Is the world really searching for truth?

[Wrg1405]

Any indication of uncertainty concerns me.

What part of what I said gives and indication of uncertainty? Hopefully I will be able to clarify

 

[Runner]

Thus is the reason I stand fast on the position that there is exactly one, single, truth. I do not deny many view other theories as truth but there can only be one truth and everything else that is true must be based on it. Truth has never been and must never be considered relevant. Relativity makes things appear to be true but they can never replace the Truth because there is one God and that God is the truth.

I know you weren't responding to me, but just to be clear: I agree (I don't know how anyone could disagree) that there can be only one ultimate truth and that everything else must be based on it. After someone believes he "knows" the truth, or even is just "firmly convinced," everything else in his life must flow from that. Relativism ("what is true for you is not necessarily true for me" or "what is true depends on the situation") really boils down to, "There is no ultimate truth."

When I say a Muslim "knows" his truth in roughly the same way a Christian "knows" his, I am certainly not saying they are both true (or even both entitled to equal respect). Only one can be true in the sense of "corresponding to reality." I am "firmly convinced" Christianity better corresponds to reality, both in its understanding of the ultimate reality (God) and everything that flows from this.

I recently saw a video in which famed Christian philosopher/epistemologist Alvin Plantinga, who has devoted his entire career to dealing with these issues, was asked the standard question as to whether all religions are paths to God. Even though Plantinga deals with these issues at a level most of us can scarcely understand, he replied very straightforwardly, "Well, no, only one can be true" - meaning that only one can correspond to reality. In fact, here it is:

 

[th1b.taylor]

Thanks Bill for that clarification. :yes

Some fool told me I was perfect when I made E-5 in the Army... I have discovered he lied since then.

 

[Runner]

Wow! You are where I was, both as an Atheist and as a Deist. But with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and with the results of my personal research into Death Bed experiences I will stand firm on the statement that I know My GMC is parked, right now in my Custom Built Car Port and I am equally certain the Christian God is the God of everything. I wake up every morning , turn the lights on and look around the room and if the Death Angle is not there, I know it is not time for me to check in to Heaven.

I am so sorry you do not feel that assurance, the assurance that lives in me because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I truly mean no disrespect, but I'll put my "assurance" up against anyone else's with one hand tied behind my back (as Rush likes to say).

 

[th1b.taylor]

When I say a Muslim "knows" his truth in roughly the same way a Christian "knows" his, I am certainly not saying they are both true (or even both entitled to equal respect). Only one can be true in the sense of "corresponding to reality." I am "firmly convinced" Christianity better corresponds to reality, both in its understanding of the ultimate reality (God) and everything that flows from this.

But that cannot be except the Christian is religious, only. With the indwelling of the Holy Spirit there is no room for any uncertainty. I had spent years trying to make sense of the Bible and most of the New Testament and all of the Old Testament except Isa. 53 was gibberish until the night of my conversion and from the very beginning f my walk with God, the same texts make perfect sense because the
Spirit has opened my eyes.

 

[Runner]

But that cannot be except the Christian is religious, only. With the indwelling of the Holy Spirit there is no room for any uncertainty. I had spent years trying to make sense of the Bible and most of the New Testament and all of the Old Testament except Isa. 53 was gibberish until the night of my conversion and from the very beginning f my walk with God, the same texts make perfect sense because the
Spirit has opened my eyes.

This could go on endlessly, but an NDE experiencer could say essentially the same thing. Your (and mine) "indwelling of the Spirit" is little different in substance from an NDE experiencer's "transformation" via her encounter with the Being of Light - or, for that matter, a Buddhist's experience of "enlightenment." The Christian, the NDE experiencer and the Buddhist all insist they "know" the truth through direct experience, and anyone else who "knows" something different is simply wrong. The only dialogue you could have with a dedicated, thoughtful Muslim is precisely the same dialogue the NDE experiencer kept having with me: "I know what I know, you merely believe what you believe, and what you believe is wrong because you have not experienced the indwelling of the Spirit that is required in order to know what I know." Having been on the receiving end of this, I know how frustrating it can be and how it completely shuts off any meaningful discussion.

