UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:Most truth is constructed within social interaction, so how you interact is integral to the truth you create.
Originally posted by IngoB:
In your terms, I care about being pedantic. In my terms, I care about truth. Is this the way to win hearts or even minds? No. But I'm not here to do that either. I'm here to work out truth by talking about it, partly because I need to work out some truths, partly because I rather enjoy being right about things - in particular when other people are wrong about things.
Your ontological claims usually involve a belief in an unchanging externality that interacts in fundamentally inflexible ways - this is particularly problematic when you chose to debate and discuss topics that are predicated almost entirely on subjective experience.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Truth is neither created nor constructed. Truth is simply the accord of mental concept with actual reality. It is a kind of measure. Truth is hence essentially independent of provenance and circumstance. Arriving at mental concepts is not. This is unfortunate, because it taints the process of arriving at truth with inessentials. Any serious quest for truth hence leads to social constructs that precisely try to remove the influence of provenance and circumstance as much as possible.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Most truth is constructed within social interaction, so how you interact is integral to the truth you create.
(And yes, this includes religion in general and the Christian religion in particular. Christianity is from Christ, but that's not the "provenance" bit, that is the "truth" bit. The question is how one receives this truth. How one receives the truth of Christ without taint is one the biggest concerns for all Christians.)
However, SoF is not an institution dedicated to the pursuit of truth. It does not have the proper structure for that. It is a place of "free-for-all" discussion, which places no particular restriction on motivation, merely enforces some behavioral norms. If I decide to use this format for some truth testing, then I'm entirely within my rights to do so. If you do not profit from that, then you can complain to the extent that I have agreed to provide services to you, i.e., not ... at ... all.
quote:In other words, you believe in a God and Christ of your own making, who will change with your moods and preferences. It is your prerogative to worship your imagination, as long as you are willing to die with the eternal consequences on your head. I have precisely zero interest in your kind of religion though. Never had, never will. And no, this is not a rejection of "experience". All science ("science" in the old sense of the word) is founded on experience. And my religious convictions are founded on my experiences. The question is however what one does with one's experiences.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Your ontological claims usually involve a belief in an unchanging externality that interacts in fundamentally inflexible ways - this is particularly problematic when you chose to debate and discuss topics that are predicated almost entirely on subjective experience.
quote:This is precisely what I would dispute. I am not simply talking about religious ideas.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Truth is neither created nor constructed. Truth is simply the accord of mental concept with actual reality. It is a kind of measure. Truth is hence essentially independent of provenance and circumstance. Arriving at mental concepts is not. This is unfortunate, because it taints the process of arriving at truth with inessentials.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Most truth is constructed within social interaction, so how you interact is integral to the truth you create.
quote:Sure. At the time of typing this, I am sitting on a chair at roughly half a meter distance to an LCD monitor, which is displaying your request. I find it to be written in the English language, and interpret it accordingly. My answer will be sent to you when I have moved a physical object called a "mouse" such that its graphical representation called a "cursor" rests on the "Add reply" button, and I press a button on this mouse that is to the left and front of it (relative to me holding it). The mapping consist essentially in tracking the physical location of the mouse on the table, in this case by changes in the optical reflection of red light from the "mouse pad" beneath it, and translating them to different locations on the screen. The mapping is performed by a vast array of machinery, central to which are objects called CPU and GPU, respectively. These objects manipulate electrical currents in intricate ways by virtue of a vast number transistors, which act as a kind of switch and are based on doped semiconductors. They implement something called binary logic. I move the mouse by moving my right arm. This movement is powered by muscles extending and relaxing in a complicated fashion, orchestrated by barrages of electrical impulses, so called "action potentials" that travel through nerve fibres as a wave of imbalances in ion concentrations. These originate ultimately in the so called primary motor cortex of the brain. I could go on, but there is a time shown to me on the bottom right of my LCD monitor, which is regularly updated by contacting an caesium fountain atomic clock, which ultimately detects the passing of time based on radiation emitted in transitions in caesium atoms. Caesium atoms have 55 protons in their nucleus. But I was trying to say that it would take a very long time indeed to list all the truths I know about reality, and I have been rabbiting on for far too long already. Rabbits are by the way a kind of mammal, and ...
Originally posted by Doublethink:
IngoB - first tell me something you consider to be true about the everyday physical world.
quote:"But," as my grandmother used to say, "wellbut."
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Sure. At the time of typing this, I am sitting on a chair at roughly half a meter distance to an LCD monitor, which is displaying your request. I find it to be written in the English language, and interpret it accordingly.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
IngoB - first tell me something you consider to be true about the everyday physical world.
quote:That would just make Ingo's statements false rather than true. It wouldn't mean that they had a truth constructed by social interaction.
originally posted by Porridge
What you claim you consider to be true -- about where you're sitting, etc. -- isn't verifiable for those not present in the room with you as you type. You could, unlikely as it seems, consider the above to be true when in fact you were standing over the keyboard and were only a third of a meter away, etc
quote:Is the above statement true or not?
Originally posted by Ricardus
ISTM obvious that there can never be a completely true statement or a completely true idea, at least among humans, simply because both are limited by the structure of language and the structure of the brain respectively.
quote:Science is ultimately experience repeatable and verifiable by anyone. No religion as yet meets rigour. It is all subjective, while there indeed might be a TRUTH, it as yet has not manifest itself in a manner verifiable.
