What is Truth? (1 Viewer)

[SystemShock]

Science does not contradict "the ancient book" i believe in.

Oh, yes, it does.

I believe God is the author of both Scripture and Nature, and neither can contradict the other. Apparent contradictions are the result of either faulty translation or my faulty understanding and interpretation. If I say "it's raining cats and dogs", you understand what I mean; 2,000 years later in a different culture, that meaning might be very obscure.

Isn't it convenient, how everything in the Bible is true, but when there is a contradiction, is you who does not understand? And how the "this may have meant something different back then " only applies to contradictions?

But back to your point. Belief in evolution and "old world creation" are not prohibited by neither the bible nor my Catholic faith. As a Catholic, I am allowed to take either or both of those positions if I choose. I don't believe in macro evolution, but I do believe we live in a very old world.

You are allowed to believe in anything you want. You don't believe in macro evolution because it contradicts your faith, not because you have made a conscious, honest effort to learn.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

Science does not contradict "the ancient book" i believe in. I believe God is the author of both Scripture and Nature, and neither can contradict the other. Apparent contradictions are the result of either faulty translation or my faulty understanding and interpretation. If I say "it's raining cats and dogs", you understand what I mean; 2,000 years later in a different culture, that meaning might be very obscure.

But back to your point. Belief in evolution and "old world creation" are not prohibited by neither the bible nor my Catholic faith. As a Catholic, I am allowed to take either or both of those positions if I choose. I don't believe in macro evolution, but I do believe we live in a very old world.

Other than your belief in a diety, we don’t really disagree much here at all.

I agree that contradictions are the result in gaps between our faulty understanding and reality. We disagree on the source of that reality. You know it comes from the god you have faith in, I have no idea where it comes from, and I don’t think it is something that is knowable. We both accept the uncertainty of the fact that we can never know everything.

As a Catholic, you most likely aspire to live life consistent with the 10 commandments. As an agnostic (although I take offense to being forced a label based on the answer to a question I refuse to acknowledge), or just a human, I aspire live my life consistent with the 10 commandments (which are respected in Judaism, Christianity, and even in Islam) Hammurabi's code, the values expressed in within the 5 principles of Hinduism, and pretty much every other set of rules established by the oldest groups of people.

Except for a few very culturally specific rules (there is no other god, or the type of punishments used by Hammurabi for example) all of these rules follow the same philosophical foundation. Everyone deserves respect, there should be consequences for those who do not respect other people.

The truth is that you and I are the same as every other person on the planet. If we treat any of them as less, then we aren’t living absolute truth,

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I am getting at the notion that one side (in the political world) is more "truthful" than the other. Or that some political party is more akin into believing "facts" than another.
It seems that from the perspective of believing that there "truth" is based on some perspective that such criticism does not logically follow.

one side is a patchwork quilt of many narratives that sometimes do and sometimes don't fit together nicely
the other side peddles easily disprovable lies via their propaganda arm (hint it's the one Roger Ailes started)

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Ah, but truth will NOT have changed; only our understanding of it. The truth that the universe either had a beginning or didn't will not be any different. Again, what I believe about it doesn't change the facts. What happened, happened. Just because we don't know what happened doesn't mean a thing about how it went down.

you reminded me of this passage from Cormac McCarthy's "The Crossing"

“The world has no name, he said. The names of the cerros and the sierras and the deserts exist only on maps. We name them that we do not lose our way. Yet it was because the way was lost to us already that we have made those names. The world cannot be lost. We are the ones. And it is because these names and these coordinates are our own naming that they cannot save us. That they cannot find for us the way again."

"Truth" is a framing mechanism that we're using - if there is a truth independent of us, it doesn't matter b/c we couldn't perceive it
it's like the idea of a perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent god is useless for us since no one possesses the capacity to perceive or understand what that means

 

[RetroMcBananaFace]

I share those same beliefs and sentiments.

With all due respect, you are being incredibly inconsistent here. You pass judgement in one post, and in the next you say you are the last person qualified to do so. You say you share the same beliefs as the above, but if you truly did, you would not have posted (or have even felt the need to post) the OP of this thread, which starts off mocking those who do not believe the same as you do, and ends by mocking someone whose self-identity is an apparent affront to your dogmatic belief system, even though that person did nothing to invite your attention.

