• 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 is not simple

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
It is not uncommon for discussions about various religious matters on our forums to revolve around this concept called "truth." We owe this, perhaps, to the dominance of certain religions that profess to have "the" truth in Western culture. And yet, from time to time, it might be a good idea to step back and recognize that "truth" is a complicated creature, particularly when it comes to religious issues.

John Halstead wrote a thought-provoking essay on this topic over at Patheos the other day, and I'd like to share a few excerpts from it to prompt a discussion of our own (I'd encourage you to give the whole article a gander if you have the time and inclination):

"... I think there are simple truths and there are complex truths — or simple and complex ways of framing any given “truth”. Take for example, the question of whether you have money in the bank. One a simplistic level, you either do have money in the bank or you don’t.

....

On the other hand, the question of whether you “have money in the bank” really is not that simple. Does your neighborhood bank actually have your money? Or any of our money? Well, they are required by law to have a certain percentage of it. But then there’s a loophole that allows them to borrow money at the end of the day from another bank if they don’t. Does this mean there is actually money — bills and coins — that are moved to their vault? No. It’s just electronic ones and zeros that are being moved around virtual networks. And then what is “money” anyway. Is it really the bills and coins that you care about? No. Because the value of those markers goes up and down. Is it the virtual ones and zeros? Is it the fungible symbol of labor or goods? So the question of whether you have “money” “in the bank” is a complicated one.

While Halsted doesn't draw this connection, we might observe that those who operate based on simple models of truth have a "fundamentalist" mindset. That is to say, things are either-or, black-or-white, and there is no quarter given for interpretation or complexity. The religions in our culture most concerned with "the" truth (as if it were a simple matter or a singular thing) are those which are fundamentalist, yes? But what do you think? Do you regard truth as being mostly a simple thing? Mostly a complex thing? Is simple truth models a characteristic of fundamentalism?

There's another thread from Halsted's essay that I'd like to throw in here:

"And as far as I can see, being right or having the “truth” does not necessarily make us better people, more moral people, or happier people. In fact, some of the people I know who profess great concern for “truth” are the biggest ********. I think concern about other people’s perceived lack of truth is often a cover for not dealing with our own **** — and, yes, I’m talking about myself here."

What do you guys think about this suggestion? Do you think he's on the mark here, or way off?
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
He is right on the mark imo. And good writing on your part @Quintessence.

I learned I can't concern myself with what they call "the truth". I try to concern myself 24/7 with the real. Looking at real has taught me that any kind of truth is always elusive.

If I remember I will read his work later as it is true I should be doing something else like baking a cake is one........
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Do you think he's on the mark here, or way off?
The "simple truth" is that I think the guy is a genius. The more "complex truth" is that he appears to be a very intelligent man with some excellent ideas. I haven't read the entire essay yet, but I definitely intend to. Thanks for the thread and the "spoiler."
 

Kori

Dark Valkyrie...what's not to love?
Quoting a line from the game Star Ocean: The Second Story-"The truth in your eyes will always be slightly different than the truth in your friends eyes."
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I learned I can't concern myself with what they call "the truth". I try to concern myself 24/7 with the real. Looking at real has taught me that any kind of truth is always elusive.

Interesting. I wager for some, they would consider finding "the truth" to be the same as identifying "the real." How are those different for you?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
It is not uncommon for discussions about various religious matters on our forums to revolve around this concept called "truth." We owe this, perhaps, to the dominance of certain religions that profess to have "the" truth in Western culture. And yet, from time to time, it might be a good idea to step back and recognize that "truth" is a complicated creature, particularly when it comes to religious issues.

John Halstead wrote a thought-provoking essay on this topic over at Patheos the other day, and I'd like to share a few excerpts from it to prompt a discussion of our own (I'd encourage you to give the whole article a gander if you have the time and inclination):

"... I think there are simple truths and there are complex truths — or simple and complex ways of framing any given “truth”. Take for example, the question of whether you have money in the bank. One a simplistic level, you either do have money in the bank or you don’t.

....

On the other hand, the question of whether you “have money in the bank” really is not that simple. Does your neighborhood bank actually have your money? Or any of our money? Well, they are required by law to have a certain percentage of it. But then there’s a loophole that allows them to borrow money at the end of the day from another bank if they don’t. Does this mean there is actually money — bills and coins — that are moved to their vault? No. It’s just electronic ones and zeros that are being moved around virtual networks. And then what is “money” anyway. Is it really the bills and coins that you care about? No. Because the value of those markers goes up and down. Is it the virtual ones and zeros? Is it the fungible symbol of labor or goods? So the question of whether you have “money” “in the bank” is a complicated one.

While Halsted doesn't draw this connection, we might observe that those who operate based on simple models of truth have a "fundamentalist" mindset. That is to say, things are either-or, black-or-white, and there is no quarter given for interpretation or complexity. The religions in our culture most concerned with "the" truth (as if it were a simple matter or a singular thing) are those which are fundamentalist, yes? But what do you think? Do you regard truth as being mostly a simple thing? Mostly a complex thing? Is simple truth models a characteristic of fundamentalism?

There's another thread from Halsted's essay that I'd like to throw in here:

"And as far as I can see, being right or having the “truth” does not necessarily make us better people, more moral people, or happier people. In fact, some of the people I know who profess great concern for “truth” are the biggest ********. I think concern about other people’s perceived lack of truth is often a cover for not dealing with our own **** — and, yes, I’m talking about myself here."

