll bet you do - I'll bet you do!

  Edited by - Nathan Natas on 30 June 2002 19:42:22

  Edited by - Nathan Natas on 30 June 2002 19:43:16
• 

  larc

  Refiner's fire, I generally agree with what you say. I would, however, describe theory a little differently than you did. A theory is useful if it explains a lot of facts. Also, it is useful of the theory has explainitory power, that is, it makes predictions that were not atticipated before theory, and in fact this predictions are verified. What often leads to a new theory, is when many facts are explained but some are not. So, theories evolve or change radically and become more all encompassing in their ability to explain known facts.
• 

  refiners fire

  Larc

  I am by no means an expert and I do not doubt that you are right. I merely offer an opinion as I understand it. Like scientists (hopefully) I am flexible and will adjust my view in accordance with expert opinion.

  I think Einsteins relativity theory predicted light bending and scientists viewed a star that was imediatelly level with the edge of the sun during an eclipse. The light bending was exactly as predicted. If it had not been, Einstein would have been in trouble.

  Unfortunately, religious prediction is TOTALLY in error. The WORST of these failed predictionists is the Witness Organization. They have never remotely predicted anything that occured on time.
• 

  Kenneson

  Wholewheat,

  Check this out:

  http://www.watchman.org/jw/jwwheat.htm
• 

  OUTLAW

  Can truth change?..If it`s from WBTS you can count on it!!.Those bastards are known liars.So how about you Buckwheat,do you support the" WBTS Liars Club?"..LOL...OUTLAW

  Edited by - OUTLAW on 30 June 2002 20:4:26
• 

  refiners fire

  Dictionary definitions of the word "truth" may be quoted, but the important point, I think, is the perception of church members as to what "truth" means. I know I believed that the "truth" was absolute and unquestionable and constituted anything that was printed in the watchtower magazine or was uttered from the stage in a public talk. I never expected this "truth" to CHANGE, and (importantly) the organization never implied that it would change. until reality conficted with their truth. When reality conflicted with "truth" the "truth" shifted to incorporate the new reality. It should have been the other way around considering that the master of reality, God, was making the predictions.

  Edited by - refiners fire on 30 June 2002 20:19:9
• 

  Francois

  For example, it is an apparent fact that the earth is flat. The truth is that it is not. Facts don't always lead to truth.

  f