Your Own Truth?

[Nakosis]

While I liked the sentiment, @Ellen Brown,

There is a range of belief about the "Godhead". An adult will allow others to find their own truth.

How did this idea of one's own truth come about? In science this wouldn't fly. So it's only spiritual belief where it can be considered ok, moral, fashionable, acceptable for one to have their own truth?

In this case, in reference to the spiritual, does truth have a different meaning?

Definition of truth (Entry 1 of 2)
1a(1) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY
(2) : the state of being the case : FACT
(3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality

This 3rd meaning, "a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality" what does this even mean?

Really the idea that something exists apart far and not subject to the limitations of the material universe. So a belief in something that can't be tested, proven or validated.

So as I would say it, people should allow others to find their own spiritual beliefs. Truth in this usage means spiritual belief. So understanding "truth, Truth" requires no proof, no logic, certainly no material evidence of it's existence. Still we call it Truth.

The Truth in this sense can be anything you want it to be. Anything you fancy. This maybe obvious for many but for me it bears keeping in mind when dealing with religious/spiritual folks.

 

[YmirGF]

The truth isn't what many think it is, and that's the truth. Cognitive and confirmation bias wallpaper over reality before our eyes.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think the word 'truth' gets bandied about far more than it should in religious discussion, without any actual meaning attached. It's a catch phrase with no meaning. Might as well just say ... 'ahhh'. Surely there are more accurate ways to express oneself.

 

[Nakosis]

The truth isn't what many think it is, and that's the truth. Cognitive and confirmation bias wallpaper over reality before our eyes.

When I say there are no Truths, in this spiritual sense of truths, I don't do so to attacks the Truth of others, I do so as a reminder to be humble in my own ideas about the possible metaphysical workings of reality.

 

[YmirGF]

When I say there are no Truths, in this spiritual sense of truths, I don't do so to attacks the Truth of others, I do so as a reminder to be humble in my own ideas about the possible metaphysical workings of reality.

If only if were an exact science, eh?

 

[Sunstone]

Excellent OP!

There seem to be two kinds of truths, objective and subjective. An objective truth is true for everyone, if it's true for anyone. "The moon reflects light from the sun." is an objective truth. If it's true for you, it's true for me. If it's not true for me, it's not true for you.

A subjective truth, on the other hand, can be true for one or some people but not for others. "I enjoy expressing my opinions because I love the sound people make when they scream in denial and disbelief." That might be true for me, but not everyone loves those sounds.

It seems to me that many of us confuse objective and subjective truths. We think a truth is objective when it's really subjective, or subjective when it's really objective.

Do the gods exist? If you are asking whether they objectively exist, that's one thing. If you are asking whether they subjectively exist, that's another. To say they objectively exist is to claim they exist for everyone -- regardless of whether everyone knows it or not. But to say they only subjectively exist is very much akin to saying unicorns exist -- that is, that they exist merely as something that in objective terms would be no more than a fantasy in the heads of certain people.

So I think that -- if spiritual truths are subjective -- if what is spiritually true for you might not be spiritually true for me -- then spiritual truths are merely fantastic beliefs in objective terms. That doesn't mean they are without value. They might have great value to the people who hold them. I think as long as those people aren't hurting others by believing what they believe, we should respect their rights to believe what they believe.

 

[PureX]

While I liked the sentiment, @Ellen Brown,

There is a range of belief about the "Godhead". An adult will allow others to find their own truth.

How did this idea of one's own truth come about? In science this wouldn't fly.

Actually, it flies just fine with science, because science does not pursue "the truth", it pursues relative functionality: how things work. Presuming that functionality equals truth is an ideology called "scientism", which most scientists shun.

So it's only spiritual belief where it can be considered ok, moral, fashionable, acceptable for one to have their own truth?

We all have our own ideas about what "the truth" is, including you. We share some of these ideas, and some we don't. This is not a "spiritual" phenomena. It's the result of the simple fact that we are not omnipotent beings. So we cannot know what the truth is. We can only know what is relatively factual, and even then only in a very limited way.

Definition of truth (Entry 1 of 2)
1a(1) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY
(2) : the state of being the case : FACT
(3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality

This 3rd meaning, "a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality" what does this even mean?

Really the idea that something exists apart far and not subject to the limitations of the material universe. So a belief in something that can't be tested, proven or validated.

So as I would say it, people should allow others to find their own spiritual beliefs. Truth in this usage means spiritual belief. So understanding "truth, Truth" requires no proof, no evidence, no logic, certainly no material evidence of it's existence. Still we call it Truth.