All science ("science" in the old sense of the word) is founded on experience. And my religious convictions are founded on my experiences. The question is however what one does with one's experiences.
quote:It depends what you mean by 'science', because certainly not all supposedly scientific claims are repeatable and verifiable by observation and experimentation (e.g. the conjectures concerning every stage of the putative evolutionary process).
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Science is ultimately experience repeatable and verifiable by anyone. No religion as yet meets rigour. It is all subjective, while there indeed might be a TRUTH, it as yet has not manifest itself in a manner verifiable.
quote:I will pick three principle questions to be going on with:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Sure. At the time of typing this, I am sitting on a chair at roughly half a meter distance to an LCD monitor, which is displaying your request. I find it to be written in the English language, and interpret it accordingly. My answer will be sent to you when I have moved a physical object called a "mouse" such that its graphical representation called a "cursor" rests on the "Add reply" button, and I press a button on this mouse that is to the left and front of it (relative to me holding it). The mapping consist essentially in tracking the physical location of the mouse on the table, in this case by changes in the optical reflection of red light from the "mouse pad" beneath it, and translating them to different locations on the screen. The mapping is performed by a vast array of machinery, central to which are objects called CPU and GPU, respectively. These objects manipulate electrical currents in intricate ways by virtue of a vast number transistors, which act as a kind of switch and are based on doped semiconductors. They implement something called binary logic. I move the mouse by moving my right arm. This movement is powered by muscles extending and relaxing in a complicated fashion, orchestrated by barrages of electrical impulses, so called "action potentials" that travel through nerve fibres as a wave of imbalances in ion concentrations. These originate ultimately in the so called primary motor cortex of the brain. I could go on, but there is a time shown to me on the bottom right of my LCD monitor, which is regularly updated by contacting an caesium fountain atomic clock, which ultimately detects the passing of time based on radiation emitted in transitions in caesium atoms. Caesium atoms have 55 protons in their nucleus. But I was trying to say that it would take a very long time indeed to list all the truths I know about reality, and I have been rabbiting on for far too long already. Rabbits are by the way a kind of mammal, and ...
Originally posted by Doublethink:
IngoB - first tell me something you consider to be true about the everyday physical world.
quote:That is true (<-- did you notice the word?), but I was not talking about "verifiability". I was talking about "some things I consider to be true about the everyday physical world," in response to Doublethink's request.
Originally posted by Porridge:
What you claim you consider to be true -- about where you're sitting, etc. -- isn't verifiable for those not present in the room with you as you type.
quote:There obviously is objective truth. It is for example an objective truth that human beings exist. There exists no valid human "framework" that denies the existence of human beings. Where somebody declares that there are no human beings, he shows himself to be insane. But it goes further than this, we can even judge "frameworks" according to how they incorporate this objective truth. When a Nazi declares that Jews are not human beings, then this is objectively false. It is not merely a case of opinion against opinion. And while it is obviously useful for me in defending this claim against a Nazi, if I have a clear definition of what a human being is (e.g., "a rational animal"), this is not the first step. Rather such a definition is a cognitive derivative from a prior realization, which as such can be quite vague and yet objectively true. One can know "these Jews are humans" without being able to formulate a water-tight definition of what one means by that. And still this is an objective truth one holds, however vaguely.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
In the end, there is no objective truth.
quote:I am not sure what you're using the word 'ontological' to mean, but I feel it's not what I expect it to mean.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem here is that any truth claims need a context within which they are considered true. That is the ontological framework in which your claims can be considered to be true. The basis of the framework cannot be considered to be true or false because you would have to define another ontological framework to argue for their truth.
Your ontological framework is based on faith and belief, and nothing else. This is not to disparage it at all, or imply that the truths that you argue within the framework are not true, the point is that your definition of "truth" is also ontologically defined (usually involving being demonstrable within the framework).
quote:The word 'truth' there should set alarm bells ringing. 'Truth' is an abstract noun formed from the adjective 'true'. Talking about 'truth' as if it is constructed or created, as if it's obvious what that means is tricky. (*) There's a risk that the reason you're not finding something that corresponds to what you're calling 'truth' is that you're setting up the problem so that you're looking for the wrong kind of thing.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Most truth is constructed within social interaction, so how you interact is integral to the truth you create.
quote:Bingo. This is what philosophers who reject post-structuralism call "the performative contradiction." In other words, performing the speech-act "there is no objective truth" is a contradiction.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If it is obvious that "there can never be a completely true statement or a completely true idea", then it follows logically that we can never even assert such a thing without self-contradiction!!
Or are you making a special exception of your insight?
quote:It's one of the very strange quirks of late-20th-century academia that people who purport to be quite progressive (i.e., the variety of post-structuralists found in the average group of literary theorists) end up with radically conservative or even reactionary views in most cultures. It becomes impossible to condemn moral wrongs, because, well, they're moral rights in some discourse.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But it goes further than this, we can even judge "frameworks" according to how they incorporate this objective truth. When a Nazi declares that Jews are not human beings, then this is objectively false. It is not merely a case of opinion against opinion. And while it is obviously useful for me in defending this claim against a Nazi, if I have a clear definition of what a human being is (e.g., "a rational animal"), this is not the first step. Rather such a definition is a cognitive derivative from a prior realization, which as such can be quite vague and yet objectively true. One can know "these Jews are humans" without being able to formulate a water-tight definition of what one means by that. And still this is an objective truth one holds, however vaguely.
