Truth is not same for everyone.

[BSM1]

In theory that can't be right.

In theory TRUTH means CORRECT
2 + 2 = 4 is correct no matter what you might argue (we are in base 10 here before anyone tells me otherwise) but in the Trump and Brexit era the phrase Alternative Truth seems to have emerged.

There is a difference between "truth" and "fact". Truth is what someone surmises from all the information available (and how that information can be understood); whereas fact is something that is provable and repeatable without change. A perfect example (seeing how you politicized it) is that for many the truth is that Trump colluded with the Russians. However, this is not provable so it is not a fact. Everyone has to find their own truth.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Isn't a 'more advanced' answer a 'more correct' answer?

Yes it is more close to the "ultimate" truth you can say. this is the reason we cultivate to get close to the "ultimate truth"

You can see it like this a triangle with the point upward and on the very top the truth is, as human beings we start on the long side that is down and work our way up to the single point on the top.
The closer to the single point the closer you are to see the truth from a enlighten point of view.

But when you have reached the one pointed truth, everything open up to you and you see what others can not see.
And in Buddhist teachings one reason people can not see is.
Greed, Hatred, delution, when those have been let go of, the "ultimate truth" will be opening from within you.

 

[BSM1]

Isn't a 'more advanced' answer a 'more correct' answer?

Isn't that the same thing as saying "..his truth is more in line with facts than my truth..."?

 

[Polymath257]

There is a difference between "truth" and "fact". Truth is what someone surmises from all the information available (and how that information can be understood); whereas fact is something that is provable and repeatable without change. A perfect example (seeing how you politicized it) is that for many the truth is that Trump colluded with the Russians. However, this is not provable so it is not a fact. Everyone has to find their own truth.

OK, that is NOT how I use the word 'truth'. A fact is an individual truth. Truth is the collection of all facts.

If Trump did collude with the Russians, the statement that he did would be a truth. If he did not, then it would NOT be a truth.

Now, a person might well have an *opinion* one way or the other about this and we may or may not be able to establish what the truth is, but if it is a truth, it is a fact.

At least, that is how I use the words.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes it is more close to the "ultimate" truth you can say. this is the reason we cultivate to get close to the "ultimate truth"

You can see it like this a triangle with the point upward and on the very top the truth is, as human beings we start on the long side that is down and work our way up to the single point on the top.
The closer to the single point the closer you are to see the truth from a enlighten point of view.

But when you have reached the one pointed truth, everything open up to you and you see what others can not see.
And in Buddhist teachings one reason people can not see is.
Greed, Hatred, delution, when those have been let go of, the "ultimate truth" will be opening from within you.

Yes, the same happens in the sciences. As we learn new ways to explore, we open up new areas to test our ideas and see whether they need to be changed. At no point do we have the 'ultimate answers', but the expectation is that we are getting a better and better approximation.

 

[Polymath257]

Isn't that the same thing as saying "..his truth is more in line with facts than my truth..."?

No. It is saying 'his opinion is closer to the truth than my opinion'.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yes, the same happens in the sciences. As we learn new ways to explore, we open up new areas to test our ideas and see whether they need to be changed. At no point do we have the 'ultimate answers', but the expectation is that we are getting a better and better approximation.

So what is the different in science and religion? We both looking for the same answers, but use different methods, right?

I do not say science are wrong, what i say is that i follow the spiritual path to the same answers, seen from a different POW.

Both looing for truth

 

[ChristineM]

There is a difference between "truth" and "fact". Truth is what someone surmises from all the information available (and how that information can be understood); whereas fact is something that is provable and repeatable without change. A perfect example (seeing how you politicized it) is that for many the truth is that Trump colluded with the Russians. However, this is not provable so it is not a fact. Everyone has to find their own truth.

The primary definition of truth equates it with fact or reality.

As far as trump goes, it is belief that he colluded with the russians.

To identify belief as truth i believe the word should be capitalized or enclosed in quotes (or both) to identify it as something you believe is "Truth" rather than real/factual truth.