Is it possible I am mistaken and that what I perceive as the indwelling of the Spirit is delusional or the result of natural processes in the brain? Is it possible Buddhism best corresponds to reality? I am willing to say, "Yes, it is possible. I don't believe this is the case, but it is possible." You are apparently not willing to say this. I don't see that the distinction has anything to do with one's level of "assurance" or Christian maturity.

In my younger days, I was associated with Campus Crusade and the Jesus Freaks. I know there is a certain type of person, typically one who comes to Christ from an extremely un-Christian lifestyle like drug addiction, who must cling to his faith like a rock because he is really clinging to his sanity: I'm at the end of my rope. There can be no doubt. It has to be true. I know is true as surely as I know the sun is in the sky. "There is no room for uncertainty," as you state. If I acknowledge the slightest doubt, my lifeline will snap and I'll be right back where I was.

OK, fine. This is one species of Christian. I am not putting him down in any way, shape or form - but I guarantee you I don't envy his level of "assurance" either. In my experience, this type of assurance is more prone to collapse than the more self-analytical type of assurance I am talking about. The ranks of militant atheists include any number of former fundamentalist zealots whose faith simply collapsed when a tiny crack appeared in the mental dike they were trying to hold together.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I truly mean no disrespect, but I'll put my "assurance" up against anyone else's with one hand tied behind my back (as Rush likes to say).

I found no disrespect but I'm not at all sure from your statements that you're not quenching the Spirit but that is a matter between you and God, not me and you.

 

[th1b.taylor]

This could go on endlessly, but an NDE experiencer could say essentially the same thing. Your (and mine) "indwelling of the Spirit" is little different in substance from an NDE experiencer's "transformation" via her encounter with the Being of Light - or, for that matter, a Buddhist's experience of "enlightenment." The Christian, the NDE experiencer and the Buddhist all insist they "know" the truth through direct experience, and anyone else who "knows" something different is simply wrong. The only dialogue you could have with a dedicated, thoughtful Muslim is precisely the same dialogue the NDE experiencer kept having with me: "I know what I know, you merely believe what you believe, and what you believe is wrong because you have not experienced the indwelling of the Spirit that is required in order to know what I know." Having been on the receiving end of this, I know how frustrating it can be and how it completely shuts off any meaningful discussion.

Is it possible I am mistaken and that what I perceive as the indwelling of the Spirit is delusional or the result of natural processes in the brain? Is it possible Buddhism best corresponds to reality? I am willing to say, "Yes, it is possible. I don't believe this is the case, but it is possible." You are apparently not willing to say this. I don't see that the distinction has anything to do with one's level of "assurance" or Christian maturity.

In my younger days, I was associated with Campus Crusade and the Jesus Freaks. I know there is a certain type of person, typically one who comes to Christ from an extremely un-Christian lifestyle like drug addiction, who must cling to his faith like a rock because he is really clinging to his sanity: I'm at the end of my rope. There can be no doubt. It has to be true. I know is true as surely as I know the sun is in the sky. "There is no room for uncertainty," as you state. If I acknowledge the slightest doubt, my lifeline will snap and I'll be right back where I was.

OK, fine. This is one species of Christian. I am not putting him down in any way, shape or form - but I guarantee you I don't envy his level of "assurance" either. In my experience, this type of assurance is more prone to collapse than the more self-analytical type of assurance I am talking about. The ranks of militant atheists include any number of former fundamentalist zealots whose faith simply collapsed when a tiny crack appeared in the mental dike they were trying to hold together.

A lot of words for naught. If anything does not dove tail with the Word of God, it is pointless.

 

[th1b.taylor]

In my younger days, I was associated with Campus Crusade and the Jesus Freaks. I know there is a certain type of person, typically one who comes to Christ from an extremely un-Christian lifestyle like drug addiction, who must cling to his faith like a rock because he is really clinging to his sanity: I'm at the end of my rope. There can be no doubt. It has to be true. I know is true as surely as I know the sun is in the sky. "There is no room for uncertainty," as you state. If I acknowledge the slightest doubt, my lifeline will snap and I'll be right back where I was.