I have the feeling that you as a Christian feel "persecuted." I suggest that if you do less persecuting yourself, you might find the world to be a little less hostile to your belief system.

My frustration is not with you personally, it's with a religion that all too often not only fails to practice what it preaches, but goes 180 degrees in the exact opposite direction. It's why I stopped going to church for almost 20 years, until I finally found one that treats all people with the respect that Jesus would have.

 

[mt15]

My son has a masters in physics, he has been telling me some really wild stuff about time. I don’t think we understand very much about the universe at all, much less be able to expound on something like truth, which touches on what is real.

My guess is our beliefs will be looked at like we look down on the people who believed in witchcraft, or believed that the world sat on the back of a giant tortoise.

 

[RetroMcBananaFace]

My son has a masters in physics, he has been telling me some really wild stuff about time. I don’t think we understand very much about the universe at all, much less be able to expound on something like truth, which touches on what is real.

My guess is our beliefs will be looked at like we look down on the people who believed in witchcraft, or believed that the world sat on the back of a giant tortoise.

If you really want your mind blown, read up on holographic universe theory. Our entire universe could be a glorified snow globe of holograms, created by a being so enormous we can't observe it. The crazy part, as I understand it, is that the math works out.

 

[rajncajn]

Other than your belief in a diety, we don’t really disagree much here at all.

I agree that contradictions are the result in gaps between our faulty understanding and reality. We disagree on the source of that reality. You know it comes from the god you have faith in, I have no idea where it comes from, and I don’t think it is something that is knowable. We both accept the uncertainty of the fact that we can never know everything.

As a Catholic, you most likely aspire to live life consistent with the 10 commandments. As an agnostic (although I take offense to being forced a label based on the answer to a question I refuse to acknowledge), or just a human, I aspire live my life consistent with the 10 commandments (which are respected in Judaism, Christianity, and even in Islam) Hammurabi's code, the values expressed in within the 5 principles of Hinduism, and pretty every other set of rules established by the oldest groups of people.

Except for a few very specific culturally specific rules (there is no other god, or the type of punishments used by Hammurabi for example) all of these rules follow the same philosophical foundation. Everyone deserves respect, there should be consequences for those who do not respect other people.

The truth is that you and I are the same as every other person on the planet. If we treat any of them as less, then we aren’t living absolute truth,

Excellent post.

 

[St. PJ]

Oh, yes, it does.


Isn't it convenient, how everything in the Bible is true, but when there is a contradiction, is you who does not understand? And how the "this may have meant something different back then " only applies to contradictions?


You are allowed to believe in anything you want. You don't believe in macro evolution because it contradicts your faith, not because you have made a conscious, honest effort to learn.

Macro evolution does NOT contradict my faith. I don't believe in macro evolution because I've not seen any compelling evidence. I don't believe in macro evolution because every evolutionist i've asked - both thiestic and athiestic - can not answer simple fundamental questions or give ANY examples or logical answer to very very basic questions concerning the theory of evolution. To be honest, I actually used to believe in evolution until I studied it, and not that you would know, but it is perfectly acceptable and does not contradict church teaching nor any aspect of my faith to believe (or not) believe in evolution.

As for "apparent contradictions" - this is usually something that 2000 years later in english, seems to contradict something else. For example - "she remained childless until she died" or the two creation accounts given in Genesis, or Jesus having brothers and sisters, or any other number of instances. All of these "contradictions" are simply due to our misunderstanding or erroneous translations, and examples can easily illustrate why and how those misunderstandings and erroneous translations occur. I'ts not a matter of "convenience"; rather, it's a matter of understanding what those words meant to the original audience and culture they were addressed to. If you have no clue what something meant to the original, historical audience, you probably have no idea what the hell it means period and see contradictions everywhere.

"I saw you praying under a fig tree" makes Nathaniel do a 180 and go from "yeah right, what good can come from Nazareth" to fully bought in. 2,000 years later, in english, it's very difficult to understand how THOSE words could cause a complete reversal.

