Secret Chief
Vetted Member
That belief was considered to be a fact.
-
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!
Is Truth Individual?
- Thread starter Left Coast
- Start date
I don't think it's disputed that people disagree about reality. The question is which people are correct about it.
But it actually wasn't one. The belief was incorrect.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Yes.
Never! (See above)
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Exactly! We can only establish truth on what we know. As more knowledge is revealed, truth changes.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
I know. But it was considered to be a fact. Things are considered to be a fact now. Which of these facts now are actually ...facts?
Yes.
SC, I'm sorry, misread your question. No, it was never a fact that the sun orbited the Earth. People believed that, but they were wrong.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Truth never changes...Consciousness is Truth
World is ever changing, so can't be Truth
I see. In my view, it's not truth that changes, it's just our understanding that does.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
I'm sorry, but in the tradition of University Challenge, I'm going to have to accept your first answer
Really the question is not which people are correct. The real question is, which perception has more usefulness to the group. What is functionally true for one group, may be completely irrelvant and "untrue" to another.
For instance, those that see natural disasters are the result of angry gods, that is a truth for that group. And their system of reality is based around these truths about gods. To someone in modern scientific culture, that is untrue to them. But to those in the magic culture, the scientific view of natural disasters is wrong. Right and wrong, are relative to the group that defines what truth is.
As I said before, it's perceptions all the way up, and all the way down.
I'm sorry, but in the tradition of University Challenge, I'm going to have to accept your first answer
Dangit!
The thing is, being correct is vastly more useful than being incorrect. A person who thinks storms are caused by angry gods may waste their time engaging in various sacrifices or other behaviors to appease this supposedly angry deity, when the reality is that has no affect on whether another storm will come. So they could be using their time to understand what actually causes storms, which is likely to be much more useful to them.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
No, it was considered to be the truth. Just because called it a fact doesn't make it so. Truth doesn't necessarily require proof; facts do.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Everyone in every group with differing perceptions of reality would agree with this. As I said, it's its functional usefulness to the group. Are your ideas in line with those of the group, or outside of those?
If you lived in ancient times and started talking with them about black holes and galaxies, you would be in error according to them. That perception of the heavens has no functional use to them.
Yet it did have utility to the group, otherwise the practice would not have continued. While it may not have an effect on the actual weather, it certainly did have an affect on group cohesion. Shared truths and rituals create the experience of reality for its participants.
From the perception of someone inside a magic system, the modernist flying weather balloons and using the tools of modern science is not recognizing the gods, and therefore, angering them puts them at risk. Their approach to reality has benefit to them, and they see no benefit by tossing out the gods, for instance.
You could make an argument that science as a tool can be more useful for doing that one thing, such as predicting weather patterns, but only if it can be made to fit within that system of the gods. Otherwise, it threatens the system to them, and therefore should not be trusted or believed in.
This by the way, is why Creationists and other pseudosciences try to make modern science compatible with magic. They need to try to find a way to get along with that different "atheistic" system by making it agree with the "magic" of their gods-systems. Of course, what they are left with afterwards, is not what a modernist recognizes as real science. But to those in the magic system, it's only real science if it supports the gods.
Therein is the magic keys to understanding fundamentalism.
PureX
Veteran Member
The "Truth" is what is. It is an all-inclusive absolute. There is no "unTruth" except as an antithetical concept in the human mind.
However, we humans are not capable of ascertaining/comprehending this Truth, as it far excedes our scope of perception and understanding. Such that what we call the "truth" is not the 'Truth'. But is merely our own very limited and biased opinion about what the Truth, is. (I am here designating the difference by using a capitalized "T" for the absolute Truth, and a small "t" for the subjective/relative truth as we humans perceive and presume to know it.)
It's interesting that we humans are so ego-centric and self-centered that we have not designated two different terms to refer to these two very different conceptual manifestations of "truth".
Last edited:
The difference in capitalization is helpful in differentiating what you mean, thank you.
We've had a few different discussions along these lines, so maybe let me ask this: how did you arrive at the conclusion that Truth is, "an all-inclusive absolute"? Particularly given your view that, "we humans are not capable of ascertaining/comprehending this Truth, as it far excedes our scope of perception and understanding"?