 

[WalterTrull]

you will find the answer within you

Well sure.

 

[Altfish]

There is a difference between "truth" and "fact". Truth is what someone surmises from all the information available (and how that information can be understood); whereas fact is something that is provable and repeatable without change. A perfect example (seeing how you politicized it) is that for many the truth is that Trump colluded with the Russians. However, this is not provable so it is not a fact. Everyone has to find their own truth.

I disagree.
I would argue that 'Truth' is in accordance with fact and reality. Fact being the evidence to substantiate a claim.
It is hard to claim something is 'True' if the facts don't back up the claim. You may believe it to be true but you cannot categorically say it is true.
We are getting into semantics here, I'm clear in my mind what I mean, just not sure that I'm expressing it clearly in writing.

 

[Polymath257]

So what is the different in science and religion? We both looking for the same answers, but use different methods, right?

I do not say science are wrong, what i say is that i follow the spiritual path to the same answers, seen from a different POW.

Both looing for truth

I'm more inclined to say science and spirituality are trying to find different sorts of 'truth'. Science is attempting to find objective truth. Spirituality seems, to me, to be trying to find some sort of inner truth, which is much more subjective. Science is limited to things that are objectively testable (which is usually identified with the physical world) while spirituality is more concerned with what is subjectively testable.

Since I am more inclined to the science viewpoint, I may well have the spirituality viewpoint wrong. Any comments?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'm more inclined to say science and spirituality are trying to find different sorts of 'truth'. Science is attempting to find objective truth. Spirituality seems, to me, to be trying to find some sort of inner truth, which is much more subjective. Science is limited to things that are objectively testable (which is usually identified with the physical world) while spirituality is more concerned with what is subjectively testable.

Since I am more inclined to the science viewpoint, I may well have the spirituality viewpoint wrong. Any comments?

I will be carefull to say to much about science (not my strongest topic) But in my understanding science looking for physical eveidence something that can be messured, Spiritual life does not do this. they look for the answer that give wisdom about the mental side of life, (non physical) but we both look for truth. just truth seen from different POW

 

[Polymath257]

I will be carefull to say to much about science (not my strongest topic) But in my understanding science looking for physical eveidence something that can be messured, Spiritual life does not do this. they look for the answer that give wisdom about the mental side of life, (non physical) but we both look for truth. just truth seen from different POW

So, from what I can see, physical=objective and mental=subjective. Does this conform to your view?

 

[Falvlun]

I'm more inclined to say science and spirituality are trying to find different sorts of 'truth'. Science is attempting to find objective truth. Spirituality seems, to me, to be trying to find some sort of inner truth, which is much more subjective. Science is limited to things that are objectively testable (which is usually identified with the physical world) while spirituality is more concerned with what is subjectively testable.

Since I am more inclined to the science viewpoint, I may well have the spirituality viewpoint wrong. Any comments?

This is similar to Stephen Jay Gould’s “Non-Overlapping Magisteria” concept:

"Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve."[1] "These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)." Source

I am sympathetic to the concept. While I think science is the best method to determine the physical reality of our universe, I don’t believe that physical reality is the only thing that matters. Values and meaning are integral aspects to human experience, and science is not well-equipped to address these arenas. However, I don’t think I’d go as far as Gould to say that there is no overlap. I believe science can inform values etc (I am not so sure of the reverse, where religion aids science, but perhaps there’s bleed-through the other way as well).

 

[BilliardsBall]

To understand truth in cultivation of a spiritual path (religion) one see that when we begin the path we see truth one way, but when we cultivate our mind and body we can go deeper in to truth, so a novice can say, i see the truth. then a person who have attained more wisdom will come and say, No what you see is not truth, this is truth, and he explain his wisdom.

But his truth was not the highest truth. He only saw truth up to his own wisdom level.

So when we discuss, we all see truth from different levels. so you may think your answer is the correct, then someone comes and correct you. Do not get angry and think badly about what was corrected. ponder about what the other person said, and see if there was truth in his words
But you will find the answer within you

Is the Law of Non-Contradiction true for some only, or everyone?

