Is it possible to have a dialogue about "the Truth"

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I think the moderator "Luna", is trying to tell us to "cool it". But for the record, I am a Criminal Justice and Psychology major, (go figure)
and hold the same in Marine structural engineering. That means I have to use the sea, steam, steel, and physics in order to successfully complete my job. And that is just the "physical part".

v/r

Q

Nope, I'm off-duty in this forum. Just trying to answer some of Abogado's questions.

Carry on.

luna

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Nope, I'm off-duty in this forum. Just trying to answer some of Abogado's questions.

Carry on.

luna

By your leave "Ma'am"...

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I think the moderator "Luna", is trying to tell us to "cool it". But for the record, I am a Criminal Justice and Psychology major, (go figure)
and hold the same in Marine structural engineering. That means I have to use the sea, steam, steel, and physics in order to successfully complete my job. And that is just the "physical part".

v/r
Q

Good for you. I am an electrical and mechancial engineer with a range of academic interests. The 2nd law of motion did not pertain to my discussion, but I concede that for everything at low velocity the 2nd law of motion is accurate enough to be called true. At 120 mph closing speed or 50 m/s the error in momentum is 1 part in 10 million. Relativity is hard for most everyone to understand, and just about as useless unless you design mars rovers or GPS satellites. I found a web page from Stanford that provides some further study information:

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/th...elativity.html

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Good for you. I am an electrical and mechancial engineer with a range of academic interests. The 2nd law of motion did not pertain to my discussion, but I concede that for everything at low velocity the 2nd law of motion is accurate enough to be called true. At 120 mph closing speed or 50 m/s the error in momentum is 1 part in 10 million. Relativity is hard for most everyone to understand, and just about as useless unless you design mars rovers or GPS satellites. I found a web page from Stanford that provides some further study information:

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/th...elativity.html

And I concede that once one steps into Quantum physics, all bets are off. But if we can't even negotiate metric rules and imperial rules, then even the finest machines go places we have no ken to, and we look very very stupid, when we can't find them, or worse, find them destroyed because of stupidity.

Isn't that...the truth?

v/r

Q

[Jamarz]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

OK, here goes.

As a result of some of the conversations I've had here at CR over the past couple of years, I've come to the idea that the 'truth' is that which I trust. For example, if we are talking about scientific truth, that would include those things which I can reproducbily measure and 'express' in such as way that is meaningful to others who can then also follow my methods to get the same results. It would also include models and theories that best represent the known facts and are useful, dependable, for making predictions about future outcomes. For scienitfic truth I need to stand on the shoulders of giants, as has been famously said.

For religious truth I am not looking for the answers to 'how' or 'when' but 'why.' I am looking for meaning, something I can trust, a vehicle, that will lead me out of myself and connect me to other people and to the bigger part of the universe, help me heal the disconnect I sense more than feel. Religious truth, 'salvation,' if you will, is very much about us, not me. For religious truth I seek to connect with Something More.

For moral truth I largely look to my own instincts which have been shaped over the years of my life by all my parents taught me, what I have learned personally by experience and through formal education, influenced by my moral religious beliefs and of course by the greater culture I live in.

All of these truths are somewhat relative, they change as we learn more, as I learn more, experience more, but for the most part they stay on track. They are all truth to me because I trust them to 1) help me understand the phycial universe 2) help me understand my place in the physical and metaphysical universe, and 3) help me function well and compassionately in the society in which I live.

I actually do believe there is an ultimate and absolute Truth to which all these other fluctuating truths point, but I equate this with God and so it would never meet the criteria we would need for discussion as given here. Like sailboats tacking into the wind, I think all my little 't' truths move toward the big 'T' Truth.

Going by what I said above, it would depend upon our objective and we'd find out empirically if we could trust the content to take us closer to that objective.
I think it is possible, but very difficult. It's difficult because we (feel like we) risk losing our hold on a vehicle we trust if we acknowledge there may be other trustworthy vehicles.

That's more than enough for now--it's late!

luna

Bravo luna. I agree with all that you have just posted. Instincts, trust, relating to the culture we are living in by doing no harm to others and compassionate understanding.

Is it possible that all our trustworthy vehicles are traveling in the same direction? We meet each other at those intersections of common grace and sometimes we are each driving alone down a one way street.

I want to share this slice of life in an encounter between 2 Christians and one skeptic. Tell me what you think of this:

"Recently we engaged in a friendly debate with a skeptic who said Christianity wasn't true because it was intolerant. Tolerance was the only way to test religious truth. We disagreed, offering to give evidence and reasons why Christianity was true and what he believed was false.