[...]
Postmodernism and subjectivism are attacks on a core dignity, perhaps the core dignity of the human being. They belittle human understanding drastically. They pretend that universal truth based on humans is fundamentally "not good enough". By what standards? Says who? Humans claim this, and as a truth! It is self-contradictory dehumanizing nonsense. It has no intellectual value, because it denies all intellectual value. It is immoral, because it arbitrary. It would require combating as a deadly ideology, except that nobody actually believes in it. It is totally sterile, and apart from the artificial propagation in the academe has no life. Nobody, but nobody, lives by this nonsense. Not even the insane.
quote:A chair is an object invented, designed and manufactured by humans to serve a particular purpose. In consequence, it has particular features that distinguish it from a stool and a table, which are objects with different purposes and hence different features (though obviously a stool is fairly close in purpose to a chair). My actual chair for example does have armrests, as well as a back and a raised sitting surface which are contoured to fit the human body well in sitting. All this makes my chair well suited for its purpose. You can of course use my chair as a makeshift table. But it will be a lot less suitable for this purpose than actual tables. That is an objective truth, which is easily verifiable in practice. Hence it is a chair that can serve as a makeshift table, not a table that can serve as a makeshift chair.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
How do you know it is a chair ? (As opposed, for example, to a stool or a table.)
quote:I wouldn't consider the rather lively and definitely ongoing debate since Libet as a "consensus". Personally, I'm not a materialist but a hylemorphic dualist, and zero problems arise for my concept of the human mind from this. But anyhow, we were not discussing consciousness. It is totally irrelevant for the objective truth that I did in fact move my mouse to click the "Add reply" button that there are uncertainties about the "neural implementation" of this "I". That simply happened. It is also totally irrelevant for my experience of deciding to click the mouse button. That experience, while obviously not "shareable" other than in description, also simply happened. That I had this subjective experience is an objective truth. You can find matters in which I am not sure about the objective truth. And how consciousness relates to neurons is definitely among those. But I have never declared to be in the possession of all truth. Indeed, I have not even made any claims about what truths are knowable. I merely stated that some truths can be known, and I've given examples.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
You say that 'you' moved the mouse, given that we have a current scientific consensus that brain activity to enact a movement often precedes the consciousness of choosing to move - how are are you constructing your understanding of 'you' and does it vary dependent on the conversation you are engaged in?
quote:This would require a lengthy discussion to do it justice. However, to simplify: modern science constructs models, and only models. Models never make "total truth" claims. By design, models captures specific aspects in the world, within a specific range of phenomena. Furthermore, by design models map this to a conceptual space that we find easier to manipulate (in many cases, but certainly not in all, to mathematics). The claim of some quantum mechanical prediction of transitions of an atom is hence not really that there is such a transition, but that whatever may actually be there can be usefully described as such a transition.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
To what extent do you accept that theorising about sub-atomic particles (which can also be conceptualised as waves) is a social constructed endeavor and how does that effect its status as truth in your view?
quote:And that includes the above comment.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat
In the end, there is no objective truth.
quote:(From 'De Futilitate', Christian Reflections)
We are always prevented from accepting total scepticism because it can be formulated only by making a tacit exception in favour of the thought we are thinking at the moment - just as the man who warns the newcomer 'Don't trust anyone in this office' always expects you to trust him at that moment.
quote:Nah, that god is just a recyled demiurge from the gnostics. A semi-divine secondary god, like a Brian, "He's not God, he's just a very naughty boy", or maybe like Q
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Like the other postmodernists, churchgoers of the 'Emergent' persuasion assert that objective truth cannot be known. Interesting one: the only logical conclusions of such a belief is that God is unable or unwilling to reveal objective truth to us….or that he has created us with an inability to grasp it. The Emergent God is therefore limited or obstructive when it comes to ‘truth’ (something we may have previously thought he was big on) or he’s just unreasonable - expecting us to respond to the objective truth about himself, even though he’s fully aware that we cannot comprehend it.
quote:Yes, unless you're counting God under the heading "conscious beings," in which case I'm not sure.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have to admit, I don't understand what is meant by objective truth. Does 'objective' mean something that would be true, even if there were no conscious beings?
quote:So you are saying that this is true, even if no-one knows it to be true? I find that weird.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:Yes, unless you're counting God under the heading "conscious beings," in which case I'm not sure.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have to admit, I don't understand what is meant by objective truth. Does 'objective' mean something that would be true, even if there were no conscious beings?
But if I were to say "it is an objective truth that the speed of light is constant, in the sense that it has not changed, either before or after the existence of conscious beings," would that answer the question? Our knowledge of the speed of light has changed, the numbers and words we use to discuss and define it are human creations, but the actual speed of light has not changed.
quote:This is not, strictly speaking, true. It could be argued that our inability to grasp objective truth is a consequence of the fall. Given this, the rest of your comments on the "Emergent God" and "orthodoxy" don't hold a lot of water.
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Like the other postmodernists, churchgoers of the 'Emergent' persuasion assert that objective truth cannot be known. Interesting one: the only logical conclusions of such a belief is that God is unable or unwilling to reveal objective truth to us….or that he has created us with an inability to grasp it.
quote:A statement is objectively true or false if its truth or falsity depends upon the thing it is about rather than upon the state of the one making the statement.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have to admit, I don't understand what is meant by objective truth. Does 'objective' mean something that would be true, even if there were no conscious beings? Or something that everyone agrees is true?
quote:I would suggest reading the post immediately after the one you quoted.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Is the above statement true or not?
