1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Faith and Reason

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by emeraldfin, Jan 12, 2010.

Tags:
  1. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,128
    43,023
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Soooo, I'm the blind one and you're the one that can see? That parable, completely proves my point.

    I find it hard to believe that you can actually accuse me of arrogance when you're the one claiming you have some superior comprehensive knowledge.

    If you re read my post, you'll find that I made no claim about your god being real or not. I'm talking about words and how you're using them improperly. That any of us can have absolute comprehensive knowledge of, in the form of a dictionary. A humble man, would not believe he has supreme knowledge and that others are wrong on matters of faith. A wise man would understand that communication is only as good as the definitions of the words he uses. You've shown yourself to be neither.
     
  2. BB Ocho

    BB Ocho Season Ticket Holder

    418
    159
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    Florence, SC
    If truth is relative, then the statement "Truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "Truth is relative" is false.

    It is true for me that relativism is false. I ask you, is it true that relativism is false?
     
  3. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    33,775
    23,774
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    If truth is relative, then there wouldn't be "absolutely true", thus the statement "Truth is relative" would be "relatively true".
     
    Fin D likes this.
  4. BB Ocho

    BB Ocho Season Ticket Holder

    418
    159
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    Florence, SC
    Thanks for helping us along Dupree. I think Relativism is self defeating and I hope you will take a shot at answering the question in the previous post of mine. Relativism seems to deny the very nature of truth, that truth is not self-contradictory.

    In this short conversation, I am saying that there is an "either-or" system, and by what you are saying that you are convinced that there is a "both-and" system to reality, and that if I were to critique your relativism ("both-and") I must adopt that framework and work within it, right?
     
  5. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    33,775
    23,774
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Relativism isn't self defeating it is self substaining.

    I answered your question. :)

    Relativism doesn't deny the very nature of truth. If it would deny anything, it would deny the ability of man to fully disclose what it is. For instance in your story, one person's absolute truth would be that the animal is a long snake, and the other truth would be the qualities of the leg. Both of them would be describing something that is "true", yet niether would be describing the whole truth. However they are not wrong, it is "both-and". Also neither of them could describe the entire elephant even if they were to get their hands around the entire thing. For instance they would not be able to describe the color. From their limited perspective they would never be able to see the color.

    In short, the only place where "either-or" works is on a computer. Even human beings have the ability to believe two ideas that are completely contridictory.

    Also to critique "either-or" I must adopt that framework and work within. That is the nature of an argument.
     
  6. BB Ocho

    BB Ocho Season Ticket Holder

    418
    159
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    Florence, SC
    ok, so you are saying that I must use either the "both-and" framework, or the "either-or" framework?
     
  7. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    33,775
    23,774
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    If you are going to argue for either side, then the argument must be contained in the framework.

    It would almost be like having an conversation about evolution and say that it falls apart because that isn't what the bible says.

    It doesn't make sense to say the "both-and" framework falls apart because in the "either-or" framework, "this, this and this".

    If the "both-and" framework collaspes upon itself, it must collapse upon itself within the idea of itself.
     
  8. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    I think we have the first thread for the new "Philosophy and Erudtion Forum!" :wink2: :up:
     
    BB Ocho likes this.
  9. BB Ocho

    BB Ocho Season Ticket Holder

    418
    159
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    Florence, SC
    Dupree, I appreciate the discussion! You have just validated my point by saying that you must use EITHER the "both-and" OR the "either-or" framework. You are using the "either-or" framework just to answer the question. If you don't see this then I don't know how else to show this to you.

    Which, I think, goes to my previous idea that Truth is by nature exclusive, the law of non-contradiction (either-or) is inescapable.

    Maybe, before we go further or leave this altogether I should ask what is your definition of truth? I would say truth is that which conforms to reality, or fact, or actuality. Or, if you'd like truth is not error, truth is not self-contradictory, truth is not deceptive.

    Also, the question I asked earlier was "If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?" I think that sidestepping from answering that question shows the inconsistency of relativism.
     
  10. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,128
    43,023
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    You are making a semantic circular argument. You cannot define "truth" without proof. The proof you personally require for a bit of info to become truth is different than mine. That is why "truth" is relative. It is because of the relative nature of truth, you cannot go around discounting other people's beliefs. If you want other people, to accept your truth, than prove it to their acceptable level of proof.

    The real problem with your way of thinking, is that if you honestly believe your's is the only truth and everyone else is wrong, than you've become intolerant of other people's beliefs. Last I checked, Jesus, wasn't big on intolerance.

    Simply put, trying to turn your beliefs into facts, means your faith is on a domino foundation. Meaning, if one thing in your belief structure, is proven to not be a fact, then your beliefs fall like dominoes. That is why, people like yourself, use the word "truth" when describing your beliefs. That is why faith healers have a following. That is weak faith. Any faith that requires fact, is not really faith at all. Its the same when, people of any faith, try to remove what they consider sin from everyone else's lives. If you cannot stand in the middle of temptation and not be swayed, then your faith isn't really that strong.
     
  11. BB Ocho

    BB Ocho Season Ticket Holder

    418
    159
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    Florence, SC
    John 14:6-7

    Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also"

    Jesus is either who he said he was, or not.

    And, one more thing. You are still saying that truth is relative, all the while discounting my truth (telling me I am wrong and such) which just proves my point that you innately know that truth is not relative. I don't think ideas should be treated equally, I am egalitarian regarding persons, and elitist regarding ideas. Just arguing with me as you are proves that you feel the same way, but you are cutting off the branch you are sitting on in order to point out that my "relative truth" is wrong.

    I appreciate the discussion and will leave it with Jesus' quote of who he said he is. In your view of truth, that was just his opinion because you see that he was wrong, a liar, or a lunatic.
     
  12. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,128
    43,023
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Again you're making circular semantic arguments.

    Let's clear this up. In the context of this discussion, we are talking about "truth" relative to beliefs. Now, if you want to lump your concept of your beliefs into a group away from this discussion, and more into "truths" as it pertains to gravity, water being wet, the sun rising and setting, than fine we can do that. However, if you want to bring your beliefs into that realm, then you must be able to scientifically prove your beliefs....which you can't.

    All of this is why, as I said for many posts now, you must understand the definitions of the words you're using.


    On a side note: I never said Jesus was "wrong, a liar, or a lunatic." Its quite telling you think i did.
     
    BB Ocho likes this.
  13. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    33,775
    23,774
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    You must use them in the context of our conversation. If you discuss baseball, you must use the rules of baseball. In the context of football baseball has little meaning. That does not mean that football does not exist. That is just the way the English language works in the realm of the discussion.

    The thing with an "both-and' idea, I can still use "either-or" since it is part of "both-and" and exclusive

    Even if there is an absolute truth, which there is in a "both-and" universe, the only way we could discuss it is in relative terms. We use a relative base communication system. If I have an apple in my hand and I tell you that I have an apple in my hand, the words "apple" and "hand" are not absolute truth. They are representations of what we have agreed on is an apple and what we agreed on as a hand. The word apple is not the apple. Just like if I were to explain my idea of the truth to you, it is not the truth as it is just a verbal representation.

    I didn't sidestep I answered it. You even have the answer in your question. Yes it is true for you, because it is relative.

    Relativism does not show inconsistency. It is very consistent.
     
  14. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    33,775
    23,774
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    The answer came to me a few days ago.

    My definition of the truth is, "truth is."

    I do not have fact in truth because fact is a shared delusion. I do not have reality in truth because the reality people generally speak of is a relative reality.

    I could go on more and more about explaining what I mean by, "truth is", however that would be going farther from truth as I would be writing down concepts.
     

Share This Page