Absolute truth

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Would you care to share your beliefs? Are you a theist, atheist, agnostic? I may have assumed incorrectly that you are an atheist. Or do you just prefer to attack everyone else's beliefs without trying to defend your own?

I am a critic of ideologies that people propagate regardless of the beliefs that underpin them. I don't think I have ever "attacked" anyone for a belief they have unless it is translated into some items of ideology that they seek to apply to the world we live in, or if they attempt to make 'truth claims' about me or the reality I live in. If people's beliefs have no impact on others around them, then I'm not especially interested.

Originally posted by FMF
I am a critic of ideologies that people propagate regardless of the beliefs that underpin them. I don't think I have ever "attacked" anyone for a belief they have unless it is translated into some items of ideology that they seek to apply to the world we live in, or if they attempt to make 'truth claims' about me or the reality I live in. If people's beliefs have no impact on others around them, then I'm not especially interested.

So you are only a critic? Or do you have beliefs of your own?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you are only a critic? Or do you have beliefs of your own?

I don't have an ideology based on my spirituality other than the simple 'rules' of a workable morality that life has taught me ~ do no harm, do not deceive, do not coerce, try to empathize, and try not to transgress too much in any of these ways when facing the realities and complexities of life. I am willing to answer criticism of this ideology in so far as it goes. I have never tried to teach anyone here that they should shed their beliefs and subscribe to mine.

Originally posted by finnegan
It is not a simple question.

Responsible for what?

Responsible for what?

Okay. I would start here -

To whom am I ultimately responsible to for actions that my body performed?

That would mean include the hands, the feet, the tongue, eyes, and all the parts of my body.
Responsible for deeds done in my body would be my reply.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't have an ideology based on my spirituality other than the simple 'rules' of a workable morality that life has taught me ~ do no harm, do not deceive, do not coerce, try to empathize, and try not to transgress too much in any of these ways when facing the realities and complexities of life. I am willing to answer criticism of this ideology in so far as it ...[text shortened]... have never tried to teach anyone here that they should shed their beliefs and subscribe to mine.

How did life teach you these morals if you don't mind me asking?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
How did life teach you these morals if you don't mind me asking?

I believe that, being the social creatures that we are, wanting or needing to act in a morally sound way is innate within us and this is nurtured in us by our families and our communities, and constantly subject to the effects of experience and circumstances. I believe that it is exactly the same for you as it is for me. Being a Christian for a long time was part of my experience, as was gradually becoming a non-Christian.

Originally posted by sonship

Responsible for what?

Okay. I would start here -

To whom am I ultimately responsible to for actions that my body performed?

That would mean include the hands, the feet, the tongue, eyes, and all the parts of my body.
Responsible for deeds done in my body would be my reply.

You are weird. I see nothing here to discuss.

Originally posted by finnegan
So absolute truth = tautology. What have we learned at school today? Nothing.

Absolute truth--an axiom, like "two points determine a straight line".

Fail. For a long time it was assumed that Euclid had identified absolute truths - Kant thought so. Then a whole series of alternative, non Euclidean geometries were established and Euc ...[text shortened]... s south of Rochester," https://threesixty360.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/which-direction-is-mecca/

Once again I ask you to clarify your position. Are you saying "there is no absolute truth"?

If you say that absolute truth does not exist, you imply that in some sense, that all knowledge is subjective or relative, and that no piece of information could be independently and objectively verifiable.

Logically speaking, saying that absolute truth, or any truth for that matter, doesn’t exist, is contradictory. For example, if you assert absolute truth does not exist, then if you’re right, wouldn’t your statement then be an absolute truth? In other words, wouldn’t it be absolutely true, that absolute truth doesn’t exist? This assertion would then be a logical contradiction, because such a statement would be completely self defeating. You cannot say that truth doesn’t exist, because in order for this to be right, it would have to be true. The only logical option is that truth does exist, and if truth does exist, absolute truth follows thereafter.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Once again I ask you to clarify your position. Are you saying "there is no absolute truth"?

