Belief and Truth

[DSypherMe]

"Belief and Truth"

My intent is not to change what you believe, but to present my opinions and ideas and leave the choice up to you. Determine for yourself what you believe then seek to understand why you believe it.

I will begin with two terms that have been tossed around so casually that they have almost completely lost their meaning; Belief and Truth. In my opinion, "Belief is truth." Note, I did not say “belief is the Truth”. I make this distinction between “truth” and “The Truth” because I think they are two separate entities. It is the difference between what an individual personally believes and what actually is that separates “truth” from "The Truth”.

For example, when people believed the Earth was flat, did it affect the shape of the Earth? When people believed the Earth was the center of the universe, did it affect the position of the Earth in space relative to the other planets, the sun, and the rest of the Universe? No, the Earth is a sphere and it circles the sun and no matter what people believed to be truth, those beliefs had no affect on The Truth. If someone believes there is no god does that person's belief affect the existence of God in any way? No.

Another interesting aspect of belief is that an individual cannot believe something they know to be false. For example, astronauts cannot truly believe that the Earth is flat when they've seen the curvature of the Earth and watched the Earth spin below them. Neil Armstrong could not truly believe the moon was made of cheese when he walked on its surface and held the rocks of its surface in his hands. Billy Graham or Mother Teresa could not truly believe there is no God when they openly dedicated their lives in service to God.

Since you cannot believe something that you know to be false, then it stands to reason that if you believe in something then it is true . . . to you.

Although perspective defines individual truth, are there any global or universal beliefs that are shared by all people and therefore true for everyone? Perhaps, however, even some basic beliefs that many take for granted may not be believed by a select few. For example, try explaining color to someone who was born blind. For that matter, never having had the ability to see, a blind person might refute the existence of a mountain, the ocean, the moon, or the stars. These are easily verifiable “facts” to those with the ability to see them, but they can be believed to not exist by those who have never seen them. If a person born without sight believes that light does not exist, does that belief have any effect on the existence of light? No.
The Truth exists independently and it does not rely on the beliefs of people to exist.

“Truth” is an elusive thing and much of that which is called "truth" is simply believed to be true but not necessarily The Truth. Talk about a conundrum. If a person believes something to be the truth then it is the truth, for that person, however, it may not be The Truth. Take the news for example, how much of what is commonly called "news" is half truth, twisted, altered, bias, or just flat out lies? What is reported may be the truth then again it might not be. It would be near impossible to point out every newspaper retraction, news station mistake, or inaccurate magazine article, yet, when that incorrect information was reported, many who learned it believed it to be the truth until they were shown or told differently. If you believe it to be the truth, then to you, it is the truth. If you believe it to be a lie, then to you, it is a lie. Odd as it may be, a person can even speak the absolute truth while deceiving others and thus creating a lie without actually lying. They can spin the truth from a specific point of view to give the impression of something far from the truth. How can you define truth from lie if the only requirement for truth is belief?

Allow me give you a simple metaphor: If there was just a tiny amount of raw sewage or lethal poison in a gallon of clean drinking water, would you drink any of it? If just a small amount of what someone told you was confirmed lies would you believe anything you that person said without confirmation or even firsthand experiencing it for yourself? Deception and deceit are everywhere and defining truth is not something one person can do for another. Each person must evaluate every bit of information they receive and decide for themselves what they believe to be true. Only through personal experience can anyone know The Truth.

I am not saying that all beliefs are right, nor am I implying that “What is right for you may or may not be right for me.” This is not about “right and wrong”, but “truth and belief”. There is a difference between what is considered “Right” and what is “True”. Most people believe that they are interchangeable; the fact is they are not. The proof of this fact is in the various beliefs themselves and how they contradict each other. You can say, “I believe what you are saying is wrong” and you are free to do so, however if that is truly what you believe, then what makes what I have written wrong? As you are reading this, you must decide for yourself if you believe what I am saying to be true.

It is our environments, our lives, our circumstances, and our capabilities that provide us with what to believe, but it is our choice to believe it. Everything in life is a choice and everything we learn must be, for each of us, believed to be true or believed to be false. Only after you have chosen what to believe can you begin to define why you believe it. Every belief you have also has a reason why you believe it and it is that reason that holds all the conviction and strength of that belief. Without solid well thought out reasons your convictions will be weak and you will be easily swayed. I implore you, if you believe in something, research it, study it, and know it from every angle. Know the opinion of those who oppose your belief and be firm in the reasons why you believe it. Ignorance is not bliss, it is an excuse.

This theory of mine presents a possible reason why debates are so intensely heated. You see, all beliefs on all sides are true for those that believe them. In a debate the only purpose is to attempt to change a person's beliefs and therefore changing what is perceived to be the truth. This is the premise that preachers and politicians live by. They spread their beliefs in an attempt to change the beliefs of others, in essence convincing others of what they perceive to be the truth.

There is an additional facet of belief that many do not know or understand. You see, what you believe is not completely your choice. You do have the choice to believe or disbelieve a given piece of information that is presented to you, however, you do not have the choice of what information is provided to you and what information is denied to you and therefore cannot believe or disbelieve any information you have no knowledge of.

