Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
It would only be considered true if any other observer could repeat the tests to observe the same things.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How Do We Know Something is True?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
It would only be considered true if any other observer could repeat the tests to observe the same things.
Curious George
Veteran Member
That doesn't really disprove anything. All that says is that is that eyewitness testimony does not meet the acxeptable standards to use as fact.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I didn't expect you to deliver claim and then retire when the claim was challenged. Others have said the equivalent to you, and I did not comment. If I was mistaken, please nevermind.ooooohh! How contentious!
Cheers
Curious George
Veteran Member
I was pointing out a self contradictory claim. I think it is an important concept. So, our time is not wasted as it gets to the heart of the discussion regarding truth.
And yes, your statement is inherently untrue.
illykitty
RF's pet cat
It's a good question and one that is hard to answer in some cases, especially when it comes to human relations. The scientific method can answer a lot of the truth questions, and it's great when one can verify things themselves, but in some areas of life one can't apply it... So what to do then? We can only go by what seems more likely... I would find it impossible to go through life without assuming certain things, like that my husband truly cares for and loves me, based on my observations. I can't know for sure, but I'm positive about it. I could be wrong though, since the only person that knows the answer is him.
And since these forums are mostly about religions, I also often wonder what makes people so sure of their holy scriptures, prophets and such. I've been outside of religions most of my life, not really exposed to any, so it's very strange to me to find ancient books to be taken as coming from a deity, that I can't verify. In times of desperation in my life, I've tried to understand, I've tried to connect and so on... How long does one need to pray to said deity before one can know/believe/etc? Again, it's all very strange to me.
And since these forums are mostly about religions, I also often wonder what makes people so sure of their holy scriptures, prophets and such. I've been outside of religions most of my life, not really exposed to any, so it's very strange to me to find ancient books to be taken as coming from a deity, that I can't verify. In times of desperation in my life, I've tried to understand, I've tried to connect and so on... How long does one need to pray to said deity before one can know/believe/etc? Again, it's all very strange to me.
Assumption is a type of belief, those beliefs that are foundational to an position or view taken in a discussion or an argument.
I wouldn't have worded it that way, but essentially, yes.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
Very interesting points there! I'll throw out a bit of a warning straight off the bat that I'm a bit out of my depth here. I'll do my best to answer your questions but please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted what you're saying or if I make mistakes in my answer. This is a field in which I'm very much a student and not a master!
I definitely think that the more people there are to verify something, the more reliable that claim can be. However, that still leaves the potential for some really bizarre human error. Are you familiar with the Mandela effect? It's essentially collective false memory, wherein a great many people (sometimes thousands) remember a particular event or fact which doesn't actually correspond to reality. For example, the Monopoly man does not have a monocle, despite a lot of people apparently being certain that he does.
Some people have argued that the Mandela effect is proof of alternative realities. Let's ignore that side of things for the time-being and just work on the assumption that this demonstrates the capacity for large numbers of people to be certain of something that just isn't the case. Using your cat example, a great number of people may see the cat and agree that it exists. However, further down the line they may distinctly remember seeing a dog instead. So the validity of inter-subjective verification for establishing objective truth may also be subject to a sort of decay. In other words, it becomes viable for saying "there is a cat" but much more suspect for saying "there was a cat."
So far, that only suggests that arriving at truths without asserting the existence of objective reality may have an expiration date. It doesn't say that it can't be done. Going by the correspondence theory you suggested, I don't see why we couldn't assume that we can establish truth for at least a time.
The next bit is mostly waffle and food for thought that you may or may not find interesting.
Now I suggested two axioms for an objective reality. One being that there is a world beyond our perception of it. That's for the sake of the brain in the jar line of reasoning. The second is that others can observe that objective world in a manner roughly similar to oneself (the "roughly" in that line is to accommodate colour blindness and the like). The reason for this one is because of the possibility that some, or all, other people are actually zombies. That is to say, people who look and behave exactly as a conscious being would, without actually being conscious themselves.
It's a similar thought experiment to the old "brain in the jar" in many ways. I bring it up because it's at least arguable that all those people you bring in to see the cat aren't actually seeing the cat, they're not really conscious. Now I don't know how seriously it's worth taking the zombie theory, it strikes me as something entertaining to contemplate (in an uncanny horror sort of way!) but could be a cop out in discussion. If, for the sake of argument, we do take it seriously, then I would think establishing a couple of axioms would be necessary to then establish reliable truth.
Now, my question would be whether or not establishing axioms by default also postulates the existence of an objective reality? Alternatively, would it simply be a decision based in pragmatism with no need or desire to postulate an objective reality?
Interesting thoughts! For clarification, I like to ask a few questions.
In your opinion, how can we know there exists an "objective reality"? What would be our means of inquiry?
And what are the properties of this "objective reality" that might make a statement about it "unquestionable and absolute"? For instance, if I say "objective reality is X", then how do I know X won't change, and therefore reveal itself to be less than absolute?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Curious George....... My claim is that I don't auto-trust anything as 'truth', whether written down, spoken, shouted from the hilltops, passed on by prophets, laboratory findings, juries' verdicts, or even..... even...... what you yourself, most respected and exact RF member, may wish to insist upon.
I've not come across a claim for truth yet that might not wobble, just as so many other such claims have. Some things that wobble do give me endless amounts of joy, George, but claims for truth don't!
However, should you wish to make a claim for some snippet of truth, I would consider it deeply. But I'll bet it's going to be wobbly!
Thank you.
We don't.
Plenty of indications of its truthfulness.
Propositions are not true. They are just helpful servants.
No! But we are certain that YOU know that!
We can trust that anything and everything can be trusted to lead us to The Truth, but trust nothing and no one unconditionally.
For most people, yes, absolutely.
Thank you for that. I should change indefeasibly justified to seemingly logically indefeasibly justified.
Truth is only logical respecting the end product, imo.
Last edited:
We know something is true (or believe that something is true) when others try to tell us it's false, and we become offended. Or even if someone questions or offers a counter alternative way of thinking about something you believe is true (even if it IS true, like 2+2=4) and you become offended, then it's likely that YOU believe it's true. I say this because it's interesting when you explore different faiths, and you're not really a follower of said faith/belief/path, and people are offended that you are just not accepting every story they're telling you as 'truth.'' That's how you know it's truth for them.
We care about objective truth. We think we all know what it is. We care about subjective truth. People don't care to defend things they don't believe in.
We care about objective truth. We think we all know what it is. We care about subjective truth. People don't care to defend things they don't believe in.
Would you call the claim that "Jesus is the truth" more of a poetic truth than a rational truth?
It's rational for David to believe it, just like it's rational for you to not believe it. It wouldn't be rational to kill for one's belief, but to just believe in a higher power and to follow a religion for the sake of it, isn't necessarily inherently irrational, imo.
Many might be glossing over that part. lol It's not just Christians. I've been experiencing this in other faiths as an outsider looking in right now.
Just curious. Would you call proselytizing to one who believed differently than you "killing [her/his] belief?"
''Killing?''