Do you believe there is absolute truth?

Post Reply New Topic

I post this question not because I have any doubt in the fact that the vast majority will say no, but because I'm wondering if there are any believers in absolute truth, other than myself, left on WP. Particularly if you DO believe in absolute truth, please provide an explanation. If you don't, please realize that your explanation would only be a retread of about 90% of the PPR area's text, and therefore redundant and unnecessary. Yes, we've all heard countless times on here that there is "a truth for you, a truth for me, and truths for other people", blah blah blah blah blah.........
That no two truths can be mutually contrary doesn't stop that postmodern pablum preaching.

Because of the nature of truth, if you don't believe in absolute truth, you don't believe in truth at all, but rather mere opinion.

I think that there is absolute truth. My epistemological position is drawn from my reading of Alvin Plantinga's great book: Warrant and Proper Function.

Yes there is absolute truth. But there is also our interpretation of the truth which blurs the line between subjective and objective. The closest to objectivity you can get is if the truth still clearly and distinctly stands in the face of all possible interpretations.

There is absolute truth.

Our understanding of this truth is degraded by our perceptions, further degraded by our interpretations, and then degraded even further by our attempt to communicate out understanding to others.

Thus, any discussion of The Truth has at least three degrees of separation from The Truth.

Define 'truth'.

It is clear that the word 'true' in the sentences
1) It is true that all bachelors are unmarried
2) It is true that the sun rises from the east
have mean different meanings.

I don't know how you weren't able to figure what the OP meant by "truth", especially when "absolute" comes right before it. He obviously meant it in a concrete sense.

Only statements can be true or false, and statements are not concrete objects. So I don't really understand what is 'truth in the concrete sense'.

Very wise responses. I've been in the PPR area for years, so I'm a little surprised, but obviously in a good way. I also notice a fortunate lack of hopelessness when it comes to knowledge of absolute truth. After all, is there any point to believing it exists, if it comes with the corollary that you can never, ever, get in touch with it in any meaningful way? Of course, there are those who believe this too, but I don't recognize the ability to make that absolute statement while simultaneously denying all knowability of the truth.

Of course, there are "truths for me" and "truths for you" in a certain sense (i.e. I have brown hair, while you may not), but none which are mutually contrary. Opinions, though... of course there are uncountable contrary ones.

Statements are just a means of communication. The point of this thread is whether or not objective reality exists or if truths are relative.

Is the statement "there are no absolutely true statements" absolutely true or not.?

ruveyn

i think the more pertinent question would be, even if it does exist, would there be anyone impartial enough to perceive it?

I agree with this. I also think that the absolute truth on many matters just wouldn't fit in our brains. Not only does it get degraded by our perceptions, but even if our perceptual filters were completely removed, I don't think our brains would be able to fit the truth into any sensible pattern that we could understand. Our brains are just too limited. Even those who are the smartest people are limited by human neurology. Absolute truth just isn't going to fit inside this wetware anymore than it can fit inside whatever glop insects use to figure out where to get food.

I don't think any specific religion reveals absolute truth. I think all religions are the products of very thoughtful human minds but they are culture-bound. And even if they weren't culture bound, they are still guesses based on observations and revelations that come from deep in the brain (and so are not accessable thru normal conscious means) but are still revelations about our brain architecture and our humanity- not told by a divinity.

Science also has limitations and can't get to absolute truth. It isn't limited by our perceptions because we have invented measuring devices that can make observations far outside the limits of our senses (e.g. Hubbel telescope). But there is still the very hard limit that whatever we discover we must interpret in a way that makes sense to our human neurology. And that's a hard limit that neither science nor religion can get past.

With our best and most expensive instruments we are 15 orders of magnitude removed from Planck Length. We are a long way from Rock Bottom.

ruveyn

If "truth" means a concrete reality, then probably (though, as we only have our senses and logic and bearing in mind that humans aren't gods, we can't be absolutely sure)

If "truth" is some abstract term used to mystify and confuse, I can't say because I'm too busy being mystified and confused.

I'll say yes.

After reading many of your postings, I'm tempted to posit as an example of an "absolute truth" is the subject matter of Dostoevsky's "The Grand Inquistor".

Now, which Biblical person said each member of his group were as "always liars"?

Tadzio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Inquisitor