What a lot of people believe vs the truth - What's important to you?

I have a friend of mine who studies wrongfully convicted people and how they were proven innocent or proven there is a reasonable doubt for conviction and released eventually, but after years and years of imprisonment. The Jury has to be unanimous, or there is a mistrial. Sometimes the majority sways, and sometimes the minority sways, or there is no end to it. The rule of thumb is the accused is innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes in reality he is guilty until proven innocent.

Recently there was a thread about Muhammed and his marriage to Aisha. The thread was claiming that Aisha was not a child at the time of marriage. This thread is not to discuss it's evidences, but something curious that took place. It's nothing new, it's a usual apologetic.

It does not matter if I believe this or that, what matters is there are millions of Muslims believe Muhammed married a child.

It's true in a way that what really matters is what a lot of people believe. That is going to shape society. That's a correct assumption. What society thinks is important, but is it really more important than the truth. In the case of a man on trial, is it really the societies perspective that matters or if he is truly innocent? What matters to you?

Muhammed is dead and gone. So who cares what he did? What matters is what people believe today. Another idea some may pose. Well, that is also true in a way. So bottomline is, if you think Muhammed married a grown up instead, you should not speak the truth. You should not be allowed to. Your speech should be muted. Because what people think is more important.

Or should it be that like many do speak up with enough evidence he did not marry a child based on their same old traditions? Maybe those who believe otherwise will also learn something! Or as these people say., no, no, no, you should shut up because what matters is what a lot of people think?

What is the ought in this conundrum? This can be applied to a lot of things in this world and it's history that might pave way to the future.

What matters the most?

Think what would happen if you changed the value of 1 (the truth) to 0 (the lie, the false) in Mathematics, Logic or Statistics. Can you have any idea how many human systems would fall apart?

A lie is never preferable to the truth, no matter how many people adhere to the lie. The very existence of the true God (just and truthful) ensures that "at the end" the truth will always prevail and the rest will be eliminated from existence.

As for the life of Mohammed I have nothing to say.

Eli G said:

Think what would happen if you changed the value of 1 (the truth) to 0 (the lie, the false) in Mathematics, Logic or Statistics. Can you have any idea how many human systems would fall apart?

A lie is never preferable to the truth, no matter how many people adhere to the lie. The very existence of the true God (just and truthful) ensures that "at the end" the truth will always prevail and the rest will be eliminated from existence.

As for the life of Mohammed I have nothing to say.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the thought.

What matters to me is the Truth, which is an aspect of divinity. The (lower case) truth should be reflective of the Truth. But given my human nature, I should be wary of being too dogmatic about what I believe to be true because I can easily be in error.

Personally I have done no careful research on the age that Aisha married Muhammad nor do I have ANY opinion about the age the marriage was actually consummated. I have read various opinions one way or the other but have no way of judging the truth of the claims.

But it's clear that looking back in history, age was not a big deal. After all, Muhammad married Khadija when he was 25 and she 40 and with children. As a side note, Meher Baba's father at age 25 said he'd marry a girl of 5 and no one else so the marriage was arranged for when she was in her teens. Mani S. Irani: Granny Would Not Budge

And it's clear how central is Aisha's role in Islamic history.

So I'll let others debate this point as I have no way of ascertaining truth.

sun rise said:

What matters to me is the Truth, which is an aspect of divinity. The (lower case) truth should be reflective of the Truth. But given my human nature, I should be wary of being too dogmatic about what I believe to be true because I can easily be in error.

Personally I have done no careful research on the age that Aisha married Muhammad nor do I have ANY opinion about the age the marriage was actually consummated. I have read various opinions one way or the other but have no way of judging the truth of the claims.

But it's clear that looking back in history, age was not a big deal. After all, Muhammad married Khadija when he was 25 and she 40 and with children. As a side note, Meher Baba's father at age 25 said he'd marry a girl of 5 and no one else so the marriage was arranged for when she was in her teens. Mani S. Irani: Granny Would Not Budge

And it's clear how central is Aisha's role in Islamic history.