How exactly are you expecting us to respond to your comment, if "there can never be a completely true statement"?
If it is obvious that "there can never be a completely true statement or a completely true idea", then it follows logically that we can never even assert such a thing without self-contradiction!!
Or are you making a special exception of your insight?
quote:So would you say that something can be true, even though no-one knows that it is?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:A statement is objectively true or false if its truth or falsity depends upon the thing it is about rather than upon the state of the one making the statement.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have to admit, I don't understand what is meant by objective truth. Does 'objective' mean something that would be true, even if there were no conscious beings? Or something that everyone agrees is true?
(It is hard to see what 'subjectively true' means - if you can't be wrong about something then you can't be right either.)
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Like the other postmodernists, churchgoers of the 'Emergent' persuasion assert that objective truth cannot be known. Interesting one: the only logical conclusions of such a belief is that God is unable or unwilling to reveal objective truth to us….or that he has created us with an inability to grasp it.
quote:Sorry - but it is indeed, strictly speaking, true. God's redemptive plan actually relies on our ability to grasp the objective truth about Christ, and on our response to that objective truth.
This is not, strictly speaking, true. It could be argued that our inability to grasp objective truth is a consequence of the fall. Given this, the rest of your comments on the "Emergent God" and "orthodoxy" don't hold a lot of water.
quote:Justification by knowledge has replaced justification by faith?
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
God's redemptive plan actually relies on our ability to grasp the objective truth about Christ, and on our response to that objective truth.
quote:I don't even get the first step. I could introduce you now to people who would say that the chair is an illusion. I'm not saying that they are correct, since I don't know.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The problem I have with discussions like this is when people start off arguing that their chair has objective existence, but then go on to argue that this means everything they believe in is objectively true.
The thought process appears to be along the lines of "the existence of my chair is objectively true = objective truths exist = everything I say about God is objectively true (= you should be made to do what I say God wants you to do)"
There seem to be a few logical steps missing between the second and third statements. Even if some truth claims are objective, that does not mean all truth claims are objective.
quote:This is clearly an alteration of the word ontological, which through most of its history has been taken to refer to 'what actually is' - in other words, what is true regardless of what I/we perceive.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem here is that any truth claims need a context within which they are considered true. That is the ontological framework in which your claims can be considered to be true. The basis of the framework cannot be considered to be true or false because you would have to define another ontological framework to argue for their truth. snip
In the end, there is no objective truth. What there is, critically, is truth claims that work and can relate to the context in which you are making them. In other words, rather than making "objective" claims for truth, it is fair to say "if you accept this ontological framework, then this can be true". And yes, ontological frameworks are cultural, that is, they do not always cross cultural boundaries.
quote:I think I would query your use of the word 'truth'. ISTM that truth is a property of statements and ideas, not of 'stuff' (for want of a better word). The universe is not true, regardless of whether it exists.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
While I think your argument is actually self-referential, I think it does reflect a fairly current view of truth, where it can be taken to mean something if you refer to 'your truth' and 'my truth'.
The problem is that any such dialogue derives its meaning from the same axiomatic assumption that something really exists (something really 'is'), whatever distance you may wish to retain from this assumption when conducting the dialogue.
The same issue exists in natural science. There can never be any ultimate coherence in any theory unless in the context that there is an ultimate truth toward which the theory may bring us
quote:No. Last time I looked, it was still justification by faith. Faith, of course, comes from hearing the message of God....as someone once said. That message is God's self-revelation - most particularly, as encapsulated in the work of Christ. If we were incapable of assimilating that objective truth, in what, exactly, would our faith reside?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Justification by knowledge has replaced justification by faith?
quote:And science does not set out to describe reality. Scientists make observations about appearances. If you want to argue that those appearances are reality, that is fine, but it is not a scientific argument, but a philosophical one.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:I think I would query your use of the word 'truth'. ISTM that truth is a property of statements and ideas, not of 'stuff' (for want of a better word). The universe is not true, regardless of whether it exists.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
While I think your argument is actually self-referential, I think it does reflect a fairly current view of truth, where it can be taken to mean something if you refer to 'your truth' and 'my truth'.
The problem is that any such dialogue derives its meaning from the same axiomatic assumption that something really exists (something really 'is'), whatever distance you may wish to retain from this assumption when conducting the dialogue.
The same issue exists in natural science. There can never be any ultimate coherence in any theory unless in the context that there is an ultimate truth toward which the theory may bring us
quote:I take the Catholic line on invincible ignorance myself, insofar as I have any firm opinion on the matter.
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
No. Last time I looked, it was still justification by faith. Faith, of course, comes from hearing the message of God....as someone once said. That message is God's self-revelation - most particularly, as encapsulated in the work of Christ. If we were incapable of assimilating that objective truth, in what, exactly, would our faith reside?
quote:Interesting that you refer to 'science' as if there were an universal approach to these matters. There isn't (not after 'A' Level/Matric/Bacc or whatever the school-leaver's certificate is in your country). Scientific practice - as in all real life investigation and dialogue - is predicated on the existence of a reality that makes sense of the dialogue and gives purpose to the investigation.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This may seem petty, but it's not, as science several centuries ago made the brilliant step of divesting itself of such metaphysical arguments, and concentrated on empirical study, or as Bacon said, the senses.
quote:I'm driven to the conclusion that God isn't actually that bothered about us getting the objective truth about him exactly right. I can only assume he has bigger fish to fry.