The Truth in this sense can be anything you want it to be. Anything you fancy. This maybe obvious for many but for me it bears keeping in mind when dealing with religious/spiritual folks.

"Scientism" could be viewed as a kind of religion. As it presumes itself a practice or process through which one may obtain "the truth" (as opposed to simply acquiring functional knowledge).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This 3rd meaning, "a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality" what does this even mean?

I feel that the fact that it places the two words "transcendent" and "fundamental" as two adjectives targeting the same object is sort of evidence that it means pretty much nothing at all.

transcendent - going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding.
fundamental - serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying:

Basic, foundational transcendence? Awful. The only thing it can be pointing to is a "basic" reality that exists beyond ordinary limits of our experienced reality. For which there is absolutely no evidence outside of myriad conflicting/contradictory personal claims. And this is "truth?" Just awful.

 

[Ellen Brown]

While I liked the sentiment, @Ellen Brown,

There is a range of belief about the "Godhead". An adult will allow others to find their own truth.

How did this idea of one's own truth come about? In science this wouldn't fly. So it's only spiritual belief where it can be considered ok, moral, fashionable, acceptable for one to have their own truth?

In this case, in reference to the spiritual, does truth have a different meaning?

Definition of truth (Entry 1 of 2)
1a(1) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY
(2) : the state of being the case : FACT
(3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality

This 3rd meaning, "a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality" what does this even mean?

Really the idea that something exists apart far and not subject to the limitations of the material universe. So a belief in something that can't be tested, proven or validated.

So as I would say it, people should allow others to find their own spiritual beliefs. Truth in this usage means spiritual belief. So understanding "truth, Truth" requires no proof, no logic, certainly no material evidence of it's existence. Still we call it Truth.

The Truth in this sense can be anything you want it to be. Anything you fancy. This maybe obvious for many but for me it bears keeping in mind when dealing with religious/spiritual folks.

 

[Nakosis]

Actually, it flies just fine with science, because science does not pursue "the truth", it pursues relative functionality: how things work. Presuming that functionality equals truth is an ideology called "scientism", which most scientists shun.

I think you are conflating the two meanings which is something I am purposely trying to avoid. There is nothing special about science. It's just a tool, a method to validate something which is thought to be true. In this case if it is true it has to be true for everyone. Anyone who wants to, decides to verify the actuality of can do so for themselves.

We all have our own ideas about what "the truth" is, including you. We share some of these ideas, and some we don't. This is not a "spiritual" phenomena. It's the result of the simple fact that we are not omnipotent beings. So we cannot know what the truth is. We can only know what is relatively factual, and even then only in a very limited way.[/quote]

Again you seem to be conflating terms. There are truth we can know, prove and validate. There is no need to be omnipotent to validate "material" truths. These are truths anyone should be able to validate for themselves. While some truths are relative to time, space and speed these aer know factors and can be accounted for.

"Scientism" could be viewed as a kind of religion. As it presumes itself a practice or process through which one may obtain "the truth" (as opposed to simply acquiring functional knowledge).

Functional knowledge is not always a truth. Functional knowledge may work in a general sense, it works well enough, often enough to get by with. It doesn't identify actual cause and effect.

Kicking the TV may get it to work but it doesn't identify the underlying cause.

I have to prove the truth of something on a daily basis, while there are people whose job it is to disprove what I claim to be true. And, I'm not always right. So in specific cases I'm pretty confident the truth which results from this process.

The point of the OP is for me to keep in mind this factual meaning of truth is not the same meaning as someone who uses the word truth as a more metaphysical term. Not to support science or materialism or Scientism.

 

[Nakosis]

I feel that the fact that it places the two words "transcendent" and "fundamental" as two adjectives targeting the same object is sort of evidence that it means pretty much nothing at all.

transcendent - going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding.
fundamental - serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying:

Basic, foundational transcendence? Awful. The only thing it can be pointing to is a basic "reality" that exists beyond ordinary limits of our experienced reality. For which there is absolutely no evidence outside of myriad conflicting/contradictory personal claims. And this is "truth?" Just awful.

Believe me, I understand. It's a bit jarring in normal discussions to see truth used this way. While I'm not a fan of it, it is common usage. I'm not sure how critical I can be about folks using a word in the same sense as used by millions of others.