I did not expect the glove across the face because I had percieved you to be more intelligent, good-bye!

 

[Runner]

I did not expect the glove across the face because I had percieved you to be more intelligent, good-bye!

Did you come to Christianity from "an extremely un-Christian lifestyle like drug addiction"? If so, I was unaware of it and what you are calling the "glove across the face" was unintended. It wasn't even intended as a "glove across the face" to those who do come to Christianity from such a background. This characterization fits many of the folks I was acquainted with in my Campus Crusade days (in the heyday of the hippie era), and many I have known since. I am not saying these folks were not good Christians or that their Christianity was in any way inferior to mine. I am just saying Christianity had very obviously become their link to sanity as well as to God and they felt a need to deny all doubt that I simply never felt. There is a great line in the movie UFOria where the sort of damaged young Christian I am talking about says to his skeptical companion, "Sometimes you JUST HAVE TO BELIEVE in something."

I believe the GMC in your garage is a good example. Unless you are staring at it as we speak, you do not know it is there. You may have the best security system on the planet, but you do not know it is there. In fact, there is probably a 99.9% chance it is there, but it may not be. My neighbor's truck had been in his garage for 25 years (yes, the same Ford Ranger), but one morning it was not. He had a strong and reasonable conviction it was there, but in fact it was not. When we are talking about higher realities and metaphysical truths, I say the best we can have is a strong and reasonable conviction. If someone wants to claim "knowledge" about the indwelling of the Spirit in his life, I say he is really talking about a strong and reasonable conviction, not the kind of knowledge he would have while staring at the truck in his garage. Certainly not the sort of "knowledge" that would be convincing to anyone but him, which again was my point to the NDE experiencer. The distinction is important only when dialoguing with those who do not share your beliefs. If you insist you "know" the truth about the higher reality, and that no one else can possibly "know" the truth unless their "knowledge" is the same as yours, you are not going to have much of a dialogue.

 

[Brother Mike]

Is this your experience?
I wonder sometimes given the ever increasing resistance to truth.
If they are looking for truth it seems to be their own version of truth they are pursuing.
Maybe I'm just not bumping into people searching for the real truth.
How 'bout you?

People get interested when they see the power of God. I have had more success after some demonstration or miracle.

Luk_5:15 But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities.

Where there is power, people will come to not only be healed, but to hear also.

Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.
(Act 5:15-16)

The people that believe it's God's will to Heal, have it locked up in their church. If you want to hear about healing, you watch it on a screen, audio, or go to a church like that. Scripture says they heard it in the cities and came, and everyone was healed, no failure.

All the years I have studied faith, the ins and outs, the why things work don't work, I suspect it should not be that complicated for those that need Help from God. If they come expecting, I believe it should be good enough.

Nobody cares about a mysterious God, cares about going to Hell, cares about living right with no reason lesser than they have living right. People need reasons for things, not a "because I said"

Mike.

 

[OzSpen]

I don't know if I can say Christianity is the Truth because not everyone accepts it.

Wondering,

What makes it necessary to have everyone accept anything to determine that something is the truth? I don't know where you obtained that philosophy. Could you please help me to understand why this view is not a relativistic fallacy?

Is it still the truth that murder and lying are wrong, even when everyone does not practise these?

Truth is absolute and applies to all people everywhere, no matter whether they accept it or not. God has affirmed this in the 10 commandments of Ex 20 and the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

No, I used a relevant example.
Now, answer the question: Would Jesus say Hilter's plan for a thousand year reign of white supremacy was truth? Yes, or no? It was true, but was it truth?

Show me how Hitler's white Europe, having been true, was also Jesus' truth.

That was not the topic I raised. You have introduced it when I used Hitler as one example to illustrate. Therefore, your imposition of Hitler's plan of white supremacy on my example is a

 

[OzSpen]

How 'bout this:
It is true that aborting unwanted babies helps control population growth, among other things. But is that truth? Yes, or no, OzSpen ?

