As I have discussed this with people in person, and reading through this thread there seems to be a common response around "religion or lack of" and "faith vs experience". This might be less of a question people care to answer but it is on my list to ask.
If two religions have completely conflicting views can they both be true?
Again I am not looking for a specific answer or understanding but rather to see what the array of responses looks like.
This discussion reminded me of <this paper> describing, among other things, why we are probably living in some multi-agent computer simulation. <This site> has more, better written, detail.
If that is the case, truth is highly localized, and James' most recent question can be argued either way to equal degrees.
From a Mormon view, there are things that I genuinely believe to be true, and in a sense know to be true through personal revelation, however, I could never convince someone that I don't just think these have been revealed to me. So, again, we are at perception, though I admit to believing that there exists truth independent of perception. A thing can be true whether I believe it is or not.
Regarding the two opposing religions, it depends on the conflicting views, and how they conflict. On the surface, I say no, two *completely* conflicting religions cannot both be true. However, two opposing religions which do not conflict could be true. The distinction is perhaps best made with a Venn diagram for two simplistic religions. Say one worships water and the other worships fire.
The Waterites worship in their way according to what they think the waters demand of them. The water gives them what they need/desire. Not necessarily in the amounts, or at the times, they need/want, but Water provides for them.
The Pyrites, not to be confused with Pyritites or pirates, or worse, pyrite stealing pirates, worship fire in their way, and get what they want/need. Again, not necessarily in the degree or time they wish.
Each religion could have beliefs about Fire and Water that are true, and both sets of beliefs could be correct. However, either could also hold beliefs that are not true, for instance it is probably true, though I cannot prove it, that neither Fire nor Water cares for human sacrifice. I think any religion of any substantial complexity is in some way in irreconcilable opposition to the others.
It comes down to what constitutes a religion. Is Zen a religion, or only a style of practicing a religion. Can Zen practitioners be Muslim or Christian, or Sikh, or Vodunist, or only Buddhist? I would argue that Zen is a philosophy, and that it can be applied to any religion, or to atheism.
LDS folk believe in an eternal soul, eternal progression, consequences for actions applying to the individual, an apocalypse or an Armageddon, and a renewal of the earth. This might be analogous to Hindu beliefs of Atman, Samsara, Karma, and the end of days (I can't remember or find the Hindu term).
There is no LDS analogy for Moksha, an exit from the cycle, or an end to progression.
So, in the large, I think these two can be fairly well reconciled, but in the small, I don't think they can be.
I know there are other LDS boaters here, so if you think I've misportrayed something, please let us know.
All of your rebuttals of truth are in fact rebuttals of perception of truth. Truth is that that exists regardless of human perception but that we occasionally can articulate, i.e. the heliocentric solar system was not made "true" by human recognition, but did in fact exist despite our prior confusion.
Truth is a word created by humans, so how can it exist outside human consciousness....you conclusion that truth somehow exists in its own reality is an oxymoron....outside of human consciousness, there is no truth or mendacity, only Being.....
sitting all alone on a mountain by a river that has no end
This discussion reminded me of <this paper> describing, among other things, why we are probably living in some multi-agent computer simulation. <This site> has more, better written, detail.
If that is the case, truth is highly localized, and James' most recent question can be argued either way to equal degrees.
From a Mormon view, there are things that I genuinely believe to be true, and in a sense know to be true through personal revelation, however, I could never convince someone that I don't just think these have been revealed to me. So, again, we are at perception, though I admit to believing that there exists truth independent of perception. A thing can be true whether I believe it is or not.
Regarding the two opposing religions, it depends on the conflicting views, and how they conflict. On the surface, I say no, two *completely* conflicting religions cannot both be true. However, two opposing religions which do not conflict could be true. The distinction is perhaps best made with a Venn diagram for two simplistic religions. Say one worships water and the other worships fire.
The Waterites worship in their way according to what they think the waters demand of them. The water gives them what they need/desire. Not necessarily in the amounts, or at the times, they need/want, but Water provides for them.
The Pyrites, not to be confused with Pyritites or pirates, or worse, pyrite stealing pirates, worship fire in their way, and get what they want/need. Again, not necessarily in the degree or time they wish.
Each religion could have beliefs about Fire and Water that are true, and both sets of beliefs could be correct. However, either could also hold beliefs that are not true, for instance it is probably true, though I cannot prove it, that neither Fire nor Water cares for human sacrifice. I think any religion of any substantial complexity is in some way in irreconcilable opposition to the others.
It comes down to what constitutes a religion. Is Zen a religion, or only a style of practicing a religion. Can Zen practitioners be Muslim or Christian, or Sikh, or Vodunist, or only Buddhist? I would argue that Zen is a philosophy, and that it can be applied to any religion, or to atheism.