So I'll let others debate this point as I have no way of ascertaining truth.

Click to expand...

This thread is not to determine if Aisha was 9 or 90 brother. This is about the principle of one's epistemic position. I put it in simple terms in the OP so that I could get some perspectives of people's thoughts and how they conflict sometimes.

Nevertheless, in traditional Islam there is a concept called constructive theology. It's there in Christianity as well of course. Many people misunderstand constructive theology to be polemics. It is absolutely not. It is the practice of being constructive of the doctrines, not denying them, but rethinking, reevaluating, magnifying, scrutinising, based on the fundamentals of the said theology. I am not saying this is perfect or anything like that, but this was considered a part of worship. It's traditionally so important. Even today, at fundamental levels, all schools of thought in Islam teach this. Maybe some fringe schools don't, but they are not known to me. But one must not deny this is in the rear end of action now. And everyone together are pushing it further away for some reason. I wish to understand what the real reason is. Why do so many people say that what matters is what people believe, not what I or you believe. Long ago there was a scholar called Fakruddhin arrazi. He was a don in islamic scholarship. Jurist. Even during his time being over a thousand years ago, constructive theology was very much alive. And he said that the famous verse several atheists were quoting and harping on to mean prepubescent girls when it was actually referring to "women" which in arabic means "women" as we know today, were about women as if that was just normal. But the atheist insists that it does not matter. What several others say much after him, much later, and what some laymen believe around us is what matters.

Should human beings not endeavour to understand what the truth could have been? That's the question.

Peace.

firedragon said:

What is the ought in this conundrum? This can be applied to a lot of things in this world and it's history that might pave way to the future.

What matters the most?

Click to expand...

I think what matters is that both are 'true': that people believe "X" happened, even as "Y" actually happened. Because the truth is 'what is', and that includes what we think "is", is, even when we're wrong.

An oncoming train horn sounds the pitch C sharp. That same train horn ongoing sound a B natural pitch. And that same train horn heard on the train sounds a B sharp pitch both when the train is in motion and when it's standing still. All of these statements are true, and yet the train horn only projects a single pitch that never varies. Truth is complicated because existence is complicated. And we humans don't get to witness all that complexity as a singular whole. We only get to witness it as a fleeting glimpse. So that for us, what is true from one perspective can be untrue from another. It's easy for us to become confused, and to misapply what we think is true to the wrong context.

PureX said:

I think what matters is that both are 'true': that people believe "X" happened, even as "Y" actually happened. Because the truth is 'what is', and that includes what we think "is", is, even when we're wrong.

An oncoming train horn sounds the pitch C sharp. That same train horn ongoing sound a B natural pitch. And that same train horn heard on the train sounds a B sharp pitch both when the train is in motion and when it's standing still. All of these statements are true, and yet the train horn only projects a single pitch that never varies. Truth is complicated because existence is complicated. And we humans don't get to witness all that complexity as a singular whole. We only get to witness it as a fleeting glimpse. So that for us, what is true from one perspective can be untrue from another. It's easy for us to become confused, and to misapply what we think is true to the wrong context.

Click to expand...

Both cannot be true. If a person heard a C note when the emanating note is B, there are two different truths in perspective, but that does not change the objective truth.

If you are a guy but you speak like a lady and I think you are a lady, that does not mean you are a lady. If you are a guy, you are a guy. My perception does not change that objective truth.

You can't jail an innocent man because of a perception but only through an objective investigation of evidence to determine the truth. The toad may think the well is the whole universe, that is his subjective perception. Even if there are 10 toads in that well, that does not make that the whole universe.

Eli G said:

Think what would happen if you changed the value of 1 (the truth) to 0 (the lie, the false) in Mathematics, Logic or Statistics. Can you have any idea how many human systems would fall apart?

A lie is never preferable to the truth, no matter how many people adhere to the lie. The very existence of the true God (just and truthful) ensures that "at the end" the truth will always prevail and the rest will be eliminated from existence.