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Others have alluded to the inherent self-contradiction of a philosophy which states as a fact that objective truth cannot be known, or does not exist - I won't labour the point. But it may be worth considering the implications of that postmodern viewpoint when applied to Christianity - as it is increasingly widespread in the church.
I would suggest that a key function of the Holy Spirit is to lead us into 'all truth' - primarily, the truth of the gospel message. It is very much an objective truth, and it is essential that we grasp it.
Like the other postmodernists, churchgoers of the 'Emergent' persuasion assert that objective truth cannot be known. Interesting one: the only logical conclusions of such a belief is that God is unable or unwilling to reveal objective truth to us….or that he has created us with an inability to grasp it. The Emergent God is therefore limited or obstructive when it comes to ‘truth’ (something we may have previously thought he was big on) or he’s just unreasonable - expecting us to respond to the objective truth about himself, even though he’s fully aware that we cannot comprehend it.
Superficially, at least, this would represent a serious departure from orthodoxy. The implications are far-ranging – especially in terms of how people understand God, and how they relate to him. But I don’t suppose many of them have thought the issue through. I expect this strange view of God is merely an inescapable outcome of what they subscribe to, rather than part of a ‘joined-up’ theology.
The rejection of the objective truth concept may be attractive or fashionable, but it is also self-contradictory and pretty-much impossible to square with a self-revealing God.
quote:I would also tend towards the view that God is sufficiently "other" from our experience that it is not unreasonable to think that any objective statements about him are provisional and partially metaphorical in nature.
Originally blogged by me:
I’ve known a lot of people who believe this, and sometimes it’s the only thing they agree on. Some are preterist, some look forward to a great tribulation. Some are fiercely Calvinist. Others vigorously Arminian. Some hold to a strong paedobaptist tradition. Others insist on believer’s baptism. Some insist that the dramatic gifts of the Spirit are for today; others equally that they died out with the Apostles.
And every one of them is convinced that the Scriptures prove that they are right and going against them requires a failure to believe God’s Word.
So there’s a problem. If the Scriptures are God’s Word and inerrant, nevertheless those who believe this to be the case can’t actually agree what God’s Word says
I have to conclude that to whatever extent the Bible is God’s message to humanity, then God isn’t desperately worried about us getting our theology right.
quote:I'm no expert on Catholic doctrine, Ricardus. My (limited) comprehension of invincible ignorance (please correct if wrong) is that persons are not held accountable for 'wrongdoing', if they lack the capacity to understand their actions as wrong. Insofar as that pertains to God's provision for redemption, I believe there is a passage in Romans 2 which may be pertinent. It speaks of Gentiles who don't know God living in accord with the dictates of their conscience - and perhaps an implication that they may judged on that basis. Not sure if that's the kind of thing you mean. Personally, I wouldn't want to be judged on that basis, and for me - and others like me - the revelation and work of Christ is very necessary.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I take the Catholic line on invincible ignorance myself, insofar as I have any firm opinion on the matter.
I presume, on your premises, invincible ignorance is not a phenomenon that could ever exist?
quote:In belief. Specifically, the belief that what the Bible tells us about God and the work of Christ is true.
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
If we were incapable of assimilating that objective truth, in what, exactly, would our faith reside?
quote:Agree with that. And they are philosophical echo chambers, not anything else.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
AberVicar - I think it's more that if you believe that that point can never be reached - that is, that perception and reality can never be as one - then you need different words to describe each 'half' (so to speak). Reality can be described as 'real', so 'true' can be used of perceptions.
The effect, though, I think, is that a lot of these debates consist of philosophical echo chambers talking past each other.
quote:
There was a young man who said "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."
"Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the Quad
And that's why this tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by Yours faithfully, God."
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
If we were incapable of assimilating that objective truth, in what, exactly, would our faith reside?
quote:Yes. That’ll be the revealed, objective truth to which I refer.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In belief. Specifically, the belief that what the Bible tells us about God and the work of Christ is true.
quote:Right again, Marvin. We could have faith in virtually anything. Misplaced faith is why we have a host of cults, the flat earth society, Elvis sightings and Sheffield Wednesday supporters. But neither misplaced faith nor anything which doesn’t constitute objective truth, devalues the truth of God’s existence, his love for us – or the work of Christ. These are the objective truths he has revealed, and it is to these that we are called to respond.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It doesn't have to be objectively true for us to have faith in it. If that were so then surely it would be impossible to have faith in anything other than the one thing that's objectively true.
quote:No, those are the things you believe are objective truths He has revealed.