 

[St. PJ]

Other than your belief in a diety, we don’t really disagree much here at all.

I agree that contradictions are the result in gaps between our faulty understanding and reality. We disagree on the source of that reality. You know it comes from the god you have faith in, I have no idea where it comes from, and I don’t think it is something that is knowable. We both accept the uncertainty of the fact that we can never know everything.

As a Catholic, you most likely aspire to live life consistent with the 10 commandments. As an agnostic (although I take offense to being forced a label based on the answer to a question I refuse to acknowledge), or just a human, I aspire live my life consistent with the 10 commandments (which are respected in Judaism, Christianity, and even in Islam) Hammurabi's code, the values expressed in within the 5 principles of Hinduism, and pretty much every other set of rules established by the oldest groups of people.

Except for a few very culturally specific rules (there is no other god, or the type of punishments used by Hammurabi for example) all of these rules follow the same philosophical foundation. Everyone deserves respect, there should be consequences for those who do not respect other people.

The truth is that you and I are the same as every other person on the planet. If we treat any of them as less, then we aren’t living absolute truth,

AMEN. I'm grateful you can look at what we have in common. To be honest, the "10 commandments" don't weigh heavily on my mind, and not because I place no importance on them. I spend less time examining what I do or fail to do and more time examining the heart, intent/motiviations, and sacrifice/cost that were involved. Treating people with respect and dignity, helping those who need help, and where I fail in my duties as a husband and a father are the things that weigh on my mind. Internally, I KNOW whether I'm doing something wrong, regardless of whether or not I can name what the "wrong" is or accurately state the gravity and amount of culpability I can attribute to self. I don't always recognize right away when I'm being a selfish butt crevasse (sometimes I need that pointed out), and really hope to become more self sacrificial with my time and will for the sake of other. I don't believe in shoving religion down people's throats, yet on the same token, I don't believe in shoving tolerance down people's throats either.

I do believe there are absolute truths, and that moral relativism logically concludes with each person becoming his or her own pope or god, deciding on their version of truth, their version of right and wrong.

 

[St. PJ]

My son has a masters in physics, he has been telling me some really wild stuff about time. I don’t think we understand very much about the universe at all, much less be able to expound on something like truth, which touches on what is real.

My guess is our beliefs will be looked at like we look down on the people who believed in witchcraft, or believed that the world sat on the back of a giant tortoise.

This is going off on a slight tangent, but something you said about what your son said brought this to mind. I heard something a few weeks ago that, theologically, really made me ponder a circumstance where "old earth creationism" and "young earth creationism" could simultaneously be correct, without contradiction. This is probably only relavant to monotheists who believe in the 9 tenents of faith found in the genesis creation accounts.

It was put forth that "time" did not enter the world until original sin. Before original sin, there was no need for the dimension of time, as man was immortal. Once original sin occurred, "time" as we know it began - as death occurs in time. In terms of theology, this is nothing new or revolutionary, but it does offer a bridge between "old earth creationism" that posits the earth is 4.7 billion years old with "young earth creationism" that posits the earth is only 6-7,000 years old.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Macro evolution does NOT contradict my faith. I don't believe in macro evolution because I've not seen any compelling evidence. I don't believe in macro evolution because every evolutionist i've asked - both thiestic and athiestic - can not answer simple fundamental questions or give ANY examples or logical answer to very very basic questions concerning the theory of evolution. To be honest, I actually used to believe in evolution until I studied it, and not that you would know, but it is perfectly acceptable and does not contradict church teaching nor any aspect of my faith to believe (or not) believe in evolution.

As for "apparent contradictions" - this is usually something that 2000 years later in english, seems to contradict something else. For example - "she remained childless until she died" or the two creation accounts given in Genesis, or Jesus having brothers and sisters, or any other number of instances. All of these "contradictions" are simply due to our misunderstanding or erroneous translations, and examples can easily illustrate why and how those misunderstandings and erroneous translations occur. I'ts not a matter of "convenience"; rather, it's a matter of understanding what those words meant to the original audience and culture they were addressed to. If you have no clue what something meant to the original, historical audience, you probably have no idea what the hell it means period and see contradictions everywhere.

