Is There An Absolute Truth? (moral, America, experience, moral)

[stemann]

Michel, please tell me you don't agree with those 'proofs' you posted. I was all ready for a full and frank account of why they are what the Americans term 'baloney' but mr. guy did a rather excellent job. However, I shall concentrate on these few moral points:

Problem #3 -- The Real World. Let us, for a moment, suppose that everything really is relative (no standards of any kind). That would mean that everybody does what they think is right--setting their own rules for life. The problem comes when one person's rules clash with another's. What if one person decides that killing is a noble thing to do, and so attempts to kill everyone in sight? If things are relative, then killing is just as right as not killing. Cruelty is equal to non-cruelty. Would you have a problem with that? Of course, most of us would.

I don't have a problem with that. Just because some people don't like killing doesn't mean that i the absolute truth of it. I don't like cauliflower, but that doesn't mean it is objectively bad.

When locked in the chambers of philosophy, we can kick around wild ideas about nothing really existing, or nothing being absolute. But the real world greets us when we emerge from that chamber--a world full of life and death, suffering and pleasure, evil and good. If there is no standard of truth in the Universe, then one can never be sure of anything. It is all an accident. We would be free to do as we please--rape, murder, steal, lie, cheat, etc. Who is to say that those things are wrong? A world without absolutes would be horrible indeed!

You think it would be horrible, dear post-maker, but I don't. That is how the world is. Nobody is to say what is right or wrong- but they do anyway, because they believe they know what is right or wrong. How do you know what "The One" condemns or encourages??

Why do people disagree with innocent killing? Why are people repulsed by the idea of sexually abusing little children? Why do we think it is wrong to steal someone else's property? It is because God told us.

Why am I repulsed by the idea of eating cauliflower? God told me that cauliflower is bad. No, it is the sense of "taste" with which I was born.

Similarly, the evolution of humanity and the social world can explain morality. Why do most (but not all) animals have some sort of way of looking after their immediate family (children); they have no moral reason to. It is just innate sensibilities. Unless you contest that God put that same moral code into them, which I personally would not see as a belief any different from that which states he put same moral code into us.

morals certainly did not flow out of millions of years of chance evolution and the survival of the fittest-- in fact, evolution would teach us the exact opposite set of guiding principles!

No it wouldn't! Stop using exclamation marks and read a decent book on evolution! Ok?!?!? I am told "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins is good, even if he is a bit more fanatical nowadays.

Evolution tells us to do whatever it takes to survive and get ahead...not to show love and compassion to the weak!

Number of exclamation marks in a philosophical essay is directly proportional to its truth!!!!!

Proof #2 -- Science. The word science simply means "knowledge." It is the study of what we know, and the quest to know more. Thus, any scientific study must necessarily be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities in the world. (Interestingly enough, many historical scholars surmise that the scientific revolution in the West grew out of the study of the Bible following the "Reformation." As the Bible was printed and distributed, people began to realize that there were laws by which God governed the universe, and began giving up superstition in order to learn about the world God had made.)

The Reformation is but a small influence of the Renaissance. Mainly it began after the Black Death killed a load of people, and so a reinvention of the modern world was needed. So, people began to return to the scientifically enquiring principles of the ancient Greek philosophers. I know little about causes of the Renaissance, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't all due to religion.

Proof #3 -- Religion. All the religions of the world are an attempt to give meaning and definition to life. They represent the fact that humanity is craving something "more" than physical existence. We want assurance for the future, hope for the afterlife, forgiveness for our sins, peace through our struggles, and answers for our deepest questions. Why do we want these things? It seems clear enough that the animal world is not pursuing philosophy or grappling with issues of eternity. If we are mere chance accidents, all flowing out of a common animal ancestor, why did we turn out with an insatiable desire to know and grasp reality?

Ask a psychologist. Fear, love, guilt, the superego, all can reasonably be combined to explain humanity's "craving something 'more' than physical existence" without having to say, "Well, if we all want it, it must exist."

Religion is proof that mankind was built with something more...a higher purpose. There must have been a Creator, personal and purposeful, who implanted in us this desire. If there is a Creator, then there is a reality which He has defined in creation. He becomes the standard for absolute truth.

OMFG you're right! So, anyway, let me know how you hope to discover this "absolute truth" for which he is the standard. For all I know, it could be a series of arbitrary books. Oh wait.