If you say that absolute truth does not exist, you imply that in some sense, that all knowledge is subjective or relative, and that no piece of information could be independently and objectively verifiable.

Logically speaking, saying that absolute truth, or ...[text shortened]... cal option is that truth does exist, and if truth does exist, absolute truth follows thereafter.

I think our problem is that you insist on adding qualifiers to the word "truth". There are no qualifiers. Either a statement is true or it is not true. There are implied limits to a true statement - when the hero in a film says "It's alright, we're not going to die.", they do not mean they are immortal, they just mean "We're safe for the minute.". But this is all implied by the context. So stop trying to confuse matters by adding pointless qualifiers to the word "truth".

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Once again I ask you to clarify your position. Are you saying "there is no absolute truth"?

If you say that absolute truth does not exist, you imply that in some sense, that all knowledge is subjective or relative, and that no piece of information could be independently and objectively verifiable.

Logically speaking, saying that absolute truth, or ...[text shortened]... cal option is that truth does exist, and if truth does exist, absolute truth follows thereafter.

Popper would say we can prove something false but we cannot ultimately prove something is true. You would get very cross with Popper and bluster that if we can prove something is definitely false than we are stating an absolute truth ( a negative statement that is absolutely true). He would probably smile and say that if you wish you may indeed call such falsification an absolute truth, since it can be achieved definitively. However, your problem is that we might discover that our falsification was not correct after all, owing to some new way of seeing things, so really even falsification is to some degree provisional. This does not mean nothing is proved false. It means that, once that happens, the onus is on anyone unhappy with the result to come up with a serious way of explaining away the negative result. For example, a seemingly excellent experiment may turn out to be impossible to replicate, casting great doubt on its findings; this often does happen in practice. So absolute falsehood does not really have to be proposed after all but this does not offer a licence for extreme skepticism.

Popper's model of science is very influential - and far better than Logical Positivism - but it is still not satisfactory. Scientific Realism would say we can arrive at the truth under scientific conditions. This is likely to be achieved by successively better approximations, not by a brilliant demonstration out of the blue. It is always open to be revised if we find a better account of reality. We can always look for improvement. But it is excessively skeptical to dispute the reality of many well established aspects of our world. Do seagulls eat fish? I am going out on a limb here and saying - I am certain they do. For a great deal of science, the fact is that only an absurd level of skepticism can sustain continued doubt about the truth of what scientists describe. This goes far beyond tautologies - things that are so obvious as to be banal. It is the case for a great many scientific "theories," such as - let us say - tectonic plates as an explanation for earthquakes.

The idea of absolute truth would be beside the point in this way of thinking. It seems to me to belong to the traditional illusion that knowledge can be constructed, like Euclid's geometry, as a solid edifice on a foundation of absolute truths. Once we establish some basic, fundamental truths, then from these we can deduce all sorts of other true statements about the world. This is also the way religions have been assembled - speculative reasoning taken to extremes. But it is just not the case. From plausible premises we can use impeccable logic to arrive at all sorts of different and mutually contradictory conclusions. Without empirical testing, reasoning leads us into a maze of speculative imagination. To believe under these conditions is to be deluded. Every time people claim to construct a pyramid of truth on logical foundations, it turns out on inspection to be a spurious claim, a hallucination, a magician's card trick.

This rationalist approach has no place in Scientific Realism. One does not look for absolute truth because it would serve no purpose. Maybe a God could work with absolute truths, but we are not Gods, are we?

You might call that relative truth I suppose but that label is empty in my opinion. It makes sense to describe our private experience of the world as a relative truth or better still a subjective truth (psychotherapists refer to your truth, the truth of your unique experience, to show that they are taking you seriously, looking at things from your point of view) but science is not private - it is social and of course it is, it must be "independently and objectively verifiable." The very definition of a good experiment is that it can be replicated, for example. I think if you understood the social nature of science you would be better able to remove many of your misunderstandings about notions of subjective, relative or absolute truth.

Originally posted by finnegan
You are weird. I see nothing here to discuss.

You are weird. I see nothing here to discuss.
----------------------------------------------------------

Is that my problem ?
You asked "Responsible for WHAT?"
I replied the actions of our body.