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
These are the objective truths he has revealed
quote:There's very little functional or practical difference between the two statements.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
There is a difference between saying that objective truth exists even though we may not attain it with our limited grasp of matters; and saying that objective truth does not exist in which case we are saying that reality is limited to our grasp of matters.
quote:Actually there is (apart from the obvious formal contradiction between them). The idea that reality is limited to our own small grasp of affairs runs clean contrary to the real historical and empirically verifiable experience that human beings are always striving to develop and discover more. Our whole lives are predicated on this, and the experience so far of humanity is that there is always more and greater to be discovered and better ways to be. And not just humanity: even my dogs are always happy to get out and explore. It's 'hard wired' and it's the only way that the world around us makes sense.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:There's very little functional or practical difference between the two statements.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
There is a difference between saying that objective truth exists even though we may not attain it with our limited grasp of matters; and saying that objective truth does not exist in which case we are saying that reality is limited to our grasp of matters.
quote:It's also possible to say other things. For example, I don't know; and I don't know if it's possible to know. And thirdly, the concept of objective truth has been asserted, but not demonstrated yet.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I think we need a clear distinction here - a Scholastic distinguo, Pater.
There is a difference between saying that objective truth exists even though we may not attain it with our limited grasp of matters; and saying that objective truth does not exist in which case we are saying that reality is limited to our grasp of matters.
quote:But that's basically arguing that we should believe in 'objective truth' because it's useful to us or satisfying to our interests, rather than for reasons that are actually objective.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Actually there is (apart from the obvious formal contradiction between them). The idea that reality is limited to our own small grasp of affairs runs clean contrary to the real historical and empirically verifiable experience that human beings are always striving to develop and discover more. Our whole lives are predicated on this, and the experience so far of humanity is that there is always more and greater to be discovered and better ways to be. And not just humanity: even my dogs are always happy to get out and explore. It's 'hard wired' and it's the only way that the world around us makes sense.
quote:I have worn several pairs of trousers to watch a rugby match, and my father used to borrow a pair of my mother's tights to put on under his trousers to keep his legs warm...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's like wearing two pairs of knickers - what's the point? What does the term 'objective' actually add to 'truth' or 'reality'?
quote:Oi!
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Misplaced faith is why we have... Sheffield Wednesday supporters.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
(Although it's probably fair comment at the moment!)quote:The question on my mind is how do we know the "truth of God's existence, his love for us - or the work of Christ"?
But neither misplaced faith nor anything which doesn’t constitute objective truth, devalues the truth of God’s existence, his love for us – or the work of Christ. These are the objective truths he has revealed, and it is to these that we are called to respond.
quote:But surely truth is dependent on intersubjective perceptions, descriptions, theorizations, predictions, and so on.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:I have worn several pairs of trousers to watch a rugby match, and my father used to borrow a pair of my mother's tights to put on under his trousers to keep his legs warm...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's like wearing two pairs of knickers - what's the point? What does the term 'objective' actually add to 'truth' or 'reality'?
"Objective' adds nothing except to distinguish from the idea that truth is dependent on subjective perception. Where language has been allowed to shift, there is often a need to introduce a qualification.
quote:I cor 15:30-34
30 Why are we in danger every hour? 31 I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! 32 What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” 33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” 34 Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.
quote:We are trying to thrash out a view of what is the case. If we come to an agreement, it will make no difference whatever to what actually is the case. The intersubjectivity itself is no more than two objective beings exploring the limits of their own subjectivity. Which, unless it drives one of us suicidal, will have no effect on our objective existence.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The irony is that, this is what we're doing now. We are intersubjectivizing, aren't we? My posts to you come from me, and yours come from you, and maybe we can thrash something out, and maybe not, but we are doing it together. In other words, there is a relationship.
quote:I am arguing for a concept of truth that is evidenced by pragmatic experience but not contingent on it. I am arguing that pragmatic experience makes no sense without assuming probabilities which lead in the direction of truth.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm fine with that, since I'm the one arguing for a pragmatic concept of truth, but I'm not sure it's what you're arguing for?
quote:Perhaps I've not made my point too well. In my previous post, I wrote of God elevating us by our input into the process of others coming into knowledge of the truth, although it was ultimately a transaction between the Holy Spirit and the other person. In sharing the gospel message, I will make a number of assertions: It is not my job, however, to ensure someone fully accepts God's objective truth - nor even to 'demonstrate' to their satisfaction the veracity of what I am saying. It is a function of the Holy Spirit to convict them of the truth.
Orignally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, you are asserting that, which is fine, if rather circular. It is objective because you are asserting that it comes from a source beyond subjectivity.
However, can you demonstrate it?
quote:I think you've smuggled in about 3 different 'objectives' there, so at any rate, you are starting where you want to end up!
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:We are trying to thrash out a view of what is the case. If we come to an agreement, it will make no difference whatever to what actually is the case. The intersubjectivity itself is no more than two objective beings exploring the limits of their own subjectivity. Which, unless it drives one of us suicidal, will have no effect on our objective existence.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The irony is that, this is what we're doing now. We are intersubjectivizing, aren't we? My posts to you come from me, and yours come from you, and maybe we can thrash something out, and maybe not, but we are doing it together. In other words, there is a relationship.
quote:Easily said, feathered one - I await your demonstration that my argument is either incoherent or untrue.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I think you've smuggled in about 3 different 'objectives' there, so at any rate, you are starting where you want to end up!
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:We are trying to thrash out a view of what is the case. If we come to an agreement, it will make no difference whatever to what actually is the case. The intersubjectivity itself is no more than two objective beings exploring the limits of their own subjectivity. Which, unless it drives one of us suicidal, will have no effect on our objective existence.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The irony is that, this is what we're doing now. We are intersubjectivizing, aren't we? My posts to you come from me, and yours come from you, and maybe we can thrash something out, and maybe not, but we are doing it together. In other words, there is a relationship.
quote:What if you are the one doing the pretending?
