Different truths are not the same

[gnostic]

The way I see it, there are 3 or 4 main types of TRUTH, and though they may occasionally overlap, they may also not necessarily be the same, in term of objective and context.

1. Personal truth.
2. Religious truth or faith-based truth.
3. Logical truth.
4. And lastly, Factual truth.

Personal truth is like a person given testimony in a courtroom. It is based on your observation or what you've heard. Assuming you are telling the "truth", like a witness to murder trial (as an example) what you have seen or heard, will only give partial picture of what happen. What you seen or heard may not be the same as someone (another witness) who was in closer proximity of the murder.

Religious truth is based on belief and faith in that belief. Religious belief don't require any physical evidence to be presented. It rely on written (or that based on oral tradition) and who wrote that supposed scripture. The person who wrote it, may be a prophet or disciple or just a scribe that lived a generation or (a lot) more later long after the supposed event. But some of these events defy logical reasoning, like the miracles of Jesus, being able to heal people with the touch of a hand, or the creation of the world in 6 days. Religious truth is also personal truth, but not all personal truth have religious nature or religious significance.

Logical truth is of course is based on logical reasoning or assumption. The best example I could give, is mathematics.

Factual truth is based on verification through evidences and observations. A single evidence may not be enough, so it often best to seek other evidences that are independent to support the 1st evidence. Science rely heavily on evidences as much as logical reasoning.

(And when I referred to observation in the factual truth, it doesn't necessarily mean a person actually seeing it, hence like an eye witness. The observation could be through a device that can detect and record something that the naked eye can't see.)

Truth based on religious belief and faith, don't often fall under factual truth, and sometimes not even in logical truth.

What I don't understand is why religious people think that their "truth" trump all other truths?

Or how they can think their truth is absolute, when their beliefs are really "subjective"?

 

[Vinayaka]

What I don't understand is why religious people think that their "truth" trump all other truths?
Or how they can think their truth is absolute, when their beliefs are really "subjective"?

But do they actually? Or is it just the politically correct thing to say, or a means of fitting in? I have found it very difficult to find out what a person actually thinks. Them words they spout often aren't truths, or they'd be practicing it. It's a difficult and somewhat humiliating task to admit you really don't know.

 

[arcanum]

The way I see it, there are 3 or 4 main types of TRUTH, and though they may occasionally overlap, they may also not necessarily be the same, in term of objective and context.

1. Personal truth.
2. Religious truth or faith-based truth.
3. Logical truth.
4. And lastly, Factual truth.

Personal truth is like a person given testimony in a courtroom. It is based on your observation or what you've heard. Assuming you are telling the "truth", like a witness to murder trial (as an example) what you have seen or heard, will only give partial picture of what happen. What you seen or heard may not be the same as someone (another witness) who was in closer proximity of the murder.

Religious truth is based on belief and faith in that belief. Religious belief don't require any physical evidence to be presented. It rely on written (or that based on oral tradition) and who wrote that supposed scripture. The person who wrote it, may be a prophet or disciple or just a scribe that lived a generation or (a lot) more later long after the supposed event. But some of these events defy logical reasoning, like the miracles of Jesus, being able to heal people with the touch of a hand, or the creation of the world in 6 days. Religious truth is also personal truth, but not all personal truth have religious nature or religious significance.

Logical truth is of course is based on logical reasoning or assumption. The best example I could give, is mathematics.

Factual truth is based on verification through evidences and observations. A single evidence may not be enough, so it often best to seek other evidences that are independent to support the 1st evidence. Science rely heavily on evidences as much as logical reasoning.

(And when I referred to observation in the factual truth, it doesn't necessarily mean a person actually seeing it, hence like an eye witness. The observation could be through a device that can detect and record something that the naked eye can't see.)

Truth based on religious belief and faith, don't often fall under factual truth, and sometimes not even in logical truth.

What I don't understand is why religious people think that their "truth" trump all other truths?

Or how they can think their truth is absolute, when their beliefs are really "subjective"?

This is the problem, the assumption by many that their truth is the one absolute truth, and the others are in error. But as you laid out , there is more than one aspect of truth, kind of like those Russian nesting dolls, there are different layers of truth. Most don't see that though, it's the human condition.

 

[gnostic]

But do they actually? Or is it just the politically correct thing to say, or a means of fitting in? I have found it very difficult to find out what a person actually thinks. Them words they spout often aren't truths, or they'd be practicing it. It's a difficult and somewhat humiliating task to admit you really don't know.

My stance on religion is agnostic, leaning a bit on the atheistic side. My view is also like that of science, meaning "evidences" first before acceptance or belief.

When I was younger, I used think anything was possible. Back then when I 1st read the bible, I thought it was possible for 6 day creation or flood, or angels and demons, and of course, miracles. But at the same time, I thought aliens coming here was real, as well the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, etc. What I've read, I had accepted at face value.

But the older I got and the more experience in the world I got, I am not so free with belief. When I read the bible now, I see fables and myths. I see it now as allegory, parable, and not to be taken literally or as factual. I just learned to distinguish myths from facts.