Please go back to #144 where I gave one definition of truth from the Oxford dictionaries: 'the truth That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality'.

So would aborting unwanted babies be a fact that would help control population growth? According to this definition of truth, 'in accordance with fact or reality', aborting babies would reduce population growth.

HOWEVER, that is not dealing with the ethical issues of killing unborn human life and violating God's law, 'You shall not kill/murder'.

Please do not say that I support the abortion of unborn children. I do not. The fact is that killing unborn babies, the elderly and the disabled would control population but it would prostitute God's laws against killing.

Oz

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Please go back to #144 where I gave one definition of truth from the Oxford dictionaries: 'the truth That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality'.

So then, you say abortion is truth:

According to this definition of truth, 'in accordance with fact or reality', aborting babies would reduce population growth.

But....(going out on a limb here, folks) I'm pretty sure Jesus would not say abortion is truth.

You're going to have to broaden your definition of truth. And broaden it to one that is beyond just observable fact and reality. Abortion is a factual reality, but it is hardly truth.

 

[Runner]

View attachment 10565

No, Jesus would not say abortion was "truth." Jesus would not say abortion was a "Ford hubcap," either. Jesus would say abortion was an "immoral act" or "morally wrong" or perhaps a "violation of God's laws."

"Murder is wrong" is, to a Christian, a moral truth because the Bible flatly prohibits murder. A Christian would say the statement "Murder is wrong" is true. The act of murder does not then become "true" or "false." It becomes "immoral."

Likewise, objective truths and moral truths do not hinge on how many people "believe" them.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy and there are tools other than Internet forums that can be of great assistance in understanding the basic concepts.

View attachment 10566

 

[th1b.taylor]

Wondering,

What makes it necessary to have everyone accept anything to determine that something is the truth? I don't know where you obtained that philosophy. Could you please help me to understand why this view is not a relativistic fallacy?

Is it still the truth that murder and lying are wrong, even when everyone does not practise these?

Truth is absolute and applies to all people everywhere, no matter whether they accept it or not. God has affirmed this in the 10 commandments of Ex 20 and the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7).

Oz

I am not nearly as good looking as Wondering but, that said, in my transition into Christianity I did a study of Conversions of people and peoples from around the world. Christianity is THE truth because over and over, when man has sought to know the One God, God has delivered His man to the seekers, no matter where they were, China, African Interior, Central America, where ever. No religion has doe that, just the relationship form of Christianity.

 

[Runner]

Worldwide, Christianity is not the fastest-growing religion, either in terms of growth rate or raw numbers. The number of Christians is expected to decline fairly dramatically by 2050, which is not true of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Judaism.

Probably a more interesting question would be the rate of de-conversion from one religion to another or from a religion to atheism, but these statistics are notoriously difficult to nail down. Just within Christianity, we have no idea how many conversions to Christianity are sincere or how many of those who de-convert were sincere Christians.

Facts are inconvenient things. None of this, of course, has anything to do with whether a particular religion is ontologically true.

Truth is that which corresponds to reality. It is not measured by how many people believe it, how successful it is or how appealing it is; all of these are irrelevant. Christians believe Christianity corresponds to reality. Non-Christians do not. Non-Christians, whether atheists or believers, believe their beliefs correspond to reality.

A small segment of atheists, Christians and non-Christian believers claim they "know" their beliefs correspond to reality. No one else believes these claims. Even most Christians do not believe those Christians who claim to "know" actually "know." They "know" in a completely internal sense that is meaningless to anyone else. They are "internally convinced beyond all doubt," but so are lots of other species of believer.

Lots of people believe things that aren't true. Lots of people claim to know things that aren't true.

Pretty simple, but stay tuned because ...
View attachment 10567

 

[GodsGrace]

Wondering,

What makes it necessary to have everyone accept anything to determine that something is the truth? I don't know where you obtained that philosophy. Could you please help me to understand why this view is not a relativistic fallacy?

Is it still the truth that murder and lying are wrong, even when everyone does not practise these?

Truth is absolute and applies to all people everywhere, no matter whether they accept it or not. God has affirmed this in the 10 commandments of Ex 20 and the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7).

