• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Diversity of Truth Systems

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Is there only one way of knowing truth such that all truths must find their niche in the overall landscape of this one, internally consistent and experiential system?

Can all truth be a decidable proposition under a single rational system (epistemology) for knowing truth?

Are there any inherent limits to rational systems that might make having only one fundamentally problematic?

If you've read my posts I hope that you have noticed that my answer to the above questions is "no". I also hope you've noticed that while I espouse "beliefs" I also make a good advocate for science. If you are confused by me then I think that is even better!

I would like here to discuss the above questions and learn from anyone how they might argue yes or no as an answer...that is, if this question makes sense. Perhaps we can discuss terms and their meaning to clarify the question.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Maybe you can help me with this question? ( Thank you in advance )

I generally define truth as objective and reality as subjective. But maybe I have it backwards? Or I'm completely wrong all together?
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
Everyone has their own truths. My wife says she is hot while I am cold. We both have our own perceptions and understanding of everything. Yet, there must be a constant somewhere that can be called THE TRUTH. My truth is fleeting. It can change over time.
So can my wife’s. But there must be an underlying THE TRUTH, to everything.
We should not spend time trying to argue whether there is such a truth, but we should spend our time trying to find it.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Are there any inherent limits to rational systems

Taking just the start of that sentence, to me rational systems are inherently limited. Taking the discussion here Rational decision making I note the following:

  1. Limits of human capabilities - The limits on our human ability to gather, process, and understand all the information needed to optimize a decision outcome make it impractical to meet the ideal except in very constrained or simple situations. We have limits in our ability to formulate as well as solve very complex problems. Our desire to optimize is also limited, and we will usually "saticfice", or be content with acceptable solutions when confronted with obstacles.
  2. Limits on information and knowledge - The model assumes we should or can gather sufficient information in terms of quantity, quality, accuracy, and integrity. It also assumes that we have access to the required knowledge of the cause and effect relationships that are important to the evaluation of alternative solutions, particularly with respect to projecting future consequences.
  3. Limits in time - Search for the optimum solution will generate a delay that could negatively impact the benefits of the chosen alternative. In essence, if the decision alternatives are not properly discounted for changes due to decision timing, the chosen alternative may not be optimum.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Maybe you can help me with this question? ( Thank you in advance )

I generally define truth as objective and reality as subjective. But maybe I have it backwards? Or I'm completely wrong all together?

Words are flexible things...they have connotations. When we have words that are closely related like 'truth' and 'reality' I think that this is especially the case.

Words are re-built buildings...by this I mean they are constructed of multiple parts assembled together from other buildings. In each person there may be a separate construction plan based on their personal experience which they use to assemble that word's meaning.

What we might want to do is to gather like terms together and say that we want to talk about them all rather than fight over which word is the "truthiest" of all the words for truth. Maybe truth, reality, objective and subjective can all get together and give us a "painting" of truth that is more complete even if less concise than a dictionary definition.

Or maybe we should have those words fight it out, see who is the winner?

Or maybe words are unreliable things to use to get at truth. Maybe language is just bad because it is so ambiguous and not like math or computer algorithms.

How is that for (not) answering your questions?

:p:rolleyes:
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Is there only one way of knowing truth such that all truths must find their niche in the overall landscape of this one, internally consistent and experiential system?

Can all truth be a decidable proposition under a single rational system (epistemology) for knowing truth?

Are there any inherent limits to rational systems that might make having only one fundamentally problematic?

If you've read my posts I hope that you have noticed that my answer to the above questions is "no". I also hope you've noticed that while I espouse "beliefs" I also make a good advocate for science. If you are confused by me then I think that is even better!

I would like here to discuss the above questions and learn from anyone how they might argue yes or no as an answer...that is, if this question makes sense. Perhaps we can discuss terms and their meaning to clarify the question.

According to a Baha'i world view there are four ways of acquiring knowledge and comprehending reality.

1/ Through the senses. The first method is by the sense organs of the eye, ear, taste, smell, and touch perceive is understood by this method. Examples of imperfection and error with this method are:
(a) The mirage perceived as water, through sight.
(b) Images reflected in mirrors as real and existent.
(c) Large bodies which are distant appear small, and a whirling point appears as a circle.
(d) Through our vision the earth may appear as motionless and sees the sun in motion.
There are many examples where our sense perception can lead be misleading and result in conclusions that are erroneous and false.

2/ Through the use of reason.
Reason was highly regarded by the ancient Greek philosophers, who were seen as pillars of wisdom. So they proved things by reason and held firmly to logical proofs and their arguments were arguments of reason. However they views differed greatly, and their opinions were contradictory. They often changed their views. After proving the existence of something by logical arguments, they would later deny it by logical argument. Therefore, its evident the use of reason alone is not perfect.

3/ Understanding by tradition and through the text of the Holy Scriptures, So people say, “In the Old and New Testaments, God spoke thus.” This method equally is not perfect, because the traditions are understood by the reason. As the reason itself is liable to err, how can it be said that in interpreting the meaning of the traditions it will not err, for it is possible for it to make mistakes, and certainty cannot be attained. This is the method of the religious leaders; whatever they understand and comprehend from the text of the books is that which their reason understands from the text, and not necessarily the real truth; for the reason is like a balance, and the meanings contained in the text of the Holy Books are like the thing which is weighed. If the balance is untrue, how can the weight be ascertained?

