How is truth determined?

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,310
16,145
Flyoverland
✟1,237,372.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Oh..silly me! But flaming me for making the mistake doesn't add anything meaningful to the discussion.
I tried to be nice about it and not 'flame' you. In a thread about how truth is determined one must be willing to give and take constructive criticism. This isn't an opinion piece after all.
 
Upvote 0

Jamesone5

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 7, 2019
1,758
318
Basin
✟97,413.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We know and believe that God created the universe. We are part of that creation, he gave his creation intelligence and understanding but to what limitation?

How do we know certain things about mathematics and the universe are true? Could we believe they are true but possibly be wrong? Can these types of truths change?

And for no confusion I'm not talking about Biblical truth, I am referring to truth in general.

There is no "truth in general".
There is only God's truth---- which you and I and everyone else will be judged by in the End.
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,191
Yorktown VA
✟176,342.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
this demonstrates that one thing we can definitively say is that truth is NOT what you read in Internet forums LOL

I've been geeking out on a podcast called "A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps", taught by a professor of philosophy of Kings College in London. He started the weekly podcast in 2012 (I think) with pre-Socratic thought, and is only up to the Renaissance. I just finished a series on the post-Socratic schools of Stoicism, Skepticism, Cynicism and now just getting into the Middle Platonists. So if anyone is interested, look up the podcast. I'd love to set up a discussion with folks on this.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,191
Yorktown VA
✟176,342.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
We know and believe that God created the universe. We are part of that creation, he gave his creation intelligence and understanding but to what limitation?

How do we know certain things about mathematics and the universe are true? Could we believe they are true but possibly be wrong? Can these types of truths change?

And for no confusion I'm not talking about Biblical truth, I am referring to truth in general.

In a sense, we ARE limited in what we can know "in truth". And what we may believe is true today may be superseded by what we learn tomorrow. Scientifically, we learn more each day but we continue to use even ancient beliefs to express truth. The early philosophers believed that the heart was where we thought. Even today, we have the expression from Emily Dickenson, "The Heart wants what it wants - or else it does not care". Yet we all know that it is our mind that wants what it wants, but heck, that's not very romantic. We can even discuss whether pleasure is good (Epicurus) or if virtue is good (Stoic). And to Stoics, acting virtuously was acting in accord with the universal Logos. Hrmmm, Logos, seems to appear somewhere else as I vaguely recall ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,814
10,795
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟833,237.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I tried to be nice about it and not 'flame' you. In a thread about how truth is determined one must be willing to give and take constructive criticism. This isn't an opinion piece after all.
It is always better to keep to the actual discussion and keep away from the "you" statements, which can sometimes cause a person to feel defensive and move the thread away from the purpose of the OP.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Site Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,985
12,068
East Coast
✟839,546.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I've been geeking out on a podcast called "A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps", taught by a professor of philosophy of Kings College in London. He started the weekly podcast in 2012 (I think) with pre-Socratic thought, and is only up to the Renaissance. I just finished a series on the post-Socratic schools of Stoicism, Skepticism, Cynicism and now just getting into the Middle Platonists. So if anyone is interested, look up the podcast. I'd love to set up a discussion with folks on this.

I concur that is fantastic pocast! And, so far, no gaps.:)
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Before the pagan 19th Century philosopher Descartes, truth was absolute, and to find the truth was to discover it through research and getting evidence. Either something was true or not true, based on the available evidence. Scientific laws (truth) were based on the discovery of evidence that proved it true and therefore a scientific law. Historical records were accepted as true according to the supported evidence. When evidence is presented in a court of law, it requires several corroborating witnesses to verify it.

But Descartes came up with a new take on truth. He proposed that true is what we believe it to be. This means that if I believe something is true, then it is true for me. This is how evolution got to be widely accepted in the scientific world, because evolutionary scientists adopted the philosophy of Descartes and decided that evolution was true for them, despite the lack of actual evidence to support it.

It is on the basis of Descartes' philosophy that we get people being contentious about material in the Bible, and when someone disagrees with their view, they say, "Oh that's just your interpretation". Even though much of the Bible is in clear literal text that says exactly what it means, those who hold to Descartes will come up with some other interpretation and say it is true for them, but not necessarily true for everyone. So, if the Scripture has Jesus saying: "I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except by Me." For those who believe that the literal text is objectively true because that is what Jesus actually said, those holding to Descartes will say, "That may be your interpretation, but what is true for me is that Jesus is not the only way to heaven, therefore Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus will also go to heaven as well according to their own faith". This is why, even in spite of the overwhelming historical and archaeological evidence to show that the Bible is objectively true, those who hold to subjective truth will ignore that evidence because the literal wording of the Bible is not true for them.
Interesting take on Descartes, one I've never heard and one I don't think is actually supported by the facts.