Oz

Hi OZ
Of course I agree with what you say above. Of course the truth does not depend on everyone agreeing to a moral law.
I don't know what I could have said to make you come to this conclusion.
I might have said that God made Natural Law and that the civilized world agrees to the Natural Laws, except for the uncivilized. I think I gave an example of cannibals in relation to murder. Natural Law says it is not right to murder.

Yes. Even if EVERYONE practiced lying and murder IT WOULD STILL BE WRONG because Natural Law says it's wrong.

I also believe I was trying to distinguish between something that is true and something that is the truth. The truth has to do with morality.
I may think Ben and Jerry has the best ice- cream and this could even be true.
But it is not THE TRUTH.

I also agree with your last paragraph. I've had many discussions with atheists regarding this. They believe in relativism. They'll tell you sin hurts no one as long as no one else is involved.

Truth is ABSOLUTE. It is NOT relative to what I believe, but is a God-given Law.

I tried your site for Natural Law but could not find it.
Here is one explanation:

Natural Law
The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed. Natural law is often contrasted with positive law, which consists of the written rules and regulations enacted by government. The term natural law is derived from the Roman term jus naturale. Adherents to natural law philosophy are known as naturalists.

Naturalists believe that natural law principles are an inherent part of nature and exist regardless of whether government recognizes or enforces them. Naturalists further believe that governments must incorporate natural law principles into their legal systems before justice can be achieved. There are three schools of natural law theory: divine natural law, secular natural law, and historical natural law.

Divine natural law represents the system of principles believed to have been revealed or inspired by God or some other supreme and supernatural being. These divine principles are typically reflected by authoritative religious writings such as Scripture. Secular natural law represents the system of principles derived from the physical, biological, and behavioral laws of nature as perceived by the human intellect and elaborated through reason. Historical natural law represents the system of principles that has evolved over time through the slow accretion of custom, tradition, and experience. Each school of natural law influenced the Founding Fathers during the nascent years of U.S. law in the eighteenth century and continue to influence the decision-making process of state and federal courts today.

 

[Free]

There likewise seems to me to be a great deal of confusion in this thread, or at least a lot of people talking past each other. Pretty clearly, Jethro's OP was in the vein of "Are people really searching for the truth about the ultimate nature of reality or are they content with some understanding of their own that they find comforting and appealing?" (Correct me if I'm wrong, Jethro, but that's how I understood it.) My experience, as I've suggested, is that most people do little searching at all. They are culturally conditioned into some belief system, or indoctrinated by parents into some belief system, or simply gravitate to some belief system they find appealing or socially advantageous without much regard to whether it corresponds to the ultimate nature of reality. I believe a large number of people have the attitude, "We can't really know the ultimate nature of reality anyway, so I'll just find a landing spot where I'm comfortable." I live in a heavily LDS area, and I can't tell you how many people I've seen convert solely because it's the only way they are going to have any social acceptance or business success in this area.

Agreed. I think that what you state about the OP is precisely where society is at, and has been for some time, hence Oxford Dictionaries's 2016 Word of the Year, "post-truth". As you probably know, it refers to people using feelings and emotions to determine the truth of something, or the grounds for their preference for one thing over another, rather than objective facts.

]As I've suggested in my posts, the only way anyone could really know the truth about the ultimate nature of reality would be by direct observation or experience. The only way I can know my Ford is sitting in my garage is by observing it. I may have a strong belief, based on the fact that I parked it there last night, that it is sitting in my garage - but I am, to some extent, speculating until I go look. (A couple of years ago, my neighbor was surprised to discover his truck wasn't sitting in his garage in the morning.) This is precisely the point of someone like Dawkins. In his materialistic belief system, we can observe and experience ultimate reality. It's all around us. There is no higher reality. End of discussion.