Take for example the metaphor of a table of food, you can choose to eat or drink anything that is placed on the table or nothing at all. However, you are not given any choice concerning what is not placed on the table and have no knowledge of any food or drink not provided. Each of us has our own table and our own choices. Some are only provided bread and water while others are given massive feasts to pick and choose as they wish. We each have the choice of what we wish to eat and drink, but have no control over what is provided.

To complicate things further, where and when you are born and raised will determine what beliefs are provided to you. Your environment directly affects your belief system and provides the information that you then choose to believe or disbelieve. If, for example, you were not born where and when you were born and not raised where and how you were raised, but instead, you were born and raised a slave in ancient Egypt, or a priest in the Mayan Empire, or a mason in Nan Madol then I would venture to guess your belief system (religious and/or political) would not be what it is now. Even small changes like being born at the same time but in a different place, or to a different family would likely affect your beliefs. What if your family and location were the same but you were born one hundred or even a thousand years in the past?
The source of each and every bit of information you receive is from your environment and it is because you have no control over that environment prior to your birth or during your early childhood (and only a limited control in your adult life) that you are not given the choice of what to believe. Even what you are reading right now is a part of your environment and you must choose to believe or disbelieve what I have written. Once you are given a piece of information you must make the choice.

Ask yourself:
“What do I believe, and more importantly, why do I believe it?”

Defining "what" you believe is a personal choice that is derived from your environment and your life experience; where you live, what you're taught, and what you learn. These things change throughout your life and with each new experience and each new piece of information you receive there is an effect on "what you believe" and, by association, the reason why you believe it. If you truly believe something, then you must also have a reason why you believe it. Each of us must not only choose what to believe but also define why we believe it.


Let the war of belief rage on as we as a species attempt to define the truth.

 

[juvenissun]

When you believe something is true, you better make a definition of that thing FIRST.

For example, a ball is a ball. But without a good definition, I can argue that the thing you called ball, is not really a ball.

 

[DSypherMe]

Definiations themselves are true only to those that accept them as true. If your choose to argue a ball being a ball and instead use the term sphere then both points of view would be true to the respective parties yet at the same time untrue to their opponents. The point of my post was not to argue the merits or demerits of what is "true" but to point out the difference between what is called "true" or "truth" and what is The Truth.

 

[3sigma]

Belief and Truth
[snip]

In essence, just because you believe your God is real, it doesn’t mean it’s true, correct?

 

[DSypherMe]

In essence, just because you believe your God is real, it doesn’t mean it’s true, correct?

Not really. I understand what you are getting at but if I belive my God is real, that belief is true...for me. Someone else may have a different or contridictive belief that I believe is false but that belief is true to that person. Whatever you believe is true, for you...however, believing in something has no effect on that which you believe in and therefore does not affect The Truth.

For example, lets say God A exists and God B does not. This is what we will call "The Truth", an absolute that cannot be altered. Person A believes in God A and person B believes in God B. They both believe the other person's God does not exist. Person B believes God A does not exist yet that person's belief has no effect on the existance of God A. Person B also believes that God B exists, however that belief does not bring into existance that which does not exist.

Beliefs are true to those that believe them but their beliefs do not affect The Truth.

 

[3sigma]

Not really. I understand what you are getting at but if I belive my God is real, that belief is true...for me.

I was using the word true to mean being in accordance with the actual state of affairs or being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed, which you appear to be calling “the Truth” for some reason. In other words, just because you believe your God is real doesn’t mean your belief is actually true, correct?

 

[juvenissun]

Definiations themselves are true only to those that accept them as true. If your choose to argue a ball being a ball and instead use the term sphere then both points of view would be true to the respective parties yet at the same time untrue to their opponents. The point of my post was not to argue the merits or demerits of what is "true" but to point out the difference between what is called "true" or "truth" and what is The Truth.

A ball is a sphere. So, an iron ball is a ball. True.

A ball can bounce (visible to naked eye). So an iron ball is not always a ball. True.

Is an iron ball a ball?

Most truth are conditional. I call that to be definition based.

Is there a truth which is unconditional? Is that what you called THE Truth? It means that even you do not believe it, it is still true.

Try this: Thou should not murder (other human). True or not always true?

 

[quatona]

Definiations themselves are true only to those that accept them as true. If your choose to argue a ball being a ball and instead use the term sphere then both points of view would be true to the respective parties yet at the same time untrue to their opponents. The point of my post was not to argue the merits or demerits of what is "true" but to point out the difference between what is called "true" or "truth" and what is The Truth.

Definitions are conventions, agreements for the purpose of successful communication. That´s all they are.

 

[wpage]

This is a Christian forum. There are threads for different elements amoung that belief.
So what is true for a Roman Catholic are not all the same for a Protestant which has its own many denomination.

We do share one truth that is a belief in Jesus Christ.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not really. I understand what you are getting at but if I belive my God is real, that belief is true...for me. Someone else may have a different or contridictive belief that I believe is false but that belief is true to that person. Whatever you believe is true, for you...however, believing in something has no effect on that which you believe in and therefore does not affect The Truth.

