Is the world really searching for truth?

[Runner]

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

Hardly. You are exceedingly lucid.

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.

Absolutely. This is why I kept making the point that his rejection of a supernatural realm is axiomatic for him. Atheism is surely the strangest and weakest of all positions - claiming you know the non-existence of the supernatural and then having to come up with ever-more-preposterous responses to the considerable body of evidence pointing toward it. I have dealt with the Dawkins types much more in the field of parapsychology than theology, where all evidence of a paranormal nature is dismissed as "woo woo." The lengths they will go to in their efforts to explain away really compelling evidence is almost comical. They cannot allow the tiniest crack in the dike of materialism without the entire thing collapsing.

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.

Right, and that's all I'm saying. There is a solid case to be made for Christianity without staking out the extreme position that you KNOW the TRUTH. It's a perfectly legitimate part of the case to say, "If you will take the step of trusting God, I believe He will reveal Himself to you through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. At some point, you will know you have made the right decision." This is far different from, "I know I am right and you are wrong; I know Christianity is true and your religion is false."

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.

Again, bingo. Why this seems hard for some folks to grasp is beyond me.

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.

Yes, I was a bit careless there. The Euthyphro Dilemma, for those who don't know (and I'll confess I didn't know it was called the Euthyphro Dilemma), asks "Is something immoral because God decrees it so, or does God decree it so because it's immoral?" The latter possibility requires a standard external to God. To say something is immoral because it violates who God is is much more consistent with Christian thinking.

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.

I suppose Dawkins could say that morality has been "wired into" us by evolution for all the reasons that evolutionists think evolutionary changes occur. He could then say that evolution provides the "higher standard" for morality in roughly the same way God does for a Christian. But this would seem to require an extremely sophisticated form of evolution, and an awful lot of morality seems inconsistent with the "survival of the fittest" basis of evolution. The animal kingdom ("nature red in tooth and claw") seems more like what you'd end up with if evolution were responsible for morality.

I appreciate the thoughtful response.

 

[OzSpen]

So then, you say abortion is truth:

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.

I've already included several definitions of truth. There is no need for me to broaden my definition of truth. See #144.

I knew you would create a straw man fallacy out of what I wrote. What you have stated here has nothing to do with Jesus saying abortion is truth.

It has everything to do with one of the definitions of truth in the Oxford dictionary: 'the truth That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality' that I gave in #144.

In #195, you asked of me: '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?'

I answered that according to the definition of truth as that which is 'in accordance with fact or reality'. The fact is that since approx. 70,000 unborn children are killed through abortion in Australia every year, that will be one aspect that will help to control population growth. So will euthanasia, assisted suicide and genocide.

That makes none of these examples morally legitimate. They were nothing more than examples.

But what did you do, Jethro? You took one of my examples and twisted it to say what I DID NOT say - 'I'm pretty sure Jesus would not say abortion is truth'. Your original question was: 'It is true that aborting unwanted babies helps control population growth, among other things. But is that truth? Yes, or no?' The fact is (truth based on fact) that killing off children in the womb or killing through genocide would control population growth, but such examples are abominations that violate God's laws.

I NEVER at any point stated or suggested that Jesus would say abortion is truth. It was your straw man fallacy of my position. 'The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position'. That's what you have done by trying to make me say that Jesus would support abortion as truth. 'This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious [erroneous] because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person' (source).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

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.

Free,

In 2012, Richard Dawkins admitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, that he was now an agnostic. See the article in the British newspaper, The Telegraph which reported of Dawkins, 'There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator'. He admitted to be 6.9 out of 7 sure of his beliefs.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

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.

Bill,

That's arguing from experience. It is one very important understanding of Christianity. A relationship with Christ works in changing lives.

However, one of the issues I'm raising is that truth has broader aspects than pragmatism (it works). Why would I want to believe in and follow Jesus if there was little or no evidence for his death and resurrection?