He replied:"That's what I mean. You are wrong because you judge me. Whatever anyone believes is true.

"Be tolerant," we countered. Don't say we are wrong. Stop judging us. Whatever we believe is true."
Realizing that he had been self-contradictory, he tried to recover saying,"Well,its true for you, but not for me."

"Our truth for us is that you don't have truth. So that must be true,because it is our truth. So you are still wrong."

Frustrated, he said: "No you don't understand. If it is true for you, it only applies to you, not anyone else. It's true for you but not for me."

The Christians then say: "It may be true for you that our truth is only true for us, but our truth is that what is true for us is also true for you. So you lose, because that's our truth and you can't apply your truth to us because that' your thruth."

[Abogado del Diablo]

So is the answer that "the Truth" is to us like obscenity is to Justice Stewart: "I know it when I see it" ?

If so, does that mean the answer to the question posed by the title of this thread is probably "No"?

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

So is the answer that "the Truth" is to us like obscenity is to Justice Stewart: "I know it when I see it" ?

If so, does that mean the answer to the question posed by the title of this thread is probably "No"?

No, the answer to the OP is "Yes". We can have a dialog about "The Truth", we just won't come to any conclusive agreement about it.

But hopefully, it will push us closer to it.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

"That which was demonstrated..." the phrase is incomplete... (Is to be self evident, perhaps)? Or is the use of Latin a way of showing some kind of superior knowledge? Knowledge of a dead language (yet not quite dead), is interesting, but then, that is exactly with the Catholic church did up until the 1960s. Then it grew up.

v/r

Q

Hi Q,

Yes the term was used here to provide a short, though hopefully poigniant response to the previous post. As for showing superior knowledge? I would have to leave that to the more erudite and sometimes verbose members of the forum, as I am just a simple blue collar type.
As an aside though I am impressed with your knowledge of the different levels of "dead" rivaled only perhaps by Billy Crystal in "The Princess Bride"
I think the scene where he revives a member of the band of heroes out to rescue the Princess. " Ok, I can help, he's just a little dead, if he was a lot dead, it would be different" ( or something like that)

Peace
Mark

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

So is the answer that "the Truth" is to us like obscenity is to Justice Stewart: "I know it when I see it" ?

If so, does that mean the answer to the question posed by the title of this thread is probably "No"?

Faith writes a truth. Imagination writes a lie. For when I place faith in you it is not my beliefs that I follow, but yours.

The truth brings fruit because it is a symmetry... a symmetry between people, a symmetry between a person and the world, or a symmetry between a person and God (swt).

Truth in the world grows by faith and good deeds. The ego kills it.

The logical person measures words. The wise person measures faith.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Setting aside for the moment whether the truth is "malleable," what are the means by which we might access "the truth"? In other words, by what measure do we determine "the truth" from "not the truth"?

*Quite simply what I know to be true is, and what you speak of that is counter to my truth is not.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

What do you think of that?

refering to folks killing each other over others truth getting in the way of their truth, truly is a shame

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Imagine, for a second, the dialogue between two people who want to discuss their chosen beliefs, with each desiring to prove the other wrong. What would such a dialogue look like?

does someone need to imagine, on these boards do any of us need to imagine?

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Is it possible that they could agree on an objective measure - a common language and method - by which they could discern "the truth"?

Not if that determination means that their truth becomes invalid in the process.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Without that, isn't the dialogue going to just be two people accusing each other of being wrong, with each repeatedly stating their creed or conviction in response to the other doing the same? What would be the product of such a dialogue?

Eventually it appears if they one can't realize that we are allowed to have differing beliefs and be ok with that eventually they tire of beating their head into the wall, back up and discuss topics that don't cause their truth to be stabbed so repeatedly, or they leave for greener pasteurs.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Would it be okay for someone to inflict pain and suffering on your children because of a difference in religious belief over one of these "moral" issues?

no

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Where should the line be drawn?

your beliefs end where mine begin, and vice versa

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

If one's religion says "Kill the infidels!" (and, no, I'm not claiming that any religion makes that demand), is following on that command something we should accept, so we can all stick to our guns that everyone else is wrong?

again, you break the laws of my country, you are judged by those laws. You violate my personal space and you are judged by my laws. Same goes for me.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Can you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable beliefs?