As for the life of Mohammed I have nothing to say.

Click to expand...

So why do you prefer lies to truth?

I think that it may be tricky, even dangerous, to dabble very often in claims of access to truth.

It may be liberating and ethically necessary to dwell a bit in spaces of uncertainty and consider whether, how and when that uncertainty may prove advantageous over the alternatives.

At times uncertainty can open the way for healthier consideration of available options. Other times the truth may be more unstable or mutable than we had assumed. Or it can simply not be as consequential as we had assumed.

firedragon said:

Should human beings not endeavour to understand what the truth could have been? That's the question.

Click to expand...

I was not explicit enough. Of course people should seek the truth. But facts are not always the truth. Truth matters but facts may not matter.

And facts can be misleading. There's a book about how to lie with statistics and web pages with examples. So a question is whether or not the facts are presented in a misleading way.

Then we have facts such as January 6th that were broadcast for all to see but some deny the evidence of their eyes. So in order to look for the truth I have to consider the motivation of those who make certain claims.

Then there's a question about a fact being meaningful. The age of Aisha at her marriage is not of supreme meaning to me. Since she never had children, her age when the marriage was consummated cannot be proven by physical evidence.

What is meaningful to me and where I should seek truth is who Muhammad truly was first of all. Part of that consideration is how he treated Aisha. I've read that there was a true bond of love between them and that is part of the truth.

Then as a followup, other considerations of why Muhammad married Aisha can be considered as this piece does.

LuisDantas said:

I think that it may be tricky, even dangerous, to dabble very often in claims of access to truth.

Click to expand...

That's not the question. The question is, should you shut them up. I think twisting it to a "claim" and trying to ignore if anyone has any evidence or not is another way of apologetics for shutting people up.

LuisDantas said:

It may be liberating and ethically necessary to dwell a bit in spaces of uncertainty and consider whether, how and when that uncertainty may prove advantageous over the alternatives.

At times uncertainty can open the way for healthier consideration of available options. Other times the truth may be more unstable or mutable than we had assumed. Or it can simply not be as consequential as we had assumed.

Click to expand...

Okay. So what if evidence shows that according to someones own sources, the objective truth is uncertain? Is that not evidence enough to have reasonable doubt? That's already said in the OP.

firedragon said:

That's not the question. The question is, should you shut them up. I think twisting it to a "claim" and trying to ignore if anyone has any evidence or not is another way of apologetics for shutting people up.

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, shutting people up is not as advisable nor as wise as just pointing out upfront that they have not earned attention and/or respect for their claims.

Okay. So what if evidence shows that according to someones own sources, the objective truth is uncertain? Is that not evidence enough to have reasonable doubt? That's already said in the OP.

Click to expand...

I think that is exactly what I am advising for. Accepting uncertainty for what it is.

PureX said:

I think what matters is that both are 'true': that people believe "X" happened, even as "Y" actually happened. Because the truth is 'what is', and that includes what we think "is", is, even when we're wrong.

An oncoming train horn sounds the pitch C sharp. That same train horn ongoing sound a B natural pitch. And that same train horn heard on the train sounds a B sharp pitch both when the train is in motion and when it's standing still. All of these statements are true, and yet the train horn only projects a single pitch that never varies. Truth is complicated because existence is complicated. And we humans don't get to witness all that complexity as a singular whole. We only get to witness it as a fleeting glimpse. So that for us, what is true from one perspective can be untrue from another. It's easy for us to become confused, and to misapply what we think is true to the wrong context.

Click to expand...

If the truth “includes what we think “is”, is, even when we’re wrong”.
Wouldn’t that suggest no one is ever wrong so long as they think otherwise?

Your example of the Doppler effect is an excellent example.

It’s a fact that the whistle pitch can and will vary depending on the orientational perspective and motion of the train. But the truth is as you pointed out that the whistle only emits the B sharp which is the true pitch and remains constant.

The fact that different people perceive it differently as the train is in motion does not change the truth that it is still a B sharp being emitted from the whistle.