4/ The bounty of the Holy Spirit is considered the true method of comprehension which is infallible and indubitable. Through the help of the Holy Spirit which comes to man, the condition of certainty can be attained.

Adapted from a table talk given by Adbu'i-Baha over a hundred years ago.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 297-299
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Everyone has their own truths. My wife says she is hot while I am cold. We both have our own perceptions and understanding of everything. Yet, there must be a constant somewhere that can be called THE TRUTH. My truth is fleeting. It can change over time.
So can my wife’s. But there must be an underlying THE TRUTH, to everything.
We should not spend time trying to argue whether there is such a truth, but we should spend our time trying to find it.

All truth exists in context...discover the relevant context and you have the objective background. So two observers can legitimately have different truths in "close" proximity with respect to the same objective reality but it is the context for the observers that is just as important as any individual fact that that observer might encounter. Once the context is shared then the objectivity of the differing experience can be appreciated instead of accepted uncritically or denied.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Taking just the start of that sentence, to me rational systems are inherently limited. Taking the discussion here Rational decision making I note the following:

  1. Limits of human capabilities - The limits on our human ability to gather, process, and understand all the information needed to optimize a decision outcome make it impractical to meet the ideal except in very constrained or simple situations. We have limits in our ability to formulate as well as solve very complex problems. Our desire to optimize is also limited, and we will usually "saticfice", or be content with acceptable solutions when confronted with obstacles.
  2. Limits on information and knowledge - The model assumes we should or can gather sufficient information in terms of quantity, quality, accuracy, and integrity. It also assumes that we have access to the required knowledge of the cause and effect relationships that are important to the evaluation of alternative solutions, particularly with respect to projecting future consequences.
  3. Limits in time - Search for the optimum solution will generate a delay that could negatively impact the benefits of the chosen alternative. In essence, if the decision alternatives are not properly discounted for changes due to decision timing, the chosen alternative may not be optimum.

Yes, we can only know, process and consider so much...and our instinctual natures create a sort of cyclical clock forcing us to meet certain bodily requirements within a specified amount of time. In a well ordered society most of the basic instinctual needs get met but there are always higher needs which present themselves once the lower ones are met. Those needs require that we solve in subjective terms our, perhaps, universal, objective biological needs. This becomes more difficult and subtle the more complex is our social and intellectual contexts.

Now with the internet at our fingertips you would think that we could all become more scientifically grounded. But the problem has become almost worse...with so many competing opinions and so much data to form opinions on, it is quite clear that we need authoritative intermediaries we can trust to do much of this work for us.

But the bar keeps moving as far as finding personal meaning, the world is bigger, more complex and we are at once smaller and yet so much closer to everyone. How do we reach out into the distant crowd and find our meaning?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Maybe you can help me with this question? ( Thank you in advance )

I generally define truth as objective and reality as subjective. But maybe I have it backwards? Or I'm completely wrong all together?

I would reverse this. 'Claims' of truth are subjective as of the mind only. Reality is objective verified by objective verifiable evidence outside the mind.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
According to a Baha'i world view there are four ways of acquiring knowledge and comprehending reality.

1/ Through the senses. The first method is by the sense organs of the eye, ear, taste, smell, and touch perceive is understood by this method. Examples of imperfection and error with this method are:
(a) The mirage perceived as water, through sight.
(b) Images reflected in mirrors as real and existent.
(c) Large bodies which are distant appear small, and a whirling point appears as a circle.
(d) Through our vision the earth may appear as motionless and sees the sun in motion.
There are many examples where our sense perception can lead be misleading and result in conclusions that are erroneous and false.

2/ Through the use of reason.
Reason was highly regarded by the ancient Greek philosophers, who were seen as pillars of wisdom. So they proved things by reason and held firmly to logical proofs and their arguments were arguments of reason. However they views differed greatly, and their opinions were contradictory. They often changed their views. After proving the existence of something by logical arguments, they would later deny it by logical argument. Therefore, its evident the use of reason alone is not perfect.

3/ Understanding by tradition and through the text of the Holy Scriptures, So people say, “In the Old and New Testaments, God spoke thus.” This method equally is not perfect, because the traditions are understood by the reason. As the reason itself is liable to err, how can it be said that in interpreting the meaning of the traditions it will not err, for it is possible for it to make mistakes, and certainty cannot be attained. This is the method of the religious leaders; whatever they understand and comprehend from the text of the books is that which their reason understands from the text, and not necessarily the real truth; for the reason is like a balance, and the meanings contained in the text of the Holy Books are like the thing which is weighed. If the balance is untrue, how can the weight be ascertained?

4/ The bounty of the Holy Spirit is considered the true method of comprehension which is infallible and indubitable. Through the help of the Holy Spirit which comes to man, the condition of certainty can be attained.

Adapted from a table talk given by Adbu'i-Baha over a hundred years ago.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 297-299


Wouldn't 3 be preceded in all cases by 1, 2 or even 4?
 
Top