What's weird ? Your question ?

Robbing requires action of the body.
Gossip requires an action of the body.
Murder, adultery, slander, stealing - the action of some member/s of our body.

They put people in JAIL to limit the actions of their, you guessed it, BODY.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] You are weird. I see nothing here to discuss.
----------------------------------------------------------

Is that my problem ?
You asked "Responsible for WHAT?"
I replied the actions of our body.

What's weird ? Your question ?

Robbing requires action of the body.
Gossip requires an action of the body.
Murder, adultery, slander, stea ...[text shortened]... body.

They put people in JAIL to limit the actions of their, you guessed it, BODY.[/b]

Is that my problem ?

Yes.

Originally posted by finnegan
Popper would say we can prove something false but we cannot ultimately prove something is true. You would get very cross with Popper and bluster that if we can prove something is definitely false than we are stating an absolute truth ( a negative statement that is absolutely true). He would probably smile and say that if you wish you may indeed call such ...[text shortened]... o remove many of your misunderstandings about notions of subjective, relative or absolute truth.

I see you are always quoting someone else. I am interested in your beliefs if you have any. Do you believe that the things your quote are universally true, if not what is the point of quoting them?

My question to you is: Do YOU believe there is no absolute truth? It requires a simple yes or no answer.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
My question to you is: Do YOU believe there is no absolute truth? It requires a simple yes or no answer.

Can you give some examples of what you mean, in practical terms, by "absolute truth"? And if you can do a little better than '5 is smaller than 7' this time and offer something applicable to a spiritual or philosophical dimension of everyday life, instead, it would be welcome.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I see you are always quoting someone else. I am interested in your beliefs if you have any. Do you believe that the things your quote are universally true, if not what is the point of quoting them?

My question to you is: Do YOU believe there is no absolute truth? It requires a simple yes or no answer.

I currently favour Scientific Realism.

When I was religious, I was inclined to the faith over belief approach and what led me away from religion was the transparent weakness of faith as a bulwark against being deceived. Anger against manipulators and lies has remained a basic aspect of my temperament. That attitude made me sceptical towards versions of Logical Positivism before I even knew how to label them and made me extremely receptive to Karl Popper's faslification model of science. I think I was 18 when I first read Conjectures and Refutations. I was absent from this type of debate for several decades and assumed that religion was no longer significant, since it certainly did not affect any aspect of my life, but I still had reasons to think periodically about scientific method and when I was introduced to Scientific Realism that seemd to me a far more satisfying way to approach matters.

So the point of my references to "someone else" is to say not only that what I think corresponds to Scientific Realism, for want of a better account, but also that what I think is not what I was instructed to think or what I was brought up to think or what I suddenly decided to accept as an undigested borrowing from some assumed authorithy source, like some form of conversion experience. I have not handed over my reasoning and feeling mind to any scripture, secular or religious. I have arrived at my opinion by careful reading and discussion and also retain the ability to debate and explain (and hopefully continue to develop) my opinions in terms that permit you to debate and, if you wish, to challenge what I think.

It is important, for example, that I know why my opinions can be lebelled "Scientific Realism." The notion that I might have magically produced out of thin air a completely coherent epistemology is a fantasy. Even if we imagine that I did, it remains important to know that others have already considered my ideas and both attacked and defended them in detail over a period of time. Indeed, what would be the point of even bothering to have an opinion unless it connected with a debate in which other people had an interest?

You have a surprising (anti-intellectual) fear of citing "someone else." What absurd thinking makes you believe that we can, unaided, understand and resolve problems that have occupied great minds for millennia? The idea that we each have to reinvent the wheel from scratch is foolish. We are discussing nothing that was not debated wisely in the Ninth Century in Baghdad's House of Wisdom. It is also not very convincing when the proposal comes from people like yourself who have few original thoughts and instead rely on a dogmatic acceptance of unquestioned scripture. You seem to me to believe what you are told to believe, what is conventional in your chosen social clique, and to defend yourself against any and all critical questioning by means of a wall of skepticism.