If some, it's not a law.

If everyone, there IS truth that is truth for all.

 

[Polymath257]

This is similar to Stephen Jay Gould’s “Non-Overlapping Magisteria” concept:

"Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve."[1] "These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)." Source

I am sympathetic to the concept. While I think science is the best method to determine the physical reality of our universe, I don’t believe that physical reality is the only thing that matters. Values and meaning are integral aspects to human experience, and science is not well-equipped to address these arenas. However, I don’t think I’d go as far as Gould to say that there is no overlap. I believe science can inform values etc (I am not so sure of the reverse, where religion aids science, but perhaps there’s bleed-through the other way as well).

I don't fully agree with Gould here either. Certainly, science can give information about consequences and, together with our values, this can help us make decisions about action.

In the other direction, religion has often provided the reason people decide to pursue science. Often, this is described as wanting to know the 'mind of God'. Also, historically, the notion that there could be such things as natural laws that could be discovered by humans was a religious one. This may well be one reason the scientific revolution happened in Europe instead of Baghdad.

 

[Falvlun]

To understand truth in cultivation of a spiritual path (religion) one see that when we begin the path we see truth one way, but when we cultivate our mind and body we can go deeper in to truth, so a novice can say, i see the truth. then a person who have attained more wisdom will come and say, No what you see is not truth, this is truth, and he explain his wisdom.

But his truth was not the highest truth. He only saw truth up to his own wisdom level.

So when we discuss, we all see truth from different levels. so you may think your answer is the correct, then someone comes and correct you. Do not get angry and think badly about what was corrected. ponder about what the other person said, and see if there was truth in his words
But you will find the answer within you

I get what you’re saying because I’ve experienced this myself as I get older. I remember fights with my mom where I just thought she was dead wrong but really our perspectives were just different. And as I get older, I find I’m gaining that sort of perspective and I can understand and appreciate her side of things— even to the point where I don’t think she was wrong, but I was.

People are getting hung up on the word truth, and things like 2+2=4. And I agree, the truth value of things like that don’t change regardless of wisdom level.

I think @Polymath257 hit the nail on the head when they said “Science is attempting to find objective truth. Spirituality seems, to me, to be trying to find some sort of inner truth, which is much more subjective.”

Our inner truths definitely can and do vary with wisdom and experience.

 

[Polymath257]

Is the Law of Non-Contradiction true for some only, or everyone?

If some, it's not a law.

If everyone, there IS truth that is truth for all.

Many people seem to hold contradictory views. Usually it happens when areas of study are separated from each other or when cognitive dissonance is operating.

 

[BSM1]

OK, that is NOT how I use the word 'truth'. A fact is an individual truth. Truth is the collection of all facts.

If Trump did collude with the Russians, the statement that he did would be a truth. If he did not, then it would NOT be a truth.

Now, a person might well have an *opinion* one way or the other about this and we may or may not be able to establish what the truth is, but if it is a truth, it is a fact.

At least, that is how I use the words.

The primary definition of truth equates it with fact or reality.

As far as trump goes, it is belief that he colluded with the russians.

To identify belief as truth i believe the word should be capitalized or enclosed in quotes (or both) to identify it as something you believe is "Truth" rather than real/factual truth.

Truth is always fluid and subjective to facts. He's an example: not many years ago we had nine planets in out solar system. That was truth supported by fact. Now we only have eight planets in our solar system. The truth has changed, but not the facts; Pluto did not disappear, but it is no longer considered a planet.

 

[BSM1]

I disagree.
I would argue that 'Truth' is in accordance with fact and reality. Fact being the evidence to substantiate a claim.
It is hard to claim something is 'True' if the facts don't back up the claim. You may believe it to be true but you cannot categorically say it is true.
We are getting into semantics here, I'm clear in my mind what I mean, just not sure that I'm expressing it clearly in writing.

I think we're saying the same thing, basically.