Don't get me wrong, I actually loved myths, legends and folklore. Over the years, I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of texts, from ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt and Mesopotamia, and from medieval Norse and Celtic, and others, with both mythological or religious themes. I have even created a website called Timeless Myths and Dark Mirrors of Heaven.

Was I open-minded or just young and naive?

I am not asking people to ditch their religion and disbelieve, but to ask them not to blur the line between factual truth and religious truth. To use common sense and not ditch fact should it conflict with their belief.

 

[Vinayaka]

My stance on religion is agnostic, leaning a bit on the atheistic side.

And I think everybody (other than realised seers in my (Eastern faiths) tradition are essentially agnostic, whether they admit it or not. This includes me, although its only about 1% or so. Some days I have more doubts than others. The problem comes in admitting it.

 

[Splarnst]

I would never use the term "personal truth" to refer to often-wrong perception or subjective experience; it defiles the very concept of truth. And "religious truth" is usually just code for "something I really want to believe so I don't care whether it's actually false."

 

[gnostic]

I would never use the term "personal truth" to refer to often-wrong perception or subjective experience; it defiles the very concept of truth.

I don't think "personal truth" is the terminology I was looking for, but I Just simply couldn't think of the right one.

 

[Engyo]

subjective truth vs. objective truth

 

[PolyHedral]

The way I see it, there are 3 or 4 main types of TRUTH, and though they may occasionally overlap, they may also not necessarily be the same, in term of objective and context.

1. Personal truth.
2. Religious truth or faith-based truth.
3. Logical truth.
4. And lastly, Factual truth.

1 and 2 aren't truth at all; they're just (ir)rational belief, and can get corrupted alarmingly easily. 4 can still be corrupted, especially in the likes of the social sciences, but 3 is the only one that is actually immutable.

At least, if we're talking about truth in the sense of non-omniscience. In the case of sufficiently advanced knowledge and intelligence, the first 2 are just disguised versions of 4.

 

[gnostic]

4 can still be corrupted, especially in the likes of the social sciences, but 3 is the only one that is actually immutable.

I think and believe that 3 & 4 should combine together, to get to the real truth. If logic can go hand-in-hand with evidence-based truth, then it would be superior.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

but 3 is the only one that is actually immutable.

Sorites paradox?

 

[zenzero]

Friend gnostic,

The way I see it, there are 3 or 4 main types of TRUTH

What I don't understand is why religious people think that their "truth" trump all other truths? Or how they can think their truth is absolute, when their beliefs are really "subjective"?

Minds can categorize anything including TRUTH in various ways including the way your mind has here.
Those who have transcended their mind [subject and object are one]sees TRUTH only as TRUTH in all forms.

Love & rgds

 

[filthy tugboat]

Sorites paradox?

The Sorites paradox doesn't show a problem with logic itself or show that logic is fallible. A logical truth is something that is true assuming all of the premises. The Sorites paradox is only a paradox because the concept of "a heap" is vague and subjective, this form of paradox only ever becomes a paradox when the description has no set boundaries.

Define; a heap.

 

[A-ManESL]

I think that personal truth is just an extreme case of personal opinion and hence subjective. Logical or Mathematical truth is empirically empty and is dependent on subjective opinion (eg Euclidean geometry was "the" geometry until popular opinion changed) and scientific truth is also subjective (the earth goes round around the sun or does it go in a straight line in spacetime?).

I would disagree that religious truth is based on blind faith. It is also based on knowledge, acquired through spiritual training. That is what the messengers/saints of God tell us. I cannot comment on its objective/subjective nature as I dont possess it to that degree (however we are told that it is objective and true by holy men).

 

[filthy tugboat]

I think that personal truth is just an extreme case of personal opinion and hence subjective.

I agree, it is not really "truth" at all, it's just a subjective perspective on a proposed event.

Logical or Mathematical truth is empirically empty and is dependent on subjective opinion

This is completely false, these are the only two things that are actually demonstrably true.

(eg Euclidean geometry was "the" geometry until popular opinion changed)[/quote]

Euclidean geometry is not false, it works within it's own laws and based on it's own axioms. That is why mathematics and logic are actually true. They are systems that are based on defined laws and axioms. Any truth that can be created from mathematics or from logic are true because they define their own system and work within their own defined laws and axioms.

and scientific truth is also subjective (the earth goes round around the sun or does it go in a straight line in spacetime?).

That is not subjective, that is a subjective opinion of science. You are confusing "scientific truth" with the aforementioned "personal truth"

I would disagree that religious truth is based on blind faith.

Where was it said that religious truth is based on blind faith?

It is also based on knowledge, acquired through spiritual training.

I don't think this is actually a thing. What is "spiritual training"? What is "spirit" or "spiritual"? Religious truth's can be true in the same sense as logic and mathematics. Religions define their own systems and things can be true of that religion granting those axioms.

That is what the messengers/saints of God tell us. I cannot comment on its objective/subjective nature as I dont possess it to that degree (however we are told that it is objective and true by holy men).

Are there messengers or saints of God? I don't think so but some people have differing opinions.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The Sorites paradox doesn't show a problem with logic itself or show that logic is fallible.

