-
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!
Truth and Versions of Religion
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't think so, even though some treat it that way.
In regards to religion, I do believe it's generally a serious attempt to ascertain Truth.
Jedster
Well-Known Member
If by Truth (with a capital t) you mean the thing that always was is and will be, ie eternal) then it cannot be subjective(according to my subjective opinion
)Since it has been around forever,then it cannot be exclusive to any religion/belief system.
Most religions (that I know of) would like to think they are The Truth, but do no more than trying to define a correct lifestyle and the inspirational/poetic parts point towards humans seeking said Truth. Anothers' inspiration is merely a signpost and not the destination.
Many adherents equate their religion with Truth and it <self-deleted expletive> our lovely planet.
The closest, I can see, in my concept to Truth is the Dharmic one of Brahman, which is independent of anyone's belief.
Last edited:
The better question is "assuming truth exists, it possible for humans to experience truth non-subjectively?" It seems to me the answer to that is "no," so practically speaking, yes, truth is subjective.
Any entity or organization can make observations that it claims are truths. I see no compelling reason why this would be limited to religions, and can think of many examples where it has not been.
I believe religious truth is not subjective. That is, truth does not change based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. IMO, religions that teaches doctrines that are not the truth, are false religions.
so a judicial system and science, are subjective; when it comes to experiences?
the golden rule would be subjective?
Some aspects of it are, in that they are defined by the subject.
Generally, though, no.
Religion rarely if ever deals with objective truth. There are better disciplines (e.g., science) for that purpose, and religion's vocation is to deal with the subjective in any case.
so a theocracy, oligarchy, monarchy, wouldn't have to incorporate some aspects of Truth into it's judicial system/cultural norms?
don't scientist follow some moral and ethical rules in order for their research to be considered valid?
without codes of conduct, wouldn't their be chaos among researchers?
Not one of those systems deals with truth in any significant way, nor have they reason or even means to attempt to.
Unless, I suppose, you mean to say that the typical theocracy claims to be the expression of the "true" will of God?
If so, then I just don't see why anyone would bother to attempt to believe such a claim. It is neither reliable nor truly relevant.
Moral and technical validity are very different things, so no.
Do you mean the validation, peer-review, scientific method matters?
Those do not really deal with moral or ethics.
i'm implying that any form of government would have to incorporate some "form" of truth for the version to palatable. even a lie must incorporate some aspects of a truth for the lie to be acceptable.
thank you for the clarification. it would seem the opposite as true; where in morality is forced upon science based upon cultural norms of the times.
I don't know what you are calling "truth", but I doubt it has much to do with my understanding of the word.
It seems to relate more closely to, I guess, "social acceptance". Which is a very different thing.
No idea why you would think so.
social acceptance can deny the validity of science, or a truth, to it's own detriment.
Truth is timeless. it doesn't come into, or out of, existence based on cultural influence. it is a potential/actual thing. in theory we think of the potential in abstract, and then discover it in actuality
as an example, if a discovery was made today of a new element, it is in fact not new. it is new to the discoverers but itself is not new. it was potentially always there and we didn't know how to measure for it, or have the capability of measuring it.
Last edited:
Plainly, it is social acceptance and not truth as such that sustains most creeds and ideologies.
Science is something else entirely.
how about a judicial system? could a judicial system function from a subjective perspective?
Can they function in any way that isn't? I don't think so.
sorry, confused. so you're implying judicials systems are subjective, or objective?
They are unavoidably subjective. And that is a good thing.
The bad thing is when we mistake them for objective systems, or expect or even demand that they attempt to be that.
so you believe that a judicial system should be subjective, or personal? wouldn't that abdicate responsibility based on action vs some outward attribute of appearance? you're suggesting that judicial systems should be respecter of persons vs actions?
No. I think that they can't help but be, and that it is for the better that we brace ourselves for that reality instead of hoping in vain for anything better.
I don't think so.
If anything, quite the opposite. As people learn not to rely on the fairness of a judicial system, they will lead better, more responsible lives.
Judicial systems are invasive and unfair by definition.
so you're expecting people who are the actuators of the law to be irresponsible and individuals will somehow become more responsible? how would a selfish person suddenly become responsible and choose a path of service to all?
so you believe that people without a formal judicial system are more apt to become conscentious? how would that be possible?