"I saw you praying under a fig tree" makes Nathaniel do a 180 and go from "yeah right, what good can come from Nazareth" to fully bought in. 2,000 years later, in english, it's very difficult to understand how THOSE words could cause a complete reversal.

i'm really not sure what you're trying to get at with macro/micro evolution stuff
if i'm going to wildly speculate, you're saying that there is an ultimate design in biology/species and that because cows don't evolve into goats, that implies a universal truth?

consider that, very similar to the "maps" quote i cited earlier "species" is more a label we placed on observable differences among animals, insects, etc - nature couldn't give a wet fart what labels we put on it
it will continue to operate responding to chaos by adapting, mutating or dying or maybe eve some other mechanism we don't even know about

 

[brandon8283]

All I know is, when Trump talks, that ain’t the truth.

 

[St. PJ]

With all due respect, you are being incredibly inconsistent here. You pass judgement in one post, and in the next you say you are the last person qualified to do so. You say you share the same beliefs as the above, but if you truly did, you would not have posted (or have even felt the need to post) the OP of this thread, which starts off mocking those who do not believe the same as you do, and ends by mocking someone whose self-identity is an apparent affront to your dogmatic belief system, even though that person did nothing to invite your attention.

I have the feeling that you as a Christian feel "persecuted." I suggest that if you do less persecuting yourself, you might find the world to be a little less hostile to your belief system.

My frustration is not with you personally, it's with a religion that all too often not only fails to practice what it preaches, but goes 180 degrees in the exact opposite direction. It's why I stopped going to church for almost 20 years, until I finally found one that treats all people with the respect that Jesus would have.

It seems you and I really disagree on one critical distinction. I believe every human, from Hitler to an unborn child, as a certain inherent and equal dignity and value bestowed by God - apart from everything that person will ever do or fail to do, and that value is the Life of Christ. Yet even if you remove God and Christ from the equation, I still believe this. I think maybe you believe something similar to this. Where we differ, I believe, is that I think it is possible to judge a person's actions or beliefs without detracting from the dignity or value of a person. I can believe a person to have mental illness or imbalance, or a person to be at fault (or not) without passing judgment on the person. I might believe Jenny is jacked up mentally because she sincerely believes there is a bear in an egg her chicken just laid, but I'm not judging Jenny to be worthless or a sinner deserving of hell, nor can I... for all I know, Jenny was taught bears come from eggs laid by chickens all her life and was never shown evidence to contradict that belief, or Jenny might have a tumor on her brain causing her to have irrational thoughts, or any other example that would make her less culpable for having that belief. Does saying "something aint right with Jenny's thought process" result in having passed judgment on her value and dignity as a person, or am I stating something that is pretty evident to everyone who has seen the conclusive evidence that bears do not come from chicken eggs?

The OP argues for Absolute Truth against Moral Relativism. It points out that something either "is true", or "is not true", and can not simultaneously be both. It gives an argument against moral relativism. As for "persecution", the world has always been and will always be in opposition to Aboslute Truth. I can't speak of what you term as "religion", because I have no idea what it means to you. Jesus would most definitely have respect for all, but make no mistake, He was radical and didn't sugar coat truth is ticked off just about every religious leader of His time and was ultimately put to death because He claimed to be God, by the religious authorities He called out for twisting the Truth to fit their ideas (trying to ignore the absolute and substitute their relativism). In other words, He'd step on just about everyone's toes today and be condemned to death just as quick if not quicker.

 

[RetroMcBananaFace]

The OP argues for Absolute Truth against Moral Relativism.

.....And it does so with a clear and obvious agenda: to rationalize the marginalization of a person because they don't fit the boundaries of dogmatic religious belief. Those religious leaders you talked about Jesus railing against? That's the same exact people you're going along with in the OP of this thread.

I am no theologian, but I've read a little bit of the Bible, and I'm pretty sure I have a decent idea of WWJD in that situation, and I'm 99.999999999999999999% sure it wouldn't include saying that that person is, quote, "forked in the head."