There are other issues relating to historical truth: How reliable is the Bible in providing information about OT people and God's action? Then in the NT, how credible is the witness to Jesus' life, death, resurrection and the start of the Christian church (Book of Acts)?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

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.

Wondering,

Before I can give a considered response to your post, would you please clarify your understanding of Natural Law? Is Natural Law immutable, i.e. unchangeable?

Oz

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I've already included several definitions of truth. There is no need for me to broaden my definition of truth. See #144.

I knew you would create a straw man fallacy out of what I wrote. What you have stated here has nothing to do with Jesus saying abortion is truth.

It has everything to do with one of the definitions of truth in the Oxford dictionary: 'the truth That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality' that I gave in #144.

In #195, you asked of me: '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?'

I answered that according to the definition of truth as that which is 'in accordance with fact or reality'. The fact is that since approx. 70,000 unborn children are killed through abortion in Australia every year, that will be one aspect that will help to control population growth. So will euthanasia, assisted suicide and genocide.

That makes none of these examples morally legitimate. They were nothing more than examples.

But what did you do, Jethro? You took one of my examples and twisted it to say what I DID NOT say - 'I'm pretty sure Jesus would not say abortion is truth'. Your original question was: 'It is true that aborting unwanted babies helps control population growth, among other things. But is that truth? Yes, or no?' The fact is (truth based on fact) that killing off children in the womb or killing through genocide would control population growth, but such examples are abominations that violate God's laws.

I NEVER at any point stated or suggested that Jesus would say abortion is truth. It was your straw man fallacy of my position. 'The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position'. That's what you have done by trying to make me say that Jesus would support abortion as truth. 'This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious [erroneous] because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person' (source).

Oz

If we go with your definition of 'truth' (that which is in line with factual reality), why would Jesus not call abortion truth? Why would you not call abortion truth?

 

[Free]

If we go with your definition of 'truth' (that which is in line with factual reality), why would Jesus not call abortion truth? Why would you not call abortion truth?

Because such a question doesn't make sense. Runner and I just discussed this in relation to the Nazis. Would it make sense for Jesus to call the earth truth? No, because questions of truth relate to specific claims about something, not the thing itself.

So one can ask for the truth regarding certain claims about abortion or about the Nazi's objectives or about the earth, but it doesn't make sense to ask if those things themselves are truth.

I hope that helps. Hopefully someone can explain it better than I.

 

[OzSpen]

If we go with your definition of 'truth' (that which is in line with factual reality), why would Jesus not call abortion truth? Why would you not call abortion truth?

It is NOT my 'definition of truth'. It was one of the definitions provided by the Oxford dictionary, i.e. that which conforms to the facts of the situation.

Jesus would not call abortion truth because that is not morally true, but it is truth that if you kill off people (no matter how), that is one method of reducing population growth. Those are facts that conform to A definition of truth as 'that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality'.

You can't seem to assimilate this definition of truth. It is a truth, as a matter of fact, that I'm sitting at my PC typing this on a Lenovo keyboard, using a Lenovo PC, and I'm seeing it on a Samsung screen. These are truthful facts. Would Jesus agree with this truthful understanding?

I will pursue this no further with you.

Bye, bye,
Oz

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Because such a question doesn't make sense. Runner and I just discussed this in relation to the Nazis. Would it make sense for Jesus to call the earth truth? No, because questions of truth relate to specific claims about something, not the thing itself.

So one can ask for the truth regarding certain claims about abortion or about the Nazi's objectives or about the earth, but it doesn't make sense to ask if those things themselves are truth.

I hope that helps. Hopefully someone can explain it better than I.

My questions were intended to illustrate to OzSpen that his definition of truth was too narrow.

Truth is the ultimate, or complete picture of what we see is true. Abortion, though obviously in line with reality, and therefore, by definition 'true', is hardly the truth because it is not the complete and ultimate understanding of reality. It's a narrow, distorted, incomplete picture of what is true. It is factually true, but it is not the truth.

