What is the Ground of Truth?

[mikkel_the_dane]

In terms of ideological or belief systems, they are fictions/myths that create meaning rather than truths.

Inn terms of narrow facts, a combination of evidence and reason, although I have to accept my evaluation of evidence and application of reason is dependent on many things, such as my worldview.

The best standard, imo, is experience: has this knowledge proved useful over prolonged periods of time? This is more about utility than truth though, and utility is generally a more useful and realistic standard.

Yeah, I do it overall as pragmatic for the value of it making sense and that is context dependent in the end. And yes, a part of it is my nature and nurture.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Would you rather be in accordance with the reality of the present (and soon to be past) or the reality of the future? Can the reality of the future be measured or observed?

If you can observe the future then you could getv great well paying job in government planning. As for me, no magic involved, hence my original post

If we are in accordance with the reality of the future, then it follows that we will have life and quality of life in the future. Moral truth is the attempt to act in ways that are deemed worthy for the reality of the future (eg: de-identifying from sin).

Empiricism is useful for the observable, present reality. Morality is useful for the hidden, future reality.

 

[Alien826]

I start with the assumption that there really is something "out there" (something that causes the images that appear in my brain). I then take all the information that is available to me and subject it to something akin to the scientific method, that is I attempt to eliminate as much subjectivity as I can. I constantly reexamine my "truth" in the light of new information. I recognize that attaining absolute truth is probably impossible, but add that my method has worked quite well in my personal life. My conclusion that touching a hot surface will damage me has stood up to all my experience and saved me from many burns.

Obviously the above is an ideal. I can't investigate everything and sometimes I rely on the research that others have done. I also filter my investigations based on their importance to me. A claim that someone has seen a polka dotted kangaroo in Australia gets less attention than a letter from the IRS (the tax authority).

Something I need to add.

When thinking about this and forming this answer, I recognize that everything is not "true" or "false" but on a probability spectrum. When I say "it's raining" I realize that I'm not saying that is 100% true, even if I'm standing in it. I could be dreaming or suffering from a delusion. That uncertainty comes from having to interpret my bodily sensations, and not having direct interaction with the world. Of course, in cases of very high or low probability I act as if the probability is 100% or 0%. That's just common sense.

The benefit gained from retaining a modicum of doubt comes when new evidence appears that seems to change my probability value on something. It allows me to be open to being wrong and that is critical.

Incidentally, I don't see why this general principle can't be applied across the entire span of human experience. Why is there some artificial line drawn between everyday truth and "spiritual" or religious truth?

 

[Nakosis]

Experience


I've gone to scripture to validate my experiences.


This is essentially the same question as the first. So the answer remains the same. Experience.

That said, I don't make it a habit of arguing my truths. I find doing so to be and exercise in futility. If you are interested in what I perceive to be truth, I'm happy to share. But I have no interest in arguing about them.

With no intent to argue, I'd guess everyone defines truth in their own ways.

What I define as truth is whatever exists at this exact moment in time.
Unfortunately, that exact moment in time is gone before we even realize it happened. So the best one can do is approximate what it was.

 

[ChristineM]

If we are in accordance with the reality of the future, then it follows that we will have life and quality of life in the future. Moral truth is the attempt to act in ways that are deemed worthy for the reality of the future (eg: de-identifying from sin).

Empiricism is useful for the observable, present reality. Morality is useful for the hidden, future reality.

The future is not set in stone, accidents happen.
Morality is the way civilization works.
Sin is against a god, i have no god so sin irrelevant, my morality does not need a god to tell how to behave.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Incidentally, I don't see why this general principle can't be applied across the entire span of human experience. Why is there some artificial line drawn between everyday truth and "spiritual" or religious truth?

Are you referring to the idea that many religious people view doubt and skepticism as oppositional to faith?

The common reason for this is the preservation of the religious community, as I’m sure you know. However, there are times when it’s right to oppose doubt for the individual truth seeker as well. For example, when that person is exalting himself and fully identifying with the Kingdom of Heaven. This is only supposed to be a temporary stage of the faith journey.

The full identification is supposed to prepare us for the next stage when we focus on countering evidence to the paradise we desire. In this stage, we are supposed to doubt the part of us that wants to act as if we are in paradise already due to our full identification with it in the previous step.

In other words, both not doubting and doubting are essential to religious truth.

 

[exchemist]

In context though, Pilate was responding to Jesus’ statement that he had come to bear witness to the truth; and that everyone who was of the truth would hear his voice. So, did Pilate fail to recognise the truth Jesus was referring to, or did he dismiss it with a philosophical aside? Was he too clever for his own good?

Either the latter or possibly a dismissal of the idea Jesus had committed any substantive crime, i.e. why should I execute a mere philosopher?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

The future is not set in stone, accidents happen.
Morality is the way civilization works.
Sin is against a god, i have no god so sin irrelevant, my morality does not need a god to tell how to behave.

It’s a question of how much we want to contend with the future, potential realities. There are potential futures which select for morality (how we act). For example, going around and randomly firing a gun at police officers is going to eliminate me from the vast majority of future realities. This is how I’m defining sin in this context - that which makes me unworthy of potential futures. God doesn’t need to be brought into it.

You don’t seem interested in this idea of truth, so I won’t push it further.

 

[exchemist]

Something I need to add.

When thinking about this and forming this answer, I recognize that everything is not "true" or "false" but on a probability spectrum. When I say "it's raining" I realize that I'm not saying that is 100% true, even if I'm standing in it. I could be dreaming or suffering from a delusion. That uncertainty comes from having to interpret my bodily sensations, and not having direct interaction with the world. Of course, in cases of very high or low probability I act as if the probability is 100% or 0%. That's just common sense.