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
If they want to ignore it, or pretend it doesn't exist, that is their choice.
quote:Yeah - OK, Marvin. Let's assume that, shall we? I ought to be getting on with some work, anyway.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What if you are the one doing the pretending?
quote:I'm just pointing out that you seem to be assuming, what is the nub at issue - there is something which is 'what actually is the case'.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:Easily said, feathered one - I await your demonstration that my argument is either incoherent or untrue.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I think you've smuggled in about 3 different 'objectives' there, so at any rate, you are starting where you want to end up!
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:We are trying to thrash out a view of what is the case. If we come to an agreement, it will make no difference whatever to what actually is the case. The intersubjectivity itself is no more than two objective beings exploring the limits of their own subjectivity. Which, unless it drives one of us suicidal, will have no effect on our objective existence.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The irony is that, this is what we're doing now. We are intersubjectivizing, aren't we? My posts to you come from me, and yours come from you, and maybe we can thrash something out, and maybe not, but we are doing it together. In other words, there is a relationship.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by making sense. Do you mean objectively making sense?
Originally posted by AberVicar:
And I'm pointing out that none of it actually makes any sense at all unless there is something that is in fact the case, whether we can agree on what it is or not.
Of course, you may prefer Unamuno but I don't. And if you find it immodest to engage in epistemological speculation that has an ontological foundation, by all means don't.
quote:Yes. Clearly. My keys are not in my pocket. I had them when I let myself into the house. Therefore, some statement of the form 'my keys are on the desk/ under the desk/ on the bookshelf/ on the floor under the coats,' is true. Even though nobody knows which one of those is true until they go and look.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:So would you say that something can be true, even though no-one knows that it is?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
A statement is objectively true or false if its truth or falsity depends upon the thing it is about rather than upon the state of the one making the statement.
quote:It would seem my question annoyed you. Which is odd, seeing as how it was only me reflecting back to you what you were saying to everyone else.
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
quote:Yeah - OK, Marvin. Let's assume that, shall we? I ought to be getting on with some work, anyway.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What if you are the one doing the pretending?
quote:You are reminding me, possibly of learning Greek in the third form - at any rate, of some point at which the teacher explained the appeal of geometry to the ancients. There they were living, as we do, in a world of uncertainty, chaos and injustice, and there was this lucid, transcendent realm of unalterable propositions. I met it again in Sidney - '[Nature's] world is brazen, the poets deliver a golden'.
Originally posted by snowgoose:
So now Euclid's parallel postulate is only considered true in some cases.
quote:Interestingly enough, if you remove Euclid's fifth postulate (the one about parallel lines), the entire structure of Euclidean geometry does not collapse. The remaining system of four postulate geometry is known as "absolute geometry". Indeed, the first twenty-eight propositions presented in Euclid's Elements can be proved without resort to the fifth postulate.
Originally posted by snowgoose:
For millennia it was considered absolutely, mathematically true that, for example, the sum of the angles of every triangle is always 180 degrees. This "truth" depended on the assumption that two parallel lines never intersect each other at any point. Then in the 19th century mathematicians said, hold on, that is not necessarily the case. It works on a plane, but the world is not a plane. So now Euclid's parallel postulate is only considered true in some cases.
quote:I'm having trouble seeing how there is more to this part of the discussion than semantics. If I can say that I see a red ball, it's because I'm describing something I perceive in the activity of my brain, which in turn is in response to light entering my eye after it has been reflected off the ball.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm just pointing out that you seem to be assuming, what is the nub at issue - there is something which is 'what actually is the case'.
It seems to me that a lot of this argument hinges on descriptions, but then, we can't describe experiences. Thus, I don't think I can describe the present moment.
quote:It's not clear here that anything was being considered true that wasn't always considered true. (Attempting to prove the fifth postulate from the other four was a favourite pastime for cranks. They were wrong in thinking that it could be so proved.) But the majority of the mathematical community weren't so much wrong, but just didn't think of doing geometry on surfaces that aren't flat when embedded in Euclidean space.
Originally posted by snowgoose:
For millennia it was considered absolutely, mathematically true that, for example, the sum of the angles of every triangle is always 180 degrees. This "truth" depended on the assumption that two parallel lines never intersect each other at any point. Then in the 19th century mathematicians said, hold on, that is not necessarily the case. It works on a plane, but the world is not a plane. So now Euclid's parallel postulate is only considered true in some cases.
quote:What don't you know?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can also just say that you don't know.
quote:I just mean that instead of saying that there is a true statement about something, that we don't know, and hence, potentially, it is one of a very large number of such statements, we can say that we don't know.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:What don't you know?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can also just say that you don't know.
I don't know whether ... can always be rephrased I don't know whether '...' is true.
quote:There was a young man who said "God
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I do hope that Ronald Knox's limericks have been quoted before on The Ship, but they do seem highly relevant here:
quote:
There was a young man who said "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."
"Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the Quad
And that's why this tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by Yours faithfully, God."
quote:'We don't know' is meaningless on its own. It's only meaningless in a context that specifies what it is we don't know.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just mean that instead of saying that there is a true statement about something, that we don't know, and hence, potentially, it is one of a very large number of such statements, we can say that we don't know.
quote:That's a bit confused. Statements don't tell you anything. People tell you things. Or you could say that the encyclopedia tells you things, or the textbook, etc.
