Question for Agnostics

Post Reply New Topic

What's your stance on the nature of truth? Is only one set of knowledge correct, (whether it is possible to know this set with 100% certainty or not,) or is truth relative?

Is there a natural distinction between truth in math and science compared to philosophy and religion, or is the distinction artificially imposed?

It must be noted that mathematics is not a science. It is a descriptive language which may be used to describe observed phenomena or can be used to describe an imagined situation. It's main virtue is that it must be internally consistent so that when describing an observed phenomenon it can reveal unsuspected qualities of that phenomenon and new relationships to other phenomena.

I think everything is defined by degrees of truth, and although nothing can be known with 100% certainty, some things can be known with enough certainty that for all intents and purposes they can be considered the truth.

For example, you could say that elementary mathematics is the only truth, but for all you know even mathematics could be the product of some mass glitch in the thought processes of every human on the planet. Or the laws of reality could be localised or affected by thought. However, those things are so unlikely that you can confidently "know" that 1+1=2.

This also applies to the question of whether there is only one true knowledge set. I can be 99% sure that certain things are objectively true even if they are not known, but not 100% sure. Who really knows what quantum mechanicy wierdness might apply to the macro world? So maybe the distinctions between math, science, philosophy and religion are artificially imposed, the result of unconscious categorisation by degrees of confidence, but that doesn't mean the distinctions are not useful for gauging the truth of an assertion.

The reason why I'm an agnostic is because when I think about things outside the scope of current science - metaphysics, the nature of consciousness, the questions of "why" rather than "how" - there are so many paradoxes that my certainty about any of it drops to around zero.

I believe there is internal Truth and external Truth. Religion (or lack thereof) falls under internal truth. Science falls under both.

I tend to steer away from monumental absolutes. With that said, I do think some questions exploit the limitations in human language and conceptualization, and defining answers in such contexts introduces contradictions and other semantical nonsense. I will say that the pursuit of truth itself has proven to be an important activity which aids the survival of our species, but theoretical discussion should be balanced with practical contexts in order to yield the most benefit for humanity.

I do firmly believe that there is an absolute truth, internal truth is just one's build, surroundings, and resulting orientation to that greater truth based on the scope of one's own experiences.

That said I think everything we see around us - religion, science, philosophy, all have bits and pieces of the puzzle but the picture is a lot bigger and the most salient points probably aren't even close to being within the grip of science yet. Certain things in my own life though definitely keep me from believing that most if any religious systems we have today are the totality and particularly with the theistic religions, the God's they describe really aren't showing the degree of empathy to their own creations that omniscience would yield (if you're to play out all the major precepts and looming damnation point).

I don't believe there's an innate value to anything in the universe. There's no purpose without the projection of our imagination. We create purpose. Even science is only a tool. It has proved useful but I don't think it explains truth. Science answers the "how" not the "why".

I hate being a nihilist, but it isn't really choice for me. When you attempt to seek truth objectively you're forced into the realization that all the common notions of truth that humanity holds are the products of desire and convenience. They’re all subjective creations.

i rather dont concur with most concepts of truth offered in this thread.

for one, the "truths" in maths and science are completely unrelated. mathsi is deductive, science is inductive. hence, maths, as long as they are pure maths and unmingled with any kind of empiry and totally abstract, can hold truth, while empirical science can at no point reach this "hard" truth you seem to be
asking for, due to its inductive method.

the whole idea of "objective" truth, that is, a truth outside and independent of the subject, is pretty flawed, too. that one comes with a package of assumptions, such as there is a subject-independent world, that simply can not be proved. end of story.

otgher than that, its not that hard forming strictly true sentences, as long as one is careful enough. example: IF socrates is human and IF all humans are mortal, then socrates is mortal. that sentence cant become untrue, because its basically reduced to formal truth, due to the ifs in the premises.

There can only be one 'truth'. That truth, of course, is open to interpretation... simply due to the fact that humans only use a small percentage of their brains and may not be able to wrap their heads around fact.

At the bottom of everything is fact.

yeah, a better vocabulary would indeed be highly useful (in case of science: useful is meant when truth is said, for example).

for starters, actual truth is something that can only be ascribed to sentences, not to things. so, in most cases, were talking about true sentences when we say truth.

What are sentences then?