The ultimate proof that there is absolute truth will not come through some clever philosophical argument. It will come from a personal encounter with the One who declared: "I am the Truth."

I had a personal encouter with Him. He told me things that I am not allowed to repeat here.

Originally Posted by mr. guy

What a mess! Considering that "repulsion" to child exploitation is a relatively new ethic, i would think this author's standpoint on "inherant" morality would be even more easily refuted if he was left to prattle on at even greater length. However, i wonder why he doesn't see "love" and "compassion" as evolutionarily advantageous?

Because he doesn't believe in evolution.

Originally Posted by Cynic

Truth exists, but outside the mind does it matter? Outside the mind, does truth exist?

The phrase "Outside the mind" is non-cognitive (no pun intended). You can't speculate about "Outside the mind" because the only way to perceive reality is with some sort of mind.

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by cynic

Did you know that color is not a property of light?

Shoot. Now i'm gonna have to sit here even more mystified as to how my radio knows the difference between all the talk-show stations...

[gnostic]

I believe in absolute truth. What I don't believe in, is ultimate truth.

I'd make it a distinction between absolute and ultimate, because they are two different words. The two are not always the same.

[gnostic]

Originally Posted by Cynic

"Truth" only exists subjectively, it is a concept that arose because of multiple circumstances.

I feel precisely the same way about this.

So how can truth be absolute? I guess it depends on your definition of absolute.

However, I believed that truth can be absolute, but it is not an "ultimate truth".

[finalfrogo]

Isn't this question integrally a matter of absolute truth vs. conditional truth itself? Now I'm just confusing myself. Anyways, I don't believe there are any absolute truths, because there is a shred of uncertainty in everything.

[Fluffy]

I should be somewhat surprised if the nature of the universe will be proven/refuted as absolute with cutesy word games. The paradox lends itself most easily to those limited to shabby linguistic logic-traps.

It is shabby only in so far as you demonstrate it to be shabby.

I can only presume the author would be more comfortable with the statement "With the knowledge I have now and the small evidence I have observed, I don't think there are any absolutes in Alaska." Dismissing concepts that do not lend themselves to be observed by any means is not equitable to quantifying an arbitrary bean. This argument then goes on to say that anything non-existent cannot be denied. Oh well.

The author is simply pointing out the common fallacy of attributing an absolute conclusion to an inductive argument.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Syzygy

There's different kinds of truth, as has been mentioned. There's factual truth, which pertains to, for instance, the historicity of religious or political figures. There's philosophical truth, which depends on each individual's perceptions and is which is really a reflection of their belief system regarding life and themselves rather than an honest opinion, IMHO (ironically). Finally, there is this absolute truth.

A good way for me to define absolute truth is to find meaning in supposedly meaningless phrases, or in other words, to use phrases that represent the abstract concept of 'meaninglessness' in a meaningful way. For example:

nowhere=no+where, right?

guess again! nowhere=now+here. I am right HERE, and always will be. see? That's my way of defining absolute truth.

But "I" refers to a relative phenomena, and "here" is a relative position. So you aren't stating an absolute truth after all.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Victor

With this in my mind, I don't know how we can know anything.
Can I say for example "I doubt 2+2=4" ?

"2 + 2 = 4" is an abstract truth. But it's not an absolute truth in that it becomes relative the moment you try to apply the idea to anything real. For example: 2 sheep + 2 sheep = 4 sheep, only within a specified set of criteria of the number of sheep's bodies. But if their weight, or size, or color, or any of many other possible criteria were used, the equasion would become false. So the truthfulness of the equasion is relative to the criteria applied in the real world. And therefor it can't be absolute.

[stemann]

Originally Posted by PureX

"2 + 2 = 4" is an abstract truth. But it's not an absolute truth in that it becomes relative the moment you try to apply the idea to anything real. For example: 2 sheep + 2 sheep = 4 sheep, only within a specified set of criteria of the number of sheep's bodies. But if their weight, or size, or color, or any of many other possible criteria were used, the equasion would become false. So the truthfulness of the equasion is relative to the criteria applied in the real world. And therefor it can't be absolute.

2+2=4 is true by definition. If you have 2 sheep and add another 2 then you have 4 sheep. This is also true by definition, since "sheep" can just mean any actual thing. Just because we don't know whether what we actually have is sheep, or if we don't know any of the other criteria, doesn't mean it isn't absolutely true.