For example, I don't know where my first wife is living now, but I suppose there is a true statement about this, which would tell me. Hence, it is one of a very large number of possible statements that might be true.
quote:So you're agreeing that 'I don't know' in this context is a succint way of saying that 'there is a truth of the matter about where my ex-wife is living which I do not know'?
This is correct; but it's quite succinct also to say that I don't know.
quote:- said jesting Pilate. And would not stay for an answer.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What is truth?
quote:Well, logically they are the same, but I just don't understand what 'there is a truth of the matter ... which I don't know' means. In what sense, does this truth exist? It sounds like a Platonic realm, rather like some views of mathematics.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:'We don't know' is meaningless on its own. It's only meaningless in a context that specifies what it is we don't know.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just mean that instead of saying that there is a true statement about something, that we don't know, and hence, potentially, it is one of a very large number of such statements, we can say that we don't know.
quote:That's a bit confused. Statements don't tell you anything. People tell you things. Or you could say that the encyclopedia tells you things, or the textbook, etc.
For example, I don't know where my first wife is living now, but I suppose there is a true statement about this, which would tell me. Hence, it is one of a very large number of possible statements that might be true.
quote:So you're agreeing that 'I don't know' in this context is a succint way of saying that 'there is a truth of the matter about where my ex-wife is living which I do not know'?
This is correct; but it's quite succinct also to say that I don't know.
quote:If they're logically the same, then if you believe that and you understand one then you understand the other.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, logically they are the same, but I just don't understand what 'there is a truth of the matter ... which I don't know' means. In what sense, does this truth exist? It sounds like a Platonic realm, rather like some views of mathematics.
quote:The problem is that the same arguments you advance against objectivity equally take down any concept of intersubjectivity. Look above: you denied that there could be any truths that anybody else - in this instance your ex-wife - knows that you do not. It follows that intersubjectivity for ypu is simply what occurs in your subjectivity excluding anything that occurs in other subjectivities. Effectively, this is a denial that there are for you other subjects.
I see 'truth' and 'reality' in a more pragmatic sense; i.e. they are not objective, but communicative or relational. That is why the notion of intersubjectivity makes a lot of sense, since it shows how different subjects are able to participate in a discourse.
quote:No, I said that it was odd have truths which nobody knows.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:If they're logically the same, then if you believe that and you understand one then you understand the other.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, logically they are the same, but I just don't understand what 'there is a truth of the matter ... which I don't know' means. In what sense, does this truth exist? It sounds like a Platonic realm, rather like some views of mathematics.
You've subtly moved from 'a truth of the matter' to 'this truth'. That move would be justified if 'truth' was a concrete noun corresponding to a middle-sized material object. But that it isn't. That's not how the phrase 'truth of the matter' works.
The truth of the matter in this sense refers to the same kinds of entities and relationships that it refers to in the case of things that you do know.
quote:The problem is that the same arguments you advance against objectivity equally take down any concept of intersubjectivity. Look above: you denied that there could be any truths that anybody else - in this instance your ex-wife - knows that you do not. It follows that intersubjectivity for ypu is simply what occurs in your subjectivity excluding anything that occurs in other subjectivities. Effectively, this is a denial that there are for you other subjects.
I see 'truth' and 'reality' in a more pragmatic sense; i.e. they are not objective, but communicative or relational. That is why the notion of intersubjectivity makes a lot of sense, since it shows how different subjects are able to participate in a discourse.
quote:A further repetition of a completely untrue mantra. Say something's irrelevant often enough and people will start to believe it,
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
but science freed itself from the latter several centuries ago.
quote:All you have to do then is show the opposite.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:A further repetition of a completely untrue mantra. Say something's irrelevant often enough and people will start to believe it,
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
but science freed itself from the latter several centuries ago.
quote:I have indeed attempted to show that contemporary science is by no means so narrow, and using my own arguments have sought to demonstrate that metaphysics actually provides the groundrules without which dialogue, experimentation, investigation and all the other elements of scientific method make no sense.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:All you have to do then is show the opposite.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:A further repetition of a completely untrue mantra. Say something's irrelevant often enough and people will start to believe it,
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
but science freed itself from the latter several centuries ago.
quote:What I quoted you saying (my emphasis):
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:No, I said that it was odd have truths which nobody knows.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The problem is that the same arguments you advance against objectivity equally take down any concept of intersubjectivity. Look above: you denied that there could be any truths that anybody else - in this instance your ex-wife - knows that you do not. It follows that intersubjectivity for ypu is simply what occurs in your subjectivity excluding anything that occurs in other subjectivities. Effectively, this is a denial that there are for you other subjects.
quote:You slipped from a denial of truths that nobody knows into a denial of truths that you don't know without noticing.
Well, logically they are the same, but I just don't understand what 'there is a truth of the matter ... which ***I*** don't know' means.
quote:The claim that there is no requirement for scientists to hold a metaphysical belief like objective reality is itself a metaphysical claim (meta-metaphysical?): it us begging the question.
Intersubjectivity does not depend on a prior assumption of objective truth or reality. For example, scientists make observations about appearances, and eventually are able to make predictions about further observations. There is no requirement here for a metaphysical doctrine like objective reality. That is confusing heuristics with metaphysics, but science freed itself from the latter several centuries ago.
quote:We all know that we're just in denial about it.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What is truth?