Descartes attempted to address the former issue via his method of doubt. His basic strategy was to consider false any belief that falls prey to even the slightest doubt. This “hyperbolic doubt” then serves to clear the way for what Descartes considers to be an unprejudiced search for the truth. This clearing of his previously held beliefs then puts him at an epistemological ground-zero. From here Descartes sets out to find something that lies beyond all doubt. He eventually discovers that “I exist” is impossible to doubt and is, therefore, absolutely certain. It is from this point that Descartes proceeds to demonstrate God’s existence and that God cannot be a deceiver. This, in turn, serves to fix the certainty of everything that is clearly and distinctly understood and provides the epistemological foundation Descartes set out to find. Descartes, Rene | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The short answer is that there are no absolutes apart from maths. The law of gravity seems absolute but it can be overcome. 2+2=4 is true wherever and whenever the sum is done.
I think a lot of smart people might disagree with that. There are 3 "laws of logic".

Law of non-contradiction.
Law of Identity
Law of the Excluded Middle

What Are the Three Laws of Logic?
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,285
Frankston
Visit site
✟727,630.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Interesting take on Descartes, one I've never heard and one I don't think is actually supported by the facts.

Descartes attempted to address the former issue via his method of doubt. His basic strategy was to consider false any belief that falls prey to even the slightest doubt. This “hyperbolic doubt” then serves to clear the way for what Descartes considers to be an unprejudiced search for the truth. This clearing of his previously held beliefs then puts him at an epistemological ground-zero. From here Descartes sets out to find something that lies beyond all doubt. He eventually discovers that “I exist” is impossible to doubt and is, therefore, absolutely certain. It is from this point that Descartes proceeds to demonstrate God’s existence and that God cannot be a deceiver. This, in turn, serves to fix the certainty of everything that is clearly and distinctly understood and provides the epistemological foundation Descartes set out to find. Descartes, Rene | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I think a lot of smart people might disagree with that. There are 3 "laws of logic".

Law of non-contradiction.
Law of Identity
Law of the Excluded Middle

What Are the Three Laws of Logic?
The problem with human reasoning is that mankind knows so little. What seems utterly reasonable and true today could be demonstrably false tomorrow. That's why there is a new science text book every year.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The problem with human reasoning is that mankind knows so little. What seems utterly reasonable and true today could be demonstrably false tomorrow. That's why there is a new science text book every year.
I don't know if that's a "human reasoning" problem, though our level of understanding and knowledge about how the universe works is certainly expanding at a high rate.

God is an eternal and infinite Being who created an absolutely amazing universe. We certainly are still only tapping the surface of its vastness. We learn more about so many topics on a regular basis as our knowledge and understanding is continually built upon those that came before us.

But our human reasoning hasn't changed. Us being created in the Image of God hasn't changed. The Truth of Scripture and God's nature haven't changed.

One of the essential attributes of God is that His character is immutable. Meaning, He doesn't change. So we can have confidence in Him and what He has revealed to us as it pertains to our personal relationship with Him and the future of our existence.

But you're certainly right that our knowledge of the universe that God created is growing at an exceptional rate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,814
10,795
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟833,237.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Interesting take on Descartes, one I've never heard and one I don't think is actually supported by the facts.

Descartes attempted to address the former issue via his method of doubt. His basic strategy was to consider false any belief that falls prey to even the slightest doubt. This “hyperbolic doubt” then serves to clear the way for what Descartes considers to be an unprejudiced search for the truth. This clearing of his previously held beliefs then puts him at an epistemological ground-zero. From here Descartes sets out to find something that lies beyond all doubt. He eventually discovers that “I exist” is impossible to doubt and is, therefore, absolutely certain. It is from this point that Descartes proceeds to demonstrate God’s existence and that God cannot be a deceiver. This, in turn, serves to fix the certainty of everything that is clearly and distinctly understood and provides the epistemological foundation Descartes set out to find. Descartes, Rene | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I think a lot of smart people might disagree with that. There are 3 "laws of logic".