LDS folk believe in an eternal soul, eternal progression, consequences for actions applying to the individual, an apocalypse or an Armageddon, and a renewal of the earth. This might be analogous to Hindu beliefs of Atman, Samsara, Karma, and the end of days (I can't remember or find the Hindu term).
There is no LDS analogy for Moksha, an exit from the cycle, or an end to progression.
So, in the large, I think these two can be fairly well reconciled, but in the small, I don't think they can be.
I know there are other LDS boaters here, so if you think I've misportrayed something, please let us know.
D
Everybody know the Pyrites pollute the Earth with their damned machines, particularly those with 4-stroke engines. Pyrites suck, and that's the truth. Power to the Hydrites!
sitting all alone on a mountain by a river that has no end
Truth is a word created by humans, so how can it exist outside human consciousness....you conclusion that truth somehow exists in its own reality is an oxymoron....outside of human consciousness, there is no truth or mendacity, only Being.....
Now we are getting somewhere. Yes, the moon orbits the earth whether there are humans here to perceive it or not. But is it true? How can it be, given chip's apt point above?
A quote from whatistruth.org.uk: Plato said that we can know truth if we 'sublimate our minds to their original purity'.
Arcesilaus said that our understanding is not capable of knowing what
truth is. Carneades stated that we can never comprehend truth; and not
only that, but even our senses are inadequate in assisting us in the
investigation of truth. Gorgias said, 'What is right but what we prove to be right? and what is truth but what we believe to be truth?' ... truth appears to be a hazy concept, or a philosopher's subjective interpretation; or perhaps, very little at all.
To me, this is the difference between "is" and "truth" -- "is" simply exists, without judgment of accuracy. "Truth" is a human valuation of the accuracy of something that may or may not be.
For example, what is a fact? It might simply be (literally, "it is") or it might be true.
chipmany and slickhorn, you both raise good points. Truth is more than just a word though. The word "truth" is used to denote some concept, or some characteristic of being, which exists independent of being called truth or la vérité, or la veracidad, or bull pucky, etc. The moon orbits the earth. Whether we call this a truth or a fact is an issue of semantics, which by no means dismisses the argument, but this characteristic of the moon exists even if we don't call it anything.
If I'd had time last night before my lappy died, I had planned to point out that predicate logic is often used to determine truthfulness, but that even this mathematical language is an artificial construct created by humans, and still relies on observation, or perception.
It has been years since I've worked in predicate logic, something along the following lines should prove to be true, given all the current observations of the Universe, and for that matter, the universe also.
For all planets Earth in the Universe, there exists some mass, Luna, such that Luna is a satellite of Earth.
I've used words here because I don't think the forum supports logical symbols, and I'm too lazy to test whether that is true.
I hadn't seen the whatistruth.org.uk site before, but it seems, in places, to confuse truth with morality through relativism. Perhaps James will soon ask "What is morality?" but for the time being I think we can just agree that truth is independent of morality. If someone punches me in the head, whether or not I deserved it, or even if I could possibly deserve it, has nothing to do with the truth of whether I was punched in the head or not. It may have, should have, a lot to do with the reason I was, or wasn't, punched in the head. But, the truth of it is distinct from the morality of it.
we may have take qp deeper down the rabbit hole than intended, but it is interesting to see where it goes. I'm in over my head with you two, but I'll try for fun anyhow.
Perhaps the simplest formulation for all of this is simply: Truth is.
I think for myself, I fall fairly firmly into the relativist camp, because while I agree that the moon orbits the earth regardless of what we call that event, I have a hard time calling it "truth" in the sense that it is "truth" in the absence of a perceiver. How can it be truth, if there is no one to know its veracity? The semantics are fairly critical here, to me. But then I'm not one to buy into absolutes, mostly because my reading of history demonstrates so many absolutes later proven ridiculous. Again, the "absoluteness" is a matter of perception, and none of these sematic terms is proper to deal with the reality that the moon orbits the earth whether we know it or are here to see it or not. That is something else altogether, and perhaps this is what Plato's "forms" invoke.
To delve into James' question of differing theologies, my relativist self thinks that, in the sense that truth is subjective and a function of personal belief and perception, of course they are both equally true -- to the believer of each faith. Once again, I'm confronted with lacking a way to talk about what is "true" outside the reach of perception or awareness. In any case, given one either has faith, or dies to confirm one's belief, we're not likely to have an answer anytime soon.
I think we may be debating differing definitions of the word anyway.
Originally posted by water wacko
truth -
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried
to find out the truth.
2. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition,
principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
3. actuality or actual existence.
4. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
5. ideal or fundamental reality apart from and
transcending perceived experience: the basic
truths of life.
I think I'm referring to 2 and 4, and dblanchard is talking about 3 and 5. 1 is rather vague and could go either way.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Register
Login
Active Topics
Memberlist
Search
IP Logged