Christians and other believers say they know there is a higher reality. For Christians, the direct observation and experience consists of things like being born again, answers to prayer, and sensing the presence of the Holy Spirit. Some have direct mystical encounters with Jesus. But: (1) believers of other faiths can claim equivalent observations and experiences, and (2) none of these observations and experiences counts for anything with Dawkins - they are simply inadmissible in his belief system and thus have to be the product of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, ignorance or delusion. Thus, in the great scheme of things, what Christians "know" is little different from what a Muslim "knows" or Dawkins "knows." Each believes that what he "knows" is true (corresponds to the nature of ultimate reality) and what everyone else "knows" is false. And round and round it goes.

Apart from direct observation and experience of the higher reality, we have the evidence pointing toward it. For a Christian, this might be the historical evidence for the Resurrection, the prophecies in the Bible that were fulfilled, and the evidence for Intelligent Design. Muslims and Hindus have their versions of such evidence. Dawkins has his reasons for believing all such evidence is hooey. A legitimate debate can be had as to whose evidence is stronger. But evidence such as this will never really get you to a state of "knowing" the truth about the nature of a reality higher than your own.

Dawkins's position has serious problems, the least of which is that it precludes the existence of anything supernatural without any reason for doing so, other than simply not wanting anything supernatural to exist. Right from the start he has significantly narrowed his field of view when looking for answers. He would be much better off claiming to be agnostic.

I think this is more about probabilities and whose evidence and arguments have the best explanatory power. I agree with your overall point that Christians need to be willing to say, "I could be wrong about everything," but then they need to continue with "but this is why I believe it is the case that Christian belief is right," and then provide solid reasons as to why.

]When we talk about the "truth" of Hitler's plans, this is a different sense of "truth." We're talking here about "moral truth" (if this is a legitimate use of the term at all). All of the historical facts of the Nazi regime are true in the sense discussed above - what history says the Nazis did corresponds pretty closely to the reality of what the Nazis did. But can we even talk about "truth" in the context of the Nazis' objectives? Does it even make sense to ask whether Hitler's objective in exterminating the Jews was "true"?

No, it doesn't make sense. One would have to go one level deeper and look at the reasons for their objective and evaluate the truth of those claims--"Whites are all superior"; "Jews are all ..."; etc.

A Christian (or Jesus, for that matter) would say, "It was objectively immoral because God's laws determine what is moral and it violated God's laws." Dawkins would say, "I disagree with what the Nazis did and everyone should condemn it because it was objectively irrational and destructive, but there is no God and there are no God's laws." A believer of a different religion would say, "It was objectively immoral, but only because it violates the tenets of my religion." Even when we are talking about moral truth, therefore, we come back to the nature of ultimate reality - is Christian morality "true" because Christians' understanding of God corresponds to reality or is Muslim morality "true" because Muslims' understanding of Allah corresponds to reality? What if Christian morality and Muslim morality both condemn the same act - are both moralities "true," or is only the Christian's (or the Muslim's) "true" because only his understanding of the source of the morality is correct? It seems to me that you cannot get away from the core question, "What is the ultimate nature of reality and what basis do we have for claiming to know anything about it?" I think it's healthy, as Bill suggested above, for believers of all types to grapple with this question.

While I do agree with what you state a Christian would say, I don't think it is correct and is not something Jesus would say. I think it better to say that something is objectively immoral because it violates who God is, not because of what he says. What people think God says could change, whereas God does not change. I think we see the issue with "what God says" in the Qur'an, as well as with sects like Mormonism and JWs--he can change his mind and even contradict what he said earlier. How could we ever know what he wanted from us or even if he wanted anything from us at any given point in time? What is morally good and what is morally wrong become arbitrary. So we base morality on God's character, hence the false dichotomy of the Euthyphro Dilemma.

Although I think the argument can be made that since both Christians and Muslims can condemn the same act, along with nearly every single person who isn't a sociopath or psychopath, that this points to the idea that morality is objective. Someone like Dawkins can say they find something objectionable while disagreeing with the absolute nature of morality, but then I think they are simply being dishonest with themselves. Of course, all that then runs into your points about the ultimate nature of reality. And I agree that believers should wrestle with such questions.

(My responses might seem a little disjointed; I'm much too tired at the moment and having trouble thinking clearly.)