What do you guys think about this suggestion? Do you think he's on the mark here, or way off?

I wouldnt know how to define truth. I know there is one reality. Its not mine. Its not yours. No one owns it. We are all it. Everything and everyone. The process of life. Objectivity. Is reality so Id call that truth and our various beliefs and morals are interpretations of this truth or reality so we understand it better.

Some find it complex: Life is a mystery. We are just mere humans. We cant know everything. We cant say we know all. Stuff like that.

Others find truth as simple. They know their beliefs are Beliefs and are part of this One reality/Truth just as every other. Strip off our perceptions, what do we have?

Having or seeing the truth doesnt make us better people, I agree. A lot of beliefs let people live healthy. My brother went into depression because he kept seeing people interpret the truth but never sit back from their interpretations and just Observe reality. It didnt make him a better person (what does that mean?) he was smart, well informed, but since truth/reality is so simple and people make it complex drove him nuts. (He'd agree with how I just put it)

That and I agree that western culture religions have an influence of how rhey define truth for themselves and others. I feel they are decieving themselves when they say truth but call their morals beliefs and not facts. Anyway, I dislike their method of sharing their truth.

Truth/reality is simple. Our interpretations of this are not. I remember The Buddha saying, dont mistake dellusions for reality.
 
Last edited:

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
For instance, I am mostly ignored by everyone even though I think that many of my insights are real. It seems to me that the reasons that I am ignored are few but are shared by many different people. I can only imagine why. I think that I will never know why. I do not know the truth about myself and others. Maybe I hope never to know. :D
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I look at everything like a triangle. On Earth, there are two important associates, you and me. Country to country. Organization to organization. Human to animal. Each side has its own perspective of what is happening. But what is happening is real. The third part of the triangle is TRUTH or Heaven, the point above. It is a worthy endeavor to consider the third associate. That is what I do. But truth is not one thing. It exists between and above every consideration that ever was. So any person or group claiming they own the truth is actually funny. Thank heaven (that I think it is funny)! LOL
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
The "truth" is two things: it is all those propositions that we consider to be "true," and it is what makes those propositions true. The former would appear to be the topic here, but whether we consider a simple set of propositions or a complex one, none of them are actually ever going to equate to a grand truth. It's like Archie Campbell and his "good/bad" routine on Heehaw. For each proposition, there is a way to look at it and see truth or see falseness. True and false in that sense are tools for promoting our agenda in the world, a tool of "ego" or "self."
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If truth is what makes anything happen then the people who say they have it are really saying, "we have what makes things happen".
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Truth is not complicated in and of itself. The quote on quote definition of Truth/realty is independent of humans. We make it complex. Sit Zazen. Observe. Dont label. No questions. See truth. Simple. Once we ponder it becomes complicates.

Does it make our lives better? Depends on what one means by that. Observation for me is like telling an ODD person to sit still. Depends on the person.

Reality is a noun
Truth is an adjective

Dont make the mistake of calling the adjective a noun. Our different truths define reality. That doesnt change what it is even without our descriptions.
 
Last edited:

Covellite

Active Member
Truth/reality is simple. Our interpretations of this are not. I remember The Buddha saying, dont mistake dellusions for reality.
Buddha was Buddha :) But I am not, so my life is complicated, and I must agree that truth is not simple, at least not for me. What I usually do to make my life less complicated is to jump to a relativism, but I guess it's still delusion according to Buddha. It's just a temporal relief.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Buddha was Buddha :) But I am not, so my life is complicated, and I must agree that truth is not simple, at least not for me. What I usually do to make my life less complicated is to jump to a relativism, but I guess it's still delusion according to Buddha. It's just a temporal relief.

Its more, in my opinion, your interpretation of reality is complicated. I mean, mine is too. So was The Buddha hence why he has over 2,000 teachings. The teaches ponder the same universe. His interpretations are extremely complicated. What he is interpreting is not.

In in other words, dont mistake interpretations for truth/reality.
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
It is not uncommon for discussions about various religious matters on our forums to revolve around this concept called "truth." We owe this, perhaps, to the dominance of certain religions that profess to have "the" truth in Western culture. And yet, from time to time, it might be a good idea to step back and recognize that "truth" is a complicated creature, particularly when it comes to religious issues.

That's right 100% as a matter o fact.

And the uneducated have no right addressing this matter in any way.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
What do you guys think about this suggestion? Do you think he's on the mark here, or way off?

He is correct.

People fight the truth tooth and nail.

Traditional Religions as an example all of the Abrahamic ones do no accept truth, and they view those that teach it in a very negative light.

being bias free is the best factual way to seek the truth, and most people in society have a hard time shaking their tattoos the needle of dogma and mythology penetrated so deeply
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Quoting a line from the game Star Ocean: The Second Story-"The truth in your eyes will always be slightly different than the truth in your friends eyes."


I have always liked the coin allegory/metaphor

Truth is a coin
There is your side and my side, and in the middle is a very thin line known as the truth
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
To me, all he seems to really be saying in this extract is that sometimes definitions can be obscure. He's essentially just saying "you can obfuscate almost any question, belief or proposition by rendering the definition of its subject more non-specific or obscure". It's like the age-old "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" dilemma. It seems superficially deep on the surface, but when you realize that all that's making the question complicated is the fact that "sound" isn't specifically defined by the question, and you can simply divide the concept of sound into subcategories with distinct definitions, it becomes a far more simple question to answer.
 
Last edited:
Top