Law of non-contradiction.
Law of Identity
Law of the Excluded Middle

What Are the Three Laws of Logic?
I probably gave a pretty simplistic view of his philosophy. But around that time there certainly was a shift in secular philosophy from objective truth to subjective truth - from truth being what is objectively true to being true if we believe it to be true. That was the point I was wanting to make. The subjective view of truth is often seen in comments like: "That is your interpretation" in response to a literal statement in Scripture. For example: I might quote the Scripture, " I [Jesus] am the way, the truth and the life, and no man comes to the Father except by me" to show that a person can be saved only by faith alone in Jesus Christ. A responder may say: "That is just your interpretation. I believe that there are many ways to come to God, and Jesus is just one way." What has happened is that the objective truth that Jesus Christ is the only way to God has changed to the subjective "Your belief is that Jesus is the only way, therefore it is true for you; but for me, Jesus is just one of the ways, and that is true for me."
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I probably gave a pretty simplistic view of his philosophy. But around that time there certainly was a shift in secular philosophy from objective truth to subjective truth - from truth being what is objectively true to being true if we believe it to be true. That was the point I was wanting to make. The subjective view of truth is often seen in comments like: "That is your interpretation" in response to a literal statement in Scripture. For example: I might quote the Scripture, " I [Jesus] am the way, the truth and the life, and no man comes to the Father except by me" to show that a person can be saved only by faith alone in Jesus Christ. A responder may say: "That is just your interpretation. I believe that there are many ways to come to God, and Jesus is just one way." What has happened is that the objective truth that Jesus Christ is the only way to God has changed to the subjective "Your belief is that Jesus is the only way, therefore it is true for you; but for me, Jesus is just one of the ways, and that is true for me."
Well, I certainly agree that Truth has been under attack for quite a while, though I don't think I would target Descartes as the culprit of shift!
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,285
Frankston
Visit site
✟727,630.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
I don't know if that's a "human reasoning" problem, though our level of understanding and knowledge about how the universe works is certainly expanding at a high rate.

God is an eternal and infinite Being who created an absolutely amazing universe. We certainly are still only tapping the surface of its vastness. We learn more about so many topics on a regular basis as our knowledge and understanding is continually built upon those that came before us.

But our human reasoning hasn't changed. Us being created in the Image of God hasn't changed. The Truth of Scripture and God's nature haven't changed.

One of the essential attributes of God is that His character is immutable. Meaning, He doesn't change. So we can have confidence in Him and what He has revealed to us as it pertains to our personal relationship with Him and the future of our existence.

The OP specifically wanted to speak about truth generally, not according to God's word. God is true. Man is flawed. Pilate asked the question, "What is truth?" For unbelievers, that is still a question that they cannot answer.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The OP specifically wanted to speak about truth generally, not according to God's word. God is true. Man is flawed. Pilate asked the question, "What is truth?" For unbelievers, that is still a question that they cannot answer.
The three laws of logic I referenced above are true regardless of religious beliefs. I disagree that unbelievers don’t know what truth is.

Truth is that which corresponds to reality.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Euodius

Are you kitten me right meow?
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2019
426
341
Stafford
✟49,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
We know and believe that God created the universe. We are part of that creation, he gave his creation intelligence and understanding but to what limitation?

How do we know certain things about mathematics and the universe are true? Could we believe they are true but possibly be wrong? Can these types of truths change?

And for no confusion I'm not talking about Biblical truth, I am referring to truth in general.

Man has always been fascinated by ultimate things--life, death, the origin of the world--and his discoveries in other fields of knowledge have given him confidence to assume that some day these mysteries will also yield to the power of his intellect. Such pride of mind, however, can only lead away from the truth, which, according to Orthodox teaching, is the aim and foundation of all true knowledge. How is such knowledge acquired? Here we have part of a longer essay by the renowned Serbian theologlan of blessed memory, Archimandrite Justin Popovich (+1979), in which he distills the writings of Saint Isaac the Syrian on the Orthodox theology of knowledge. Briefly, he explains that because man's understanding became darkened through sin, through consorting with evil, he became incapable of true knowledge. Man can come to this knowledge only when his soul (the seat of understanding) is healed. This is made possible by means of the virtues, and the primary virtue in this remedial process is faith. 'Through faith, the mind, which was previously dispersed among the passions, is concentrated, freed from sensuality, and endowed with peace and humility of thought .... It is by the ascesis of faith that a man conquers egotism, steps beyond the bounds of self, and enters into a new, transcendent reality which also transcends subjectivity." In separate sections, Fr. Justin discusses prayer, humility, love and grace, all requisite companions of faith, before leading the reader into "The Mystery of Knowledge," which we have reprinted below with slight abbreviations.

According to the teaching of St. Isaac the Syrian, there are two sorts of knowledge: that which precedes faith and that which is born of faith. The former is natural knowledge and involves the discernment of good and evil. The latter is spiritual knowledge and is "the perception of the mysteries,'' "the perception of what is hidden," "the contemplation of the invisible."

There are also two sorts of faith: the first comes through hearing and is confirmed and proven by the second, "the faith of contemplation," "the faith that is based on what has been seen." In order to acquire spiritual knowledge, a man must first be freed from natural knowledge. This is the work of faith. It is by the ascesis of faith that there comes to man that "unknown power" that makes him capable of spiritual knowledge. If a man allows himself to be caught in the web of natural knowledge, it is more difficult for him to free himself from it than to cast off iron bonds, and his life is lived "against the edge of a sword."

