Board index ‹ Christianity

[Phage]

> You are failing to make the distinction between the idea that truth must be processed through the human mind to be evaluated, engaged, and lived, vs. someone's opinion.

And you are failing to make the distinction between truth and our perception of truth. I don't think people would argue the point that our perception of truth is subjective, but while our viewpoint may be subjective the underlying truth is not.

[jimwalton]

You've assessed me incorrectly. I am not talking about our perception of truth or how we perceive it, but that we are the agents that process all information. Information is just information until we engage it. We are the ones who engage the information and give it value (or disregard) as truth, falseness, or a thousand increments in between those two poles. I'm not talking about our viewpoint, perspective, or opinion, but about us as the personal beings who engage the information, evaluate it, and assess it. In that sense, truth is always somebody's truth; it's always personal. It's something someone claims, based on their experiences or thoughts, or that someone appropriates, and then others corroborate those experiences, thoughts, or assessments, and our . The activity of knowing necessarily and actively involves the human agent. Truth lives in my engaging of it.

The determination of truth is the subjective evaluation of consistent, coherent patterns of reality, affirmed by a majority of rational minds enough to give us confidence of conformity to an unprovable objective "reality." But it's all subjectively affirmed by a conformity of perception and evaluation by humans.

[Tarnished]

> The act of knowing always involves a human agent (which seems unarguable), and therefore truth is an evaluation of information by a human agent.

Almost, but you left out the word knowing: "And therefore knowing the truth is an evaluation of information by a human agent"

Perhaps this is why it seems that some people in politics lie so blatantly, its because they think they have their own version of the truth.

If people can have their own version of the truth, then explain to me the purpose of investigating a crime? Is it not to discover the truth? Is it not to discover the facts?

> Only in human engagement and evaluation are sentences deemed true.

There's a difference between deeming something as true, and it actually being true.

> Understanding knowledge

There is no understanding knowledge if everyone gets to decide what reality is. I'm sorry, but none of this would work if reality itself wasn't objective. The computer you're typing this on wouldn't work.

You've got an incredibly flawed understanding of realty, no doubt as a result of you trying to make sense of your religion.

> So I'll stick to my observation that all truth is personal.

It certainly make it easier for theists to accept that their religion is the one true religion, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindi, Jainism, etc.

[jimwalton]

> because they think they have their own version of the truth.

Yeah, I'm not talking about one's own personal version of the truth. That's relativism, and I don't believe in that or subscribe to it. I believe in objective truth, for sure. What I'm talking about is epistemology: the act of knowing is always personal, and since truth is a value assessment, truth is not an abstract but rather is always linked to personal engagement. (As an aside, though this is not the subject of the discussion, this is how Jesus could say, "I am the truth." Truth is not an abstract state of being, a philosophy, or an expression of personal desire, but certainty expressed in personal engagement with objective reality.)

> There's a difference between deeming something as true, and it actually being true.

I agree. I wasn't using "deeming" as if it were a relativistic assessment. I used "deeming" as a way to say "only in human engagement and evaluation are sentences determined to be true." I should have expressed it that way.

> There is no understanding knowledge if everyone gets to decide what reality is.

I agree. We determine reality by consensus of assessment of the consistency of what we experience. (This takes us back to the original post.)

> I'm sorry, but none of this would work if reality itself wasn't objective. The computer you're typing this on wouldn't work.

I agree: Reality is objective. You seem to have misunderstood me.

> You've got an incredibly flawed understanding of realty, no doubt as a result of you trying to make sense of your religion.

Now you've gone even further into the land of misunderstanding. I am not saying that there is no such thing as objective reality. I would argue, there, that (1) you didn't read me accurately, and/or (2) maybe you colored my statements with your own presuppositions. I dunno, but now you're saying that my wanting to create my own reality and truth is how I was so foolish to fall for religion, which just isn't fair.

[Scape211]

I think people are confusing relative truth with personal truth and specifically ascribing it to religious beliefs (at least that seems to be the focal point in this conversation).

So as a simple example, lets take a universal truth of 2+2=4.

Relative truth would tell us to someone this could equal 4, but to another it wouldn't so truth is relative. But 2+2 always equals 4 whether you believe it not. So relative truth does not stand here.

For personal truth, 2+2 will always equal 4, but someone may not understand the truth of it yet since they havent processed the information. So at some point in their life, they may not know 2+2 is 4 until it is made known to them by processing the correct information. Its still universal truth, but not personal truth to them until the information is made known.

Does this make sense? Or am i misunderstanding it?

If that is correct, we can still bring the same thing back to religion. If we believe that someone is right about the afterlife, God, etc. Then it is a universal truth; not relative. The time it becomes personally true is when someone gets all the information correct and understands it. Then its a personal truth.

[Scape211]

Thomas Kuhn says science seems to be little more than opinion, expert opinion granted, but still just an opinion. There is, in Kuhn’s words, "no standard higher than the consent of the relevant community": a situation that has been colorfully characterized as scientific mob rule.

Paul Feverabend argues that there is no scientific method, that science is, and should be, anarchic.

Later sociological studies have claimed that scientific knowledge is no more certain than any other type of knowledge, that its knowledge is culturally determined.

Wanted to comment on this too. Ultimately I do believe scientific method can even be skewed as we can process the information differently or look for patterns to help our own case if we try hard enough. So in that sense even the scientific method can be flawed.

However, the idea scientific mob rule sounds a little rocky. Does this mean that consensus is higher than actual fact? Or that fact becomes determined by consensus?

[jimwalton]

Scape211: Yes, Kuhn was saying that we determine truth by consensus. When we all experience the same things so much so that there is an undeniable consistency and integrity born out by repeated trials and confirmation, we consider that to be truth. I agree that his attitude and wording seem extreme, but I get what he's trying to say.

[Tarnished]

> What I'm talking about is epistemology: the act of knowing is always personal, and since truth is a value assessment, truth is not an abstract but rather is always linked to personal engagement.

Well, you're conflating truth with knowing the truth. And if you're doing this on purpose, then you're wasting my time.

> We determine reality by consensus of assessment of the consistency of what we experience.

Consensus of assessment sounds am awful lot like an argument from popularity, which is not how we assess truth.

Yup, seems we're miscommunicating.

Back to the original quote: "At least one problem with your theory is that all truth is personal, even your case."

If truth is that which comports to reality, then it is not personal. Ones understanding of the truth is personal. Perhaps you should take more care in choosing your words if you want to avoid misunderstandings.

[Thelonius]

> She says the act of knowing always involves a human agent (which seems unarguable). And therefore truth is an evaluation of information by a human agent

Only if you equate knowing with truth - which is non-standard.

Are you then saying that there cannot be unknown truths? What do we seek when we seek to expand our knowledge?

No, this is untenable.

> If knowledge is 'just the facts,' then there is no knowledge

Again, she's confusing knowledge and facts - facts are facts and can be known or unknown.

[jimwalton]

Great questions and observations. I went back to the book for clarification.

She says truth is something someone claims or someone appropriates, which makes it sound like the recognition and declaration of truth requires a human agent. "All stated facts, even 2+2=4 involves a human agent." "Truth is not a sentence lying on a page." Scribbles on paper are abstract and have no power of truth or falseness. It requires human engagement to discern and analyze the scribbles, to interpret them, and assess them as reality. It is only through skill, commitment, and reason that we are able to discern coherent patterns that grasp an aspect of reality.