Some women who've indulged what is true about abortion begin to question if it accurately represents the truth about abortion. In their disappointment and emptiness they long for the truth about what they know to be true about abortion (it gets rid of an unwanted person). The difference between what is true, and what is truth being very obvious. They are not categorically the same as ozspen is insisting. He was using the world's narrow view of truth and limiting it to only that which is factually in line with reality. And because of that, he missed the truth about truth. Truth usually does not factually line up with reality. Therefore, what is true in our reality may not always be the truth.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Bye, bye,
Oz

Until next time.

 

[Runner]

Truth is the ultimate, or complete picture of what we see is true. Abortion, though obviously in line with reality, and therefore, by definition 'true', is hardly the truth because it is not the complete and ultimate understanding of reality. It's a narrow, distorted, incomplete picture of what is true. It is factually true, but it is not the truth.

It seems to me you are saying that God and His character are “reality.” “True reality” is “God’s reality.” Abortion and Nazi regimes are not God’s reality, but a perversion of God’s reality. In the New Creation, where sin will no longer corrupt, there will be no abortion or Nazi regimes – only God’s reality. Therefore, in this ultimate sense abortion is not “true.” This seems to make sense, so long as one accepts that God and His character define “reality,” “truth” is “that which corresponds to reality" and that which does not conform to God and His character thus is “not true.”

 

[th1b.taylor]

Because such a question doesn't make sense. Runner and I just discussed this in relation to the Nazis. Would it make sense for Jesus to call the earth truth? No, because questions of truth relate to specific claims about something, not the thing itself.

So one can ask for the truth regarding certain claims about abortion or about the Nazi's objectives or about the earth, but it doesn't make sense to ask if those things themselves are truth.

I hope that helps. Hopefully someone can explain it better than I.

Free,
What you have defined here is Situational Truth but that is not Absolute Truth. When all defining markers are restrained and we say truth, it must always be the truth. Then there is exactly one truth.

 

[OzSpen]

Abortion and Nazi regimes are not God’s reality, but a perversion of God’s reality.

Runner, God's reality includes His attribute of omniscience (he knows everything). So God knows all about abortion and the Nazi regime. That's part of God's reality.

What is reality?

Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist (source).​

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Free,
What you have defined here is Situational Truth but that is not Absolute Truth. When all defining markers are restrained and we say truth, it must always be the truth. Then there is exactly one truth.

Bill,

You say, 'When all defining markers are restrained and we say truth, it must always be the truth'. If you mean THE truth in terms of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that does not line up with truth that corresponds with reality. For example, my neighbour, Tom, has just started his 4-wheel drive and driven off to work. He does this about this time every morning, Monday to Friday. That's truth that corresponds with reality, but it is not THE truth according to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

It is factual truth that his name is Tom and lives next door to me with his wife and son. It is factual truth that Paula lives in the house on the other side of my fence. It is factually the truth that she was mowing her lawn yesterday afternoon while I was weeding my garden and doing the whipper snipping. The factual truth is that she is a nurse who works at a local hospital.

In these illustrations, I have used explanations of truth that mean truth 'is true or in accordance with fact or reality' (Oxford dictionaries 2016. s v truth)

Thus there are several definitions of truth that are not confined to your understanding of Absolute Truth. The examples I have given are true truth but are not Absolute Truth. So there is truth that can be explained outside of God's Absolute Truth, but it is known by God in his omniscience.

Oz

 

[Wrg1405]

Just want to throw something into the mix. I'm quite happy to rebuffed.

If one were to understand what a lie is would that reveal then truth?
If so what truth?

John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.