 

[Ellen Brown]

I suppose it depends on what the individual has studied and thus feel they have some expertise doesn't it? Mostly, the more dogmatic an expert is, the more I find their position in question, and having born the wrath of others often, don't expect to please them. Firm religious belief usually causes me to be suspicious, though I have my own beliefs concerning religion. Do most people believe in a punishing, wrathful God? I think perhaps that is so. To me such a position simply indicates that their belief is questionable. And most of the time when I have not agreed with another, silent objection was the only way possible.

The same can be applied to Science, I think. To me Evolution is a theory with a reasonable chance of being true. However, in the years that I've been aware of it, there have been lots of changes. Sometimes I think that firm belief in any rule of Science or rule of anything simply lets us stop thinking.

 

[PureX]

I think you are conflating the two meanings which is something I am purposely trying to avoid. There is nothing special about science. It's just a tool, a method to validate something which is thought to be true. In this case if it is true it has to be true for everyone. Anyone who wants to, decides to verify the actuality of can do so for themselves.

I think the confusion is that you are using the term "true" when what you mean is functional. Science tests a theory not to see if it's "true", but to see if it functions. If the theory functions, and does so repeatedly, then it can be used to produce another theory. And that theory will then be tested in it's turn. At no time in this process is truth being sought, nor is it presumed found. It's all about discerning what functions via the laws of physics, and what does not.

Scientism is an ideology based on the materialist presumption that the truth is a physical condition. So that the discernment of physical functionality is presumed the equivalent of the discerning 'truth'. Few actual scientists would cede this presumption, however. Scientism is basically the ideology of the scientific dilettante.

There are truth we can know, prove and validate. There is no need to be omnipotent to validate "material" truths.

I think you are confusing truth with factuality. The truth is ever-present and holistic, and it far exceeds our scope of comprehension. Facts are only perceived true relative to other facts, and all are only deemed true or false via our very own limited perception and comprehension of reality.

The point of the OP is for me to keep in mind this factual meaning of truth is not the same meaning as someone who uses the word truth as a more metaphysical term. Not to support science or materialism or Scientism.

Truth is a metaphysical concept. (Materialists do not agree with this, because they refuse to accept the transcendent reality of their own conscious cognition.)

 

[Ellen Brown]

I think the confusion is that you are using the term "true" when what you mean is functional. Science tests a theory not to see if it's "true", but to see if it functions. If the theory functions, and does so repeatedly, then it can be used to produce another theory. And that theory will then be tested in it's turn. At no time in this process is truth being sought, nor is it presumed found. It's all about discerning what functions via the laws of physics, and what does not.

Scientism is an ideology based on the materialist presumption that the truth is a physical condition. So that the discernment of physical functionality is presumed the equivalent of the discerning 'truth'. Few actual scientists would cede this presumption, however. Scientism is basically the ideology of the scientific dilettante.
I think you are confusing truth with factuality. The truth is ever-present and holistic, and it far exceeds our scope of comprehension. Facts are only perceived true relative to other facts, and all are only deemed true or false via our very own limited perception and comprehension of reality.
Truth is a metaphysical concept. (Materialists do not agree with this, because they refuse to accept the transcendent reality of their own conscious cognition.)

metaphysics is perhaps a reasonable way to see all of existence. Perhaps almost all of us see our existence in 3 or 4 dimensions, while it seems that reality is 11 to 15 dimensions that would challenge our conventional wisdom. I don't have a problem with that as it is plain that none of us know our posteriors from a hot rock.

 

[Nakosis]

I think the confusion is that you are using the term "true" when what you mean is functional. Science tests a theory not to see if it's "true", but to see if it functions. If the theory functions, and does so repeatedly, then it can be used to produce another theory. And that theory will then be tested in it's turn. At no time in this process is truth being sought, nor is it presumed found. It's all about discerning what functions via the laws of physics, and what does not.

I disagree. I constantly, with many others search for the truth of cause and effect. So I don't know exactly where this is coming from but this above statement is false.

Scientism is an ideology based on the materialist presumption that the truth is a physical condition. So that the discernment of physical functionality is presumed the equivalent of the discerning 'truth'. Few actual scientists would cede this presumption, however. Scientism is basically the ideology of the scientific dilettante.
I think you are confusing truth with factuality. The truth is ever-present and holistic, and it far exceeds our scope of comprehension. Facts are only perceived true relative to other facts, and all are only deemed true or false via our very own limited perception and comprehension of reality.

Truth is a metaphysical concept. (Materialists do not agree with this, because they refuse to accept the transcendent reality of their own conscious cognition.)

Sorry, "The truth is ever-present and holistic" I not sure what this is supposed to mean. The truth means something that is factual, actual. This definition seems simple enough. For religious folks, ok, I can understand their usage. No point in trying to force a materialist concept of truth on them. Your concept of truth, left field.