I believe the word used was immutable, not infallible. But here we have a problem. How are we defining logic? Human conception of logic has not only changed, logicians don't agree on any number of issues.

A logical truth is something that is true assuming all of the premises.

You're missing a step. The conclusion/truth has to "follow from" the premises (the argument must be valid). But is that true, and what does follow from mean?

Define; a heap.

Define "tall," "old," "big," etc. The world is mainly subjective notions. If logic can't be used to determine the truth value real-world statements, then isn't that a problem for logic? What does it mean to say "logic is infallible" and then say "we can't use logic to determine the validity of most arguments because they involve tense, subjective notions, etc." What is logic?

 

[PolyHedral]

I believe the word used was immutable, not infallible. But here we have a problem. How are we defining logic? Human conception of logic has not only changed, logicians don't agree on any number of issues.

All of them are right if you accept their premises.

You're missing a step. The conclusion/truth has to "follow from" the premises (the argument must be valid). But is that true, and what does follow from mean?

It depends. Different things are true depending on which rules you use.

If logic can't be used to determine the truth value real-world statements, then isn't that a problem for logic?

Logic has successfully united 2 of the 4 fundamental components of the universe. It's entirely humans problem that their concepts are too vague to deal with with predicate logic. (Probabilistic and Bayesian logics, however, work fine, and are incredibly powerful tools.)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

All of them are right if you accept their premises.

"if." Such a small little particle, causing so many problems.

It depends. Different things are true depending on which rules you use.

That's true.

Logic has successfully united 2 of the 4 fundamental components of the universe.

Meaning what? What 4?

It's entirely humans problem that their concepts are too vague to deal with with predicate logic.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. Our language provides (among other things) a mechanism for describing the world and our reality. So perhaps the fact that reality is fuzzy that predicate logic fails.

(Probabilistic and Bayesian logics, however, work fine, and are incredibly powerful tools.)

They are indeed. And become even more powerful with fuzzy probability and statistics.

 

[A-ManESL]

This is completely false, these are the only two things that are actually demonstrably true.

The rules of deductive reasoning used in mathematics are not formed by an external scale but within the gambit of mathematics itself. These laws are therefore not independent of the current reasoning techniques in vogue. What guarantee is there that what we regard as proved today (eg Fermat's last theorem) may turn out to be disproved tomorrow because our deductive reasoning process had a fundamental flaw which has not been understood today? See this for a list of widely accepted mathematical results which were later rejected. The value of such a truth which changes and measures its robustness by its own scale cannot be called a truth in my opinion and should be called as a theorem instead.

Secondly I understand that Euclidean geometry is neither true/false in the absolute sense (to which I was referring to in my OP) and subject to its axioms can be established. But you can judge the subjectiveness adopted by mathematicians in accepting it by the fact that Gauss hid his work on non-Euclidean geometry for a long time for fear of an outcry. Mathematicians display a certain subjectiveness in accepting what is mathematically true or not (hence people call negative numbers as "negative", and imaginary numbers as "imaginary"; although all numbers are after all imagined by us) and this filters down, because practically speaking it is mathematicians who decide whether a certain result is valid or not. Hence subject to their opinion, we get our body of maths.

This is from the British physicist's Penrose's book, A road to reality:

Nevertheless, one might still take the alternative view that the mathematical
world has no independent existence, and consists merely of certain ideas which have been distilled from our various minds and which have been found to be totally trustworthy and are agreed by all. Yet even this viewpoint seems to leave us far short of what is required. Do we mean ‘agreed by all’, for example, or ‘agreed by those who are in their right minds’, or ‘agreed by all those who have a Ph.D. in mathematics’ (not much use in Plato’s day) and who have a right to venture an ‘authoritative’ opinion? There seems to be a danger of circularity here; for to judge whether or not someone is ‘in his or her right mind’ requires some external standard. So also does the meaning of ‘authoritative’, unless some standard of an unscientiWc nature such as ‘majority opinion’ were to be adopted (and it should be made clear that majority opinion, no matter how important it may be for democratic government, should in no way be used as the criterion for scientiWc acceptability).

I don't think this is actually a thing. What is "spiritual training"? What is "spirit" or "spiritual"?

You probably dont think this is a thing because you don't know. If you want to know I could recommend a few books for you.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Mathematicians display a certain subjectiveness in accepting what is mathematically true or not (hence people call negative numbers as "negative", and imaginary numbers as "imaginary"; although all numbers are after all imagined by us) and this filters down, because practically speaking it is mathematicians who decide whether a certain result is valid or not. Hence subject to their opinion, we get our body of maths.

This is from the British physicist's Penrose's book, A road to reality:

This isn't exactly accurate. Penrose here (p. 63) is dealing with the nominalism/realism debate, not subjectivity in mathematics. It's true that mathematicians do subjectively define some things. Order of operations in algebra. But that's just convention. Operations can be defined in different ways, but again this has less to do with subjectivity than with purpose. I can say subtraction is the addition of negative numbers, and then make addition the only operation in arithmetic is addition. I'll still get the same results. Our "body of maths" isn't subject to their opinions but is subject to the need for precise definitions.