Genesis 3:4-5

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

As I said rebuff my post if you thinks it detracts or does not add anything to the post.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Bill,

You say, 'When all defining markers are restrained and we say truth, it must always be the truth'. If you mean THE truth in terms of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that does not line up with truth that corresponds with reality. For example, my neighbour, Tom, has just started his 4-wheel drive and driven off to work. He does this about this time every morning, Monday to Friday. That's truth that corresponds with reality, but it is not THE truth according to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

It is factual truth that his name is Tom and lives next door to me with his wife and son. It is factual truth that Paula lives in the house on the other side of my fence. It is factually the truth that she was mowing her lawn yesterday afternoon while I was weeding my garden and doing the whipper snipping. The factual truth is that she is a nurse who works at a local hospital.

In these illustrations, I have used explanations of truth that mean truth 'is true or in accordance with fact or reality' (Oxford dictionaries 2016. s v truth)

Thus there are several definitions of truth that are not confined to your understanding of Absolute Truth. The examples I have given are true truth but are not Absolute Truth. So there is truth that can be explained outside of God's Absolute Truth, but it is known by God in his omniscience.

Oz

NO! You are talking about situational truth and not The Truth. Your mate going to work might be true, I accept that but his ability to even do so is based on what The Truth has done making this discussion of no further avail as long as you cannot reconcile the facts into their proper order and God, The Truth, is always first and foremost.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Just want to throw something into the mix. I'm quite happy to rebuffed.

If one were to understand what a lie is would that reveal then truth?
If so what truth?

John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.


Genesis 3:4-5

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

As I said rebuff my post if you thinks it detracts or does not add anything to the post.

Nope, a lie, in and of itself , has nothing to do with The Truth.

 

[Wrg1405]

Nope, a lie, in and of itself , has nothing to do with The Truth.

I agree a lie in of itself has nothing to with truth.
However is not a lie the opposite of its truth?

I spent a lot of my Christian life believing that God did not love me unless I performed and earned his love at its worst but at its best I had a vain hope that he loved me. Is that not a lie?

If so does that lie not need be exposed in order for truth to come to light?

 

[Runner]

Runner, God's reality includes His attribute of omniscience (he knows everything). So God knows all about abortion and the Nazi regime. That's part of God's reality.

What is reality?

Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist (source).​

Oz

The post of mine you are quoting was simply an attempt to put into plain English Jethro's position as I understand it. The point being, "God and His character" define "absolute reality" and therefore "absolute truth." Of course God "knows" about abortion, but it is completely alien to His character; it is part of mankind's sinful reality, but not God's absolute reality. When the corruption of sin is eliminated from creation, abortion will cease to exist because it was always a perversion of absolute reality as defined by God and His character. I thus understand (or think I do) what Jethro is saying when he says your definition of truth is "too narrow." Again if I correctly understand Jethro, he would say that "absolute reality" and "absolute truth" are what exist when the corruption of sin is stripped away . If we were to insist upon talking about abortion as "true" or "not true," then what Jethro is saying seems to me to be about the only intelligible way to do it. Not to sound like Jethro's personal apologist, but I suppose he would say in response to your definition above that "the dictionary defines reality and truth as understood by sinful mankind, but God defines absolute reality and absolute truth."

 

[OzSpen]

NO! You are talking about situational truth and not The Truth. Your mate going to work might be true, I accept that but his ability to even do so is based on what The Truth has done making this discussion of no further avail as long as you cannot reconcile the facts into their proper order and God, The Truth, is always first and foremost.

Bill,

I provided you with contemporary understandings of the meaning of truth and provided practical examples. You want to call it 'situational truth'. What is that? Relativistic opinion ('truth') for situations that vary??

I've provided definitions from Oxford dictionaries (online) of truth as that which corresponds with reality or the facts of a situation. I am talking about the truth as they relate to these definitions. You don't seem to get past the idea that there is The Truth in God and that truth in the world around corresponds with reality and facts.

The nature of truth depends on how it is defined. You only want to define it one way, The Truth. I've provided reasons and examples to demonstrate that The Truth in the Godhead is not the only way of understanding truth.

How does the truth (the fact) of the bush growing outside of my window conform to The Truth? How does the reality of the earth orbitting around the sun conform with The Truth?

Seems to me that we are on another planet with our discussion.

Oz