For example, lets say God A exists and God B does not. This is what we will call "The Truth", an absolute that cannot be altered. Person A believes in God A and person B believes in God B. They both believe the other person's God does not exist. Person B believes God A does not exist yet that person's belief has no effect on the existance of God A. Person B also believes that God B exists, however that belief does not bring into existance that which does not exist.

Beliefs are true to those that believe them but their beliefs do not affect The Truth.

Seems like a long-winded way of saying people sometimes genuinely believe stuff that's not true, and that no matter how hard they believe it doesn't change reality. Not sure why you'd use the word truth for this situation, though.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Reminds me of what I've read about Kierkegaard's theory of truth, small as it was. His phrase "Subjectivity is truth" aligns somewhat with this. To Kierkegaard there were objective truths, like say God, and there were subjective truths, which were individuals/subjects' beliefs about God in relation to it. In that sense, subjectivity is truth in that it's the only way we can really declare something to be truth, but we cannot determine absolutely whether something is true in and of itself, like God, for example.

 

[3sigma]

Not sure why you'd use the word truth for this situation, though.

Exactly. If someone believes something to be true that is not actually true then they are simply wrong.

 

[Gracchus]

A ball is a sphere. So, an iron ball is a ball. True.

But not all balls are spheres: e.g. footballs.

A ball can bounce (visible to naked eye). So an iron ball is not always a ball. True.

A ball that falls into deep mud usually doesn't bounce, and iron balls (e.g. cannon balls) have been observed bouncing. And I have observed an iron shot from the hand of a shot-putter bouncing. So, iron balls do bounce but sometimes balls do not bounce. So not only your premises but your reasoning are, once again, obviously flawed.

Is an iron ball a ball?

Yes. So is a ball of lead, or a ball of string.

Most truth are conditional.

In logic, a conclusion is "true" if it follows by the the rules of inference from the premises. But if the premises are false then the "true" conclusion may not correspond to reality. So, whether something is true depends on your definition of "true".

I call that to be definition based.

You can call a pig a piano if you demand that everyone use your definition.

Is there a truth which is unconditional? Is that what you called THE Truth? It means that even you do not believe it, it is still true.

Even if you believe you are reasoning correctly the truth is that you are not.

Try this: Thou should not murder (other human). True or not always true?

The truth is that many of those who thought it is always true have marched off to foreign lands and premeditatedly and willingly killed the inhabitants thereof. So, I guess if depends on whose definition of murder you want to use. But if murder has only one definition and if it is true that you should not murder, we might dispute the question but it could be that both of us are wrong.

I would argue that you cannot make truth assertions about statements including weasel-words like "should". Those are almost always disputable opinions. (That statement itself may be true or false. The premises are unclear and so is the reasoning. "This statement is false." True or false? "This statement should be false?" True or false?

It is equally pointless to try to assign truth values to statements are contradictory or even contrary to fact. (e.g."If leprechauns exist, they hide pots of gold at the end of the rainbow." True or false?; or, "If black is white, then invisible pink unicorns are blue." True or false?)

I think I'll go buy a bottle of bourbon.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The real 'truth' question is: Is God leading us towards our final destiny, or are we blindly finding our own way there?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

If I could take Kierkegaard's position and answer from that, it's kind of both. We're compelled by something that objectively exists, but we subjectively make the leap of faith without absolute certainty

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think mankinds perception of truth is like a person high on cocaine, who feels a sense of mental and physical well-being, and believes it is the 'truth', unaware of the big crash about to take place.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I wasn't denying that our perception of truth may present a vast disconnect with what the truth objectively is. That doesn't preclude that subjectivity presents truth in the most genuine sense we can find without trying to remove our human perspective. Just because I find truth in a way that is somewhat out of touch with how you have found truth does not mean we cannot both possess some fragment thereof that reflects truth as it is, even if we cannot conclusively demonstrate that it is so.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I wasn't denying that our perception of truth may present a vast disconnect with what the truth objectively is. That doesn't preclude that subjectivity presents truth in the most genuine sense we can find without trying to remove our human perspective. Just because I find truth in a way that is somewhat out of touch with how you have found truth does not mean we cannot both possess some fragment thereof that reflects truth as it is, even if we cannot conclusively demonstrate that it is so.

I agree totally. But I believe the overarching truth is that of God's truth. We mistake thoughts and actions that 'work for us' as truth when in fact they might not work in the long run. We often 'get away' with it for so long that we think of it as 'carved in stone truth'. God instructs us to 'consider that every man is a liar, and that only God is fully truthful'. Very good advice.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Pragmatic theory of truth is tricky, but not unworkable. I can determine that there are certain truths that work in particular contexts/situations and other truths that work certainly for another context/situation. General truths that apply to all situations are few and far between, especially if they can apply to various conflicting particular situations/positions.

One could consider every truth a potential falsehood and it could work just as well. A sort of soft relativism or perspectivism. A truth that seems to work might actually be false, but it is true in a limited sense, even if in a larger sense it may indeed be quite false. Tax fraud, for instance

 

[david_x]

tl;dr
(but now i'm subscribed. lul)