When a man begins to follow the path of faith, he must lay aside once and for all his old methods of knowing, for faith has its own methods. Then natural knowledge ceases and spiritual knowledge takes its place. Natural knowledge is contrary to faith, for faith, and all that comes from faith, is "the destruction of the laws of knowledge'--though not of spiritual, but of natural knowledge.

The chief characteristic of natural knowledge is its approach by examination and experimentation. This is in itself "a sign of uncertainty about the truth." Faith, on the contrary, follows a pure and simple way of thought that is far removed from all guile and methodical examination. These two paths lead in opposite directions. The house of faith is "childlike thoughts and simplicity of heart," for it is said, "Glorify God in simplicity of heart" (cf . Col. 3:22), and: Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:3). Natural knowledge stands opposed bot h to simplicity of heart and simp licity of thought. This knowledge only works within the limits of nature, "but faith has its own path beyond nature."

The more a man devotes himself to the ways of natural knowledge, the more he is seized on by fear and the less can he free himself from it. But if he follows faith, he is immediately freed and "as a son of God, has the power to make free use of all things." "The man who loves this faith acts like God in the use of all created things," for to faith is given the power "to be like God in making a new creation." Thus it is written: "Thou desiredst, and all things are presented before thee" (cf. Job 23:13). Faith can often "bring forth all things out of nothing," while knowledge can do nothing "without the help of matter." Knowledge has no power over nature, but faith has such power. Armed with faith, men have entered into the fire and quenched the flames, being untouched by them. Others have walked on the waters as on dry land. All these things are "beyond nature"; they go against the modes of natural knowledge and reveal the vanity of such modes. Faith "moves about above nature." The ways of natural knowledge ruled the world for more than 5,000 years, and man was unable to "lift his gaze from the earth and understand the might of his Creator" until "our faith arose and delivered us from the shadows of the works of this world" and from a fragmented mind. He who has faith "will lack nothing," and, when he has nothing, "he possesses all things by faith," as it is written: All things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive (Matt. 21:22); and also; The Lord is near; be anxious for nothing (Phil. 4:6).

Natural laws do not exist for faith. St. Isaac emphasizes this very strongly: All things are possible to him that believeth (Mark 9:23), for with God nothing is impossible .... To step beyond the limits of nature and to enter into the realm of the supernatural is considered to be against nature, as something irrational and impossible .... Nevertheless, this natural knowledge, according to St. Isaac, is not at fault. It is not to be rejected. It is just that faith is higher than it is. This knowledge is only to be condemned in so far as, by the different means it uses, it turns against faith. But when this knowledge "is joined with faith, becoming one with her, clothing itself in her burning thoughts," when it "acquires wings of passionlessness," then, using other means than natural ones, it rises up from the earth "into the realm of its Creator," into the supernatural. This knowledge is then fulfilled by faith and receives the power to "rise to the heights," to perceive him who is beyond all perception and to "see the brightness that is incomprehensible to the mind and knowledge of created beings." Knowledge is the level from which a man rises up to the heights of faith. When he reaches these heights, he has no more need of it - for it is written: We know in part, but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away (I Cor. 13:9-10). Faith reveals to us now the truth of perfection, as if it were before our eyes. It is by faith that we learn that which is beyond our grasp -by faith and not by enquiry and the power of knowledge. /... /

There are three spiritual modes in which knowledge rises and falls, and by which it moves and changes. These are the body, the soul, and the spirit .... At its lowest level, knowledge "follows the desires of the flesh," concerning itself with riches, vainglory, dress, repose of body, and the search for rational wisdom. This knowledge invents the arts and sciences and all that adorns the body in this visible world. But in all this, such knowledge is contrary to faith. It is known as "mere knowledge, for it is deprived of all thought of the divine and, by its fleshly character, brings to the mind an irrational weakness, because in it the mind is overcome by the body and its entire concern is for the things of this world." It is puffed up and filled with pride, for it refers every good work to itself and not to God. That which the Apostle said, knowledge puffeth up (I Cor. 8:1), was

Faith presents a new way of thinking, through which is effected all the work of knowing in the believing man. This new way of thinking is humility .... It is by humility that the intellect is healed and made whole... The humble man is the fount of the mysteries of the new age.

Obviously said of this knowledge, which is not linked with faith and hope in God, and not of true knowledge. True, spiritual knowledge, linked with humility, brings to perfection the soul of those who have acquired it, as is seen in Moses, David, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, and all those who, within the limits of human nature, were counted worthy of this perfect knowledge.

- St. Justin Popovich - the Mystery of Knowledge
 
Upvote 0