The benefit gained from retaining a modicum of doubt comes when new evidence appears that seems to change my probability value on something. It allows me to be open to being wrong and that is critical.

Incidentally, I don't see why this general principle can't be applied across the entire span of human experience. Why is there some artificial line drawn between everyday truth and "spiritual" or religious truth?

That’s very much along the lines of what I was trying to express. I suspect my own outlook is conditioned by contact with science, in which we make models of reality, the truth - or validity- of which is provisional, and more particularly with quantum mechanics, in which deterministic certainty gives way to probability. Our degree of confidence in something depends on the information available to us. At some point we may adopt it as truth, i.e. we believe in it, but we need to remain open to the possibility that we may be wrong.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Either the latter or possibly a dismissal of the idea Jesus had committed any substantive crime, i.e. why should I execute a mere philosopher?

Either way, Pilate is one of the most interesting characters in the Gospels, if not the whole Bible.

Have you read The Master and Margarita, by Mikhael Bulgakov? The passages about Pilate - and the itinerant philosopher he reluctantly sends to his death - are quite staggeringly vivid and resonant imo.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I’m trying to introduce the idea that truth doesn’t just exist within the domain of the known (observable). To the degree that we are interested in life and quality of life for ourselves and others in the future, and to the degree that we give respect to the idea that the future differs from the present, that is the degree that we should be associating truth with the unknown.

 

[ChristineM]

It’s a question of how much we want to contend with the future, potential realities. There are potential futures which select for morality (how we act). For example, going around and randomly firing a gun at police officers is going to eliminate me from the vast majority of future realities. This is how I’m defining sin in this context - that which makes me unworthy of potential futures. God doesn’t need to be brought into it.

You don’t seem interested in this idea of truth, so I won’t push it further.

It may be for you. Please show me a "potential" future that selects for anything.h
Going round and randomly firing a gun is present and stupid. Consequences of being an idiot are predictable to a degree but only from experience.
I was always taught that truth is real, not what a person believes to be true.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

It may be for you. Please show me a "potential" future that selects for anything.h
Going round and randomly firing a gun is present and stupid. Consequences of being an idiot are predictable to a degree but only from experience.
I was always taught that truth is real, not what a person believes to be true.

Do you believe in natural selection (theory of evolution)? If so, that can be described as the future selecting based on environmental fitness.

I’m simply applying the same idea to morality.

 

[exchemist]

Either way, Pilate is one of the most interesting characters in the Gospels, if not the whole Bible.

Have you read The Master and Margarita, by Mikhael Bulgakov? The passages about Pilate - and the itinerant philosopher he reluctantly sends to his death - are quite staggeringly vivid and resonant imo.

I haven't. Perhaps I should have a look for it. But yes Pilate is portrayed as a fairly complex character.

 

[ChristineM]

Do you believe in natural selection (theory of evolution)? If so, that can be described as the future selecting based on environmental fitness.

I’m simply applying the same idea to morality.

Evolution is blind.
I don't know about you but my morality is not based on generic drift, and blind mutation.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Evolution is blind.
I don't know about you but my morality is not based on generic drift, and blind mutation.

Just because both biology and morality may be selected for, it doesn’t mean that morality is based on biology. It just means both are selected for.

 

[ChristineM]

Just because both biology and morality may be selected for, it doesn’t mean that morality is based on biology. It just means both are selected for.

Define "selected for"
Evolution is blind, not selected for.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Define "selected for"
Evolution is blind, not selected for.

When you say “evolution is blind”, is it fair to assume that you mean evolution is unconscious?

If so, why are you taking a position of final judgment on that? How is it not more honest to be agnostic about that?

When I say selected for, I mean there is a type of discrimination happening, no matter if it’s conscious or unconscious. It’s called natural selection.

 

[Alien826]

Are you referring to the idea that many religious people view doubt and skepticism as oppositional to faith?

I mean the way (some) religious people abandon the standards they use to determine truth in their ordinary lives as soon the subject becomes their religious beliefs.

The common reason for this is the preservation of the religious community, as I’m sure you know. However, there are times when it’s right to oppose doubt for the individual truth seeker as well. For example, when that person is exalting himself and fully identifying with the Kingdom of Heaven. This is only supposed to be a temporary stage of the faith journey.

The full identification is supposed to prepare us for the next stage when we focus on countering evidence to the paradise we desire. In this stage, we are supposed to doubt the part of us that wants to act as if we are in paradise already due to our full identification with it in the previous step.

In other words, both not doubting and doubting are essential to religious truth.

This is a good example. You talk about doubt but then switch to statements that imply certainty. You say that (sometimes, I'm not totally sure what you are saying) not doubting is essential to obtaining religious "truth", though I'm sure you would never abandon doubt in your day to day life.

I'm OK with a "leap of faith" so long as it's expressed that way, but in normal life that would be called a "guess".

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I mean the way (some) religious people abandon the standards they use to determine truth in their ordinary lives as soon the subject becomes their religious beliefs.

This is a good example. You talk about doubt but then switch to statements that imply certainty. You say that (sometimes, I'm not totally sure what you are saying) not doubting is essential to obtaining religious "truth", though I'm sure you would never abandon doubt in your day to day life.

I'm OK with a "leap of faith" so long as it's expressed that way, but in normal life that would be called a "guess".

Consider that you may be assuming that all religious people view truth the way you do in your daily life. A lot do and are confused.

You calling me out is an example of you projecting. Religious truth for me is not distinct. I defined how I view truth earlier in the thread and it’s consistent with the post you just quoted. To identify with the “Kingdom” is no different than identifying with the highest quality of life. It’s just different language.

If you are saying that there is a hierarchy of truth, then I agree with you.