I think we all do, each and every day. Seek first to understand, then to be understood, I like that. As well as seek ye first the kingdom of heaven...I like that to. And I believe I can sit down with most anyone, not a crowd of anyones, but one at a time, away from the mob, dialogue can start.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

If so, how should we decide where to draw that line? If not, what wouldn't be permissible if done in the name of a religious dogma?

Again, in something rules, if it is the religion in its way, or some tribal system, or a formal government, some sort of established rule is slowly creeping around our planet, and they have thier checks and balances, judges and punishments. Our social mores extend into their boundaries, nor theirs into ours.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

I'm not setting up anyone for any argument about who's right or wrong. So please don't misunderstand me. I am asking serious questions about the nature of faith, how we define and determine "the truth," and, in the real world in which we live, what should we do about the inescapable reality that just about every single person has arrived at a different conviction about "the truth" and of what it consists.

This is specifically about discussing perceptions of right and wrong, my truth/reality v. yours.

* please note in this response the tongue must obviously be removed from the cheek...

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Hi Q,


As an aside though I am impressed with your knowledge of the different levels of "dead" rivaled only perhaps by Billy Crystal in "The Princess Bride"
I think the scene where he revives a member of the band of heroes out to rescue the Princess. " Ok, I can help, he's just a little dead, if he was a lot dead, it would be different" ( or something like that)

Peace
Mark

Mark: Sure like your taste in movies. One of my faves !

Where I came from we called this sort of exercise "picking nits".

flow....

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

If so, does that mean the answer to the question posed by the title of this thread is probably "No"?

I think we can dialogue about the Truth, and with humility we can learn a lot from each other along the way. But can we come to some kind of agreement on the Truth? I'd like to say yes, but I think not.

[taijasi]

Perhaps it has to do with starting with some very simple affirmations ...

I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.

This has got to be one of the most powerful statements ever uttered, as well as one of the most basic truths of our existence. I do not think that it could be repeated too often, and for some people (me included), usually in these exact words.

Love and Light,

taijasi

[Jamarz]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

So is the answer that "the Truth" is to us like obscenity is to Justice Stewart: "I know it when I see it" ?

If so, does that mean the answer to the question posed by the title of this thread is probably "No"?

Here is another analogy even one step further:

Kudoes to Walter Truett Anderson:

Three umpires are having a beer after a baseball game. One says: There's balls and there's strikes and I call 'em the way they are." Another responds, "There's balls and there's strikes and I call 'em the way I see 'em." The third says,"There's balls and there's strikes and they ain't nothin until I call em."

So what is reality? Are there balls and stikes out there in the world as the first ump implies? The truth is out there. (Mulder and Scully, where are you?) According to J. Richard Middleton and Brain J. Walsh of the Institute of Christian Studies in Toronto, the first ump is a naive realist, believing that that human knowing is a matter of seeking direct correspondence between the external world and epistemological(what and how we know) judgements.

The second ump knows that acess to the external world is always mediated by the perspective of the knower. A perspectival realist or critical realist since he recognizes that the way he sees the world invariably affects his
epistemological judgements. The third ump is the postmodern shift: radical
perspectivalism, his perspective is all that matters since how do we know, afterall, if there is anything that is "real" beyond our judgements.

So, what does a person do? I think that more and more the American culture, is in the last stages of the 2nd ump and heading for the early to mid stages of postmodernity. My own journey reflects this cultural shift and from what I just read here on CR, here we are. Can we discuss "Truth"?
Maybe or maybe not. First I have to understand what is being said.

We all have built our ethics/values on different foundations: faith, reason,
instinct, feelings. We also make look at the same facts and come up with different conclusions. Just like witnesses to a traffic accident, we all have different accounts of what has happened, what is happening and what may happen.

So what truth shall we deconstruct?

[cyberpi]

Is this now the law, judge, condemn thread? Law can be a truth when it is formed with faith or agreed to.

The 4th umpire saw the failures of the other 3 umpires in promoting Truth and a clean game so he used Faith to promote Truth and said, "Gentlemen before we start this game lets review what the club laws say on how I am to judge your game so we are in agreement. I read that it says this is the strike zone and anything outside of that is a ball. Its your game so if you two teams come to agreement on something a little different then show me how you want me to call it. Very well I promise to do my best at judging your game justly per your strike zone. I am human so I ask for your mercy if I miss a few. You both agree that my judgement will be final for your game today? Very well, play ball."

Cyber_Luke 11:52 Woe to you Faithless umpires, because you have taken away the key to Truth: you entered not yourselves, and them that were entering in you hindered.