Ever-present. The only thing I see as ever present is change. Holistic? If your are going to demand a holistic truth, all I can say is good luck with that. There doesn't seem anything useful or practical if defining truth in such a manner.

 

[Nakosis]

metaphysics is perhaps a reasonable way to see all of existence. Perhaps almost all of us see our existence in 3 or 4 dimensions, while it seems that reality is 11 to 15 dimensions that would challenge our conventional wisdom. I don't have a problem with that as it is plain that none of us know our posteriors from a hot rock.

Right, and we should accept that maybe that there is not a "universal" truth we could ever come to know. However there are some truths we can know. I understand that some things you accept as truth needs no agreement from me. However there are some truths we can accept as actual and factual and can be directly proven.

Honestly I'm not big on using the word truth since it can mean almost the opposite of what one person might accept it to mean. Still others use it and it might be convenient understand that usage in conversations with other folks.

 

[shunyadragon]

While I liked the sentiment, @Ellen Brown,

There is a range of belief about the "Godhead". An adult will allow others to find their own truth.

How did this idea of one's own truth come about? In science this wouldn't fly.

In this case, in reference to the spiritual, does truth have a different meaning?

Definition of truth (Entry 1 of 2)
1a(1) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY
(2) : the state of being the case : FACT
(3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality

This 3rd meaning, "a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality" what does this even mean?

Though the word is not used in science definition #1 and #2 fit the objective verifiable evidence used in science. "In science this would not fly." This statement does not make sense in the context of the rest of you initial post.

Yes in 'reference to the spiritual, #3 fits religious claims of 'Truth.' I do not think you can equate the morals, ethics. or what is fashionable nor acceptable with the concepts of truth in the definitions.

So it's only spiritual belief where it can be considered ok, moral, fashionable, acceptable for one to have their own truth?

Really the idea that something exists apart far and not subject to the limitations of the material universe. So a belief in something that can't be tested, proven or validated.

One of the most erroneous assertions of many theists is that we as individual humans actually make their own search for 'truth.' as far as moral, ethics, fashionable (?) or acceptable. By far for the most issues of moral, ethics, fashionable (?) or acceptable is determined by the culture regardless of ones religious beliefs, and should not be equated with one's particular religious beliefs. Though religious beliefs over time may dominate a particular culture. There will be some variation within a culture, but mainly the evolution of morality and ethics is dominated by that culture regardless of hat individuals believe or in their search for 'truth(?)'.,

 

[Ellen Brown]

Right, and we should accept that maybe that there is not a "universal" truth we could ever come to know. However there are some truths we can know. I understand that some things you accept as truth needs no agreement from me. However there are some truths we can accept as actual and factual and can be directly proven.

Honestly I'm not big on using the word truth since it can mean almost the opposite of what one person might accept it to mean. Still others use it and it might be convenient understand that usage in conversations with other folks.

Most belief systems reject me, save the ones that are too unseated in reality for me. Living has become basic and finding what is pleasing to what I see as the Creator is all that matters to me, or I try to keep it that way. Most belief systems that I have at least some knowledge of seem to feel the compulsion to spoil the joy with excessive rules. Islam, Catholicism, Mormonism, Baptists, Lutherans and how many others, I don't know do I?

Forming my own religion at times seems right, but then I would have to cope with the compulsiveness of the other believers, and then would they murder me on a pole like another believer?

 

[Nakosis]

Most belief systems reject me, save the ones that are too unseated in reality for me. Living has become basic and finding what is pleasing to what I see as the Creator is all that matters to me, or I try to keep it that way. Most belief systems that I have at least some knowledge of seem to feel the compulsion to spoil the joy with excessive rules. Islam, Catholicism, Mormonism, Baptists, Lutherans and how many others, I don't know do I?

I suspect they are confused about truth and Truth as well.

Forming my own religion at times seems right, but then I would have to cope with the compulsiveness of the other believers, and then would they murder me on a pole like another believer?

I certainly hope not. You seem a decent person. Why would anybody want to go about harming decent folks because of a disagreement on a metaphysical truth.

 

[PureX]

I disagree. I constantly, with many others search for the truth of cause and effect. So I don't know exactly where this is coming from but this above statement is false.

Searching for it does not make it available to be found. We could search for the truth of "2", forever, for example. But that "2" will forever remain an ideal in our minds, rather than a material reality. Truth, justice, perfection, equality, infinity, "God"; these are all ideals that have no discernible physical reality. They are metaphysical conceptions of our experienced (actual) physicality.