Gambit
Well-Known Member
The Buddhist doctrine of "two truths" makes a distinction between the relative truth and the absolute truth. What sayeth you? Is truth relative or absolute?
-
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 relative or absolute?
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
Relative.
Consider a basic truth such as time.
Time seems absolute.
Time, however is an illusion that is only absolute to humans living here on the earth.
Depending upon where on the earth.
Two clocks of equal quality are set at the same time on one spot on earth.
Move one clock to a mountain top and that clock will run faster than the one on the earth.
Einstien proved that mathmaticially in his theory of general realitivity.
It seems that humans, in a general way, need to believe in an entity more powerful than man.
Perhaps why there are so many religions.
Is there one true path to God?
Which one?
Consider a basic truth such as time.
Time seems absolute.
Time, however is an illusion that is only absolute to humans living here on the earth.
Depending upon where on the earth.
Two clocks of equal quality are set at the same time on one spot on earth.
Move one clock to a mountain top and that clock will run faster than the one on the earth.
Einstien proved that mathmaticially in his theory of general realitivity.
It seems that humans, in a general way, need to believe in an entity more powerful than man.
Perhaps why there are so many religions.
Is there one true path to God?
Which one?
Are you looking for a true answer or a relatively true answer? In either case, you might wish to first give us your working definition of truth.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Truth or facts of reality are absolute. Buddhist depending on sec try to align themselves with this truth without bias, label, or opinion about the truth itself (making it 'look' relative).
Opinions, beliefs, and how we define triths are relative. one plus one is two. We can moralize it by saying both parts make one whole number both together and separate. Thats relative. We just assigned a meaning to what is in itself without meaning. The truth is just one and one is two. Nothing more.
We do the same with reality. However, its hard to differientiate truth from belief given we rely on labels for communication and relating tonself and others.
Opinions, beliefs, and how we define triths are relative. one plus one is two. We can moralize it by saying both parts make one whole number both together and separate. Thats relative. We just assigned a meaning to what is in itself without meaning. The truth is just one and one is two. Nothing more.
We do the same with reality. However, its hard to differientiate truth from belief given we rely on labels for communication and relating tonself and others.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
...
That is a misinterpretation of einstein. Time is absolute according to Einstein, as shown by his acceptance of a causation principle.
Measurements of time, such as a clock, are relative. A clock relative to another clock and relative to the earth turning etc. Time itself is still absolute.
So to say the current measurements of time are approximate and inaccurate.
That is a misinterpretation of einstein. Time is absolute according to Einstein, as shown by his acceptance of a causation principle.
Measurements of time, such as a clock, are relative. A clock relative to another clock and relative to the earth turning etc. Time itself is still absolute.
So to say the current measurements of time are approximate and inaccurate.
Nah, we're supposed to magically read his mind. It's part of the game, you see.
In any case, the definition doesn't matter. Even if there is some hypothetically existing absolute truth, humans are not omniscient or omnipresent. Therefore, their knowledge is always limited. This makes the existence of some hypothetical absolute truth irrelevant, because human understanding will always be relative (as in limited, biased, incomplete, and therefore not absolute).
Skwim
Veteran Member
So 1 + 1 may not = 2?
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Mathematical truth is absolute. Religious truth is however relative, or at least conditioned.
nilsz
bzzt
I believe the human mind attempts to understand an absolute truth, in the sense of a physical reality. In doing so, it employs abstract concepts and systems such as mathematics to describe the phenomena it observes. Mathematics is not so much "absolutely true" as much as it is a useful language and methodology.
Addendum:
I have seen in the chat room a few times that people disbelieve in absolute truth, and point to a hypothetical scenario where "the laws of physics change" from one day to the next, ie. where "truth changes". I think that if the laws of physics appear to change, it says more about your limited understanding than the presence or absence of an absolute truth. Also yes, things change over time, so you include time into your understanding of truth, and so it goes on for everything that cause you to nuance your perspective.
Addendum:
I have seen in the chat room a few times that people disbelieve in absolute truth, and point to a hypothetical scenario where "the laws of physics change" from one day to the next, ie. where "truth changes". I think that if the laws of physics appear to change, it says more about your limited understanding than the presence or absence of an absolute truth. Also yes, things change over time, so you include time into your understanding of truth, and so it goes on for everything that cause you to nuance your perspective.
Last edited:
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
The dodo bird is extinct. The truth is there ought to be a dodo bird, the fact is that there isn't.
That's true, but only true some of the time.
My thoughts exactly. Mathematics is language, just as English and French are languages. However, it's a language that has tried to standardize and become far more objective. Measurement goes from "a stones throw away" to 10 meters exactly. Ideally, if there is some error at least the error is standardized across all of human science (because my 10 meters = your 10 meters). However, the number itself is ultimately still a human creation. The universe did not create math. At best math is a signifier, not the signified.
I think there is more than likely absolute truth (signified). It's what I hope our math and science points to (signifiers). As someone else said earlier, I don't think we can know truth. It's always mediated to us through a system/language like math. Systems of ethics like deontology, principlism, and utilitarianism serve as mediators to explain the morality of human action to us. And we might think that we know right vs. wrong but we are still using a system to come to such a conclusion. And the flaws of that system (all three of those having their own flaws) express themselves in the truth we find, making it at best a product of absolute truth but not absolute truth itself.
But, there's nothing wrong with derived truth. It's the best we've got unless there is a creator.
Edit: And a quick note. It's my opinion that relativity is a side-effect of different systems being used to derive truth.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
That's contrary to Buddhist doctrine as documented in the OP of this thread.
By the way, Godel's incompleteness theorem cast doubt as to whether mathematical truth is absolute.
Perhaps by your understanding, although it does surprise me that you would make such a reading.
I probably shouldn't, given your history of appropriating and torturing meanings to the breaking point and far beyond.
If you mean the impossibility of being both consistent and complete by "absolute", then I fear there is a serious meaning barrier present here.
Mathematical truth is absolute because it exists in sharply delimited fields that leave no other choice.
In essence, it exchanges abrangence (and at least potentially practical aplicability) for absoluteness.
Interestingly, the same is even more true of religious absolute truth, despite the two existing in literally different universes.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
I substantiated my claim with appropriate documentation. I'm afraid you don't have the luxury of simply disregarding that fact.
I provided you with a link to Godel's incompleteness theorem. It would behoove you to read it.
I voted that truth is a absolute.
Twas an easy one, since It's a matter of definition....like saying that black is dark.
Twas an easy one, since It's a matter of definition....like saying that black is dark.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Darkness is relative.
Black is dark, but not all dark is black.