Thus Doppler realized it wasn’t true that the whistle was changing pitch as it passed by and sought out the reason why it was perceived as though it did.

By not seeking to verify that one’s perspective is in fact true, is precisely why so many often fail to come to understand that their perspective could in fact not be true.

Which brings us to the OP’s question; whether conforming to popular opinion is more important than truth or vice versa.

I believe it’s a mixed bag, which is to say it depends.

Humans being a social species have a very strong tendency towards tribalism, and can be easily swayed by popular opinion and peer pressures along with fear of being outcasted from their group.
As result many people easily conform to the perceived popular opinion of their tribe.
It also becomes a part of their identity and serves as a cohesive element to prove loyalty within their tribe.
For these people it is that popular opinion and solidarity with the tribe that becomes the dominant concern. For them conceding that an established view of the tribe even MIGHT be unfounded can be construed as sacrilegious.

For others, the pull of conformity is not as great.
When they are confronted with information that doesn’t appear to jive with the popular or apparent view they are more driven to find out why that discrepancy exists and seek to determine what is actually the case. For these people the underlying truth is the driving concern.
I personally belong yo this second camp.

So, as is most often the case there is not necessarily a “black and white” - “either/or” solution.

sun rise said:

I was not explicit enough. Of course people should seek the truth. But facts are not always the truth. Truth matters but facts may not matter.

And facts can be misleading. There's a book about how to lie with statistics and web pages with examples. So a question is whether or not the facts are presented in a misleading way.

Then we have facts such as January 6th that were broadcast for all to see but some deny the evidence of their eyes. So in order to look for the truth I have to consider the motivation of those who make certain claims.

Then there's a question about a fact being meaningful. The age of Aisha at her marriage is not of supreme meaning to me. Since she never had children, her age when the marriage was consummated cannot be proven by physical evidence.

What is meaningful to me and where I should seek truth is who Muhammad truly was first of all. Part of that consideration is how he treated Aisha. I've read that there was a true bond of love between them and that is part of the truth.

Then as a followup, other considerations of why Muhammad married Aisha can be considered as this piece does.

Click to expand...

Still, people should seek the truth and no one should try to shut them up saying "no. truth is not important. whats important is what people think".

If you are speaking about a book called "everybody lies", I have read it. Fantastic book. (But please do quote the book you speak of if it's a different one, I will try to get it down).

That does not mean facts are not always the truth. Facts do not always "represent the truth". For example, it is a fact that the paratus analysis can be applied to all data as long as there are numbers in them. That's a fact. But that does not represent the truth because most often in big data it varies by 6% this way and/or that way. This is real fact, and that fact is true. Do you understand?

Facts do matter. But facts could be analytical, historical, contingent, inductive, mathematical, etc. So when speaking of this side of philosophy one has to be precise. These are facts, but are also called truths in philosophy brother. So we cannot generalise these things so simply.

In philosophy, historical facts are the weakest type of facts. Out of all the kinds of facts, historical facts are the weakest. Because of rumours. History is full of rumours. There was a study about how rumours spread faster than facts on twitter. I mean a formal study.

Anyway, that's a whole other discussion Sun Rise.

Cheers.

LuisDantas said:

Generally speaking, shutting people up is not as advisable nor as wise as just pointing out upfront that they have not earned attention and/or respect for their claims.

Click to expand...

If you shut them up without analysis, how would you know? Bias? Do you understand the point?

firedragon said:

I have a friend of mine who studies wrongfully convicted people and how they were proven innocent or proven there is a reasonable doubt for conviction and released eventually, but after years and years of imprisonment. The Jury has to be unanimous, or there is a mistrial. Sometimes the majority sways, and sometimes the minority sways, or there is no end to it. The rule of thumb is the accused is innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes in reality he is guilty until proven innocent.

Recently there was a thread about Muhammed and his marriage to Aisha. The thread was claiming that Aisha was not a child at the time of marriage. This thread is not to discuss it's evidences, but something curious that took place. It's nothing new, it's a usual apologetic.

It does not matter if I believe this or that, what matters is there are millions of Muslims believe Muhammed married a child.

It's true in a way that what really matters is what a lot of people believe. That is going to shape society. That's a correct assumption. What society thinks is important, but is it really more important than the truth. In the case of a man on trial, is it really the societies perspective that matters or if he is truly innocent? What matters to you?

Muhammed is dead and gone. So who cares what he did? What matters is what people believe today. Another idea some may pose. Well, that is also true in a way. So bottomline is, if you think Muhammed married a grown up instead, you should not speak the truth. You should not be allowed to. Your speech should be muted. Because what people think is more important.

Or should it be that like many do speak up with enough evidence he did not marry a child based on their same old traditions? Maybe those who believe otherwise will also learn something! Or as these people say., no, no, no, you should shut up because what matters is what a lot of people think?

What is the ought in this conundrum? This can be applied to a lot of things in this world and it's history that might pave way to the future.

What matters the most?

Click to expand...

Excellent post!

But truth is ultimately the important goal. Always!

firedragon said:

If you shut them up without analysis, how would you know? Bias? Do you understand the point?

Click to expand...

No, I am not understanding what you mean here.

firedragon said:

Both cannot be true. If a person heard a C note when the emanating note is B, there are two different truths in perspective, but that does not change the objective truth.

Click to expand...

The truth is both subjective AND objective. The truth is that the train horn emanates a single pitch, and yet that single pitch is a different pitch in front of, behind, and on the train, moving and not moving. There is no one perspective of the truth. The truth includes all perspectives, even the inaccurately understood perspectives. And it's important that we understand this if we ever hope be able to grasp the truth of things and live accordingly.

firedragon said:

If you are a guy but you speak like a lady and I think you are a lady, that does not mean you are a lady. If you are a guy, you are a guy. My perception does not change that objective truth.

Click to expand...

But your perspective in not the truth of me. It's just your limited grasp of the truth of me. If you ever hope to grasp the truth of me, you'll have to be willing to accept all those other perspectives and experiences of me. Even when they contradict each other. Because like it or not the truth is inherently contradictory and paradoxical when grasped from our very limited, relative, human perspective. We can't stand in front of, behind, and on the train at the same time so as to hear it's horn sounding all those different pitches at the same time, while only sounding one. The only way we humans can grasp this is to open our minds up to the paradoxical nature of the truth of existence. And to accept the many different and contradictory experiential perspectives it offers us.

firedragon said:

You can't jail an innocent man because of a perception but only through an objective investigation of evidence to determine the truth. The toad may think the well is the whole universe, that is his subjective perception. Even if there are 10 toads in that well, that does not make that the whole universe.

Click to expand...

There are no "innocent men" as we are all guilty of something. And yet we are all "innocent men" in that we are all forced to live our lives on the blind when it comes to absolutes like "right" and "wrong". And if we ever hope to achieve any real justice in this world, amongst each other, we are going to have to learn to understand that this is so. And to keep forgiveness always close at hand.

Hockeycowboy said:

Excellent post!

But truth is ultimately the important goal. Always!

Click to expand...

you are absolutely correct. We should at least strive towards it. And we should other's also strive towards it without dismissing them saying "it doesn't matter".

PureX said:

The truth is both subjective AND objective.

Click to expand...

But there is always an objective truth. Subjective truths in sociology can vary. But that does not mean you abandon the objective truth because "what matters is what people think".

PureX said:

But your perspective in not the truth of me.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

PureX said:

There are no "innocent men" as we are all guilty of something. And yet we are all "innocent men" in that we are all forced to live our lives on the blind when it comes to absolutes like "right" and "wrong". And if we ever hope to achieve any real justice in this world, amongst each other, we are going to have to learn to understand that this is so. And to keep forgiveness always close at hand.

Click to expand...

You are getting into ethics and forgiveness which is irrelevant brother. I can't engage with that so apologies.

Cheers.