Is there Objective Morality?

[ottawak]

What did you mean by imposing then?



1. That's a terrible argument. This is a Christian discussion forum....not an Antifa message board

2. Would you like some examples?

3. Again, what do you mean by imposing?

An anonymous rock through the front window would be typical.

 

[ottawak]

What do you mean by variant claims.

How any different Protestant denominations are there?

 

[Ken-1122]

Not really. Jesus claimed He was the "Truth" above all other claimed truths. Today's idea of truth in a postmodern society in a subjective/relative one. In other words they claim there is no truth and that many truths apply. So making a claim that there is only one "truth" is different.

It depends on the issue in question. For some issues there may be one truth, but for others it can be different for different people. The problem is when you have someone claiming a truth that cannot be verified or proven to be true; like we’re just supposed to take their word for it.

Its either true or its a lie. Seeming this claim comes from the same faith that states "thou shall not lie" its a pretty significant claim compared to all other faiths..

Really? So because someone says you shouldn’t lie, you shouldn’t lie, you assume that person will tell the truth 100% of the time? C’mon you know better than that!

 

[Ken-1122]

One can breach the law of gravity by jumping off a building and will suffer the consequence. Just like one can breach the law of murder and suffer the consequence. Its just another kind of fact or law that is part of reality.

100% of the people breaching the law of gravity by jumping off a building will suffer the consequences, most who have breached the law of murder suffer no consequences at all; as a matter of fact, in the criminal world; many who commit murder are rewarded for their acts.

I don't get what you mean. We know the difference between right and wrong, we have a conscience and free will. That's the difference between us and animals and robots.

Are you sure about that? In the real world, how often do we disagree on the difference between right vs wrong?

 

[Hans Blaster]

100% of the people breaching the law of gravity by jumping off a building will suffer the consequences, most who have breached the law of murder suffer no consequences at all; as a matter of fact, in the criminal world; many who commit murder are rewarded for their acts.


Are you sure about that? In the real world, how often do we disagree on the difference between right vs wrong?

Sorry Ken. To quote Mr. Scott: "You canna break the laws of physics."

On the other hand... you can *attempt* to break the laws of physics and the consequences can be quite severe.

 

[Ken-1122]

Sorry Ken. To quote Mr. Scott: "You canna break the laws of physics."

On the other hand... you can *attempt* to break the laws of physics and the consequences can be quite severe.

You've made 2 points that align with everything I've said; so why the apology?

 

[stevevw]

It depends on the issue in question. For some issues there may be one truth, but for others it can be different for different people.

or there maybe be different truths in different domains of life such as scientific truths, abstract truths, experiential truths or logical truths.

The problem is when you have someone claiming a truth that cannot be verified or proven to be true; like we’re just supposed to take their word for it.

Not really though when it comes to belief this is not without support. Also abstract truths. We can support their truth such as in math and ethics. Just not in the same way science verifies things. But nevertheless its still a truth that can be supported in other ways. Then there's experiential truth. We experience colors or love and we believe that our partner is faithful. But try proving those things scientifically.

Really? So because someone says you shouldn’t lie, you shouldn’t lie, you assume that person will tell the truth 100% of the time? C’mon you know better than that!

When it comes to Christ yes, He is without sin. So Christ is either lying or He is making a truth claim. But if there is no sin in Him then he cannot make a false claim. Yes it comes down to faith in accepting or rejecting that claim but that is the same for most claims.

You can get only so much evidence and some things we cannot get any evidence that will satisfy someone 100%. So there is a degree of faith involved. But we live this way with many aspects of life. You have to take someones word sometimes.

 

[stevevw]

100% of the people breaching the law of gravity by jumping off a building will suffer the consequences, most who have breached the law of murder suffer no consequences at all; as a matter of fact, in the criminal world; many who commit murder are rewarded for their acts.

Actually people who murder do suffer consequences even if they get away with it or think its rewarding. It takes a certain mind to murder, one that is not conducive with a integrated and well balanced person. If they don't suffer the consequences of the law they will through a guilty conscience and this will come out in one way or another. If they don't then there was something wrong with them to begin with.

Are you sure about that? In the real world, how often do we disagree on the difference between right vs wrong?

Do we really disagree though. If we take the core moral truths like murder, rape, stealing, lying etc and compare those with being kind, honest and loving I think we can safely tell the difference and realize one set of behavior is better than the other. You don't need a test tube to realize that. That's why we make them law including Human Rights laws and apply them to everyone regardless of personal views.

 

[stevevw]

How any different Protestant denominations are there?

I don't think that matters. On the core beliefs all Christian denominations share the same beliefs. The disputes are often about the details. Like whether God created the world in 7 days or over a long time. But they all believe God is the creator which is the important factors of that belief.

 

[Ken-1122]

Not really though when it comes to belief this is not without support. Also abstract truths. We can support their truth such as in math and ethics. Just not in the same way science verifies things. But nevertheless its still a truth that can be supported in other ways. Then there's experiential truth. We experience colors or love and we believe that our partner is faithful. But try proving those things scientifically.

I never suggested truth needs to be proven scientifically. But there are those who make empty claims and expect you to take their word for it.

When it comes to Christ yes, He is without sin. So Christ is either lying or He is making a truth claim.

How do you know Christ is without sin? Because some guys wrote books claiming he was without sin? How do you know those guys were being truthful?

But if there is no sin in Him then he cannot make a false claim. Yes it comes down to faith in accepting or rejecting that claim but that is the same for most claims.

Ahh so it’s all about faith huh? My problem with faith is that there is no means of establishing the truth.

You can get only so much evidence and some things we cannot get any evidence that will satisfy someone 100%. So there is a degree of faith involved. But we live this way with many aspects of life. You have to take someones word sometimes.

Do you know the biggest difference between the truth and a lie? From my experience, the truth never asks to be believed; that’s what lies do. The truth asks to be tested. The truth wants to be picked apart, studied, analyzed, the truth wants to be verified! Because once you’ve done all of that; belief comes natural.

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually people who murder do suffer consequences even if they get away with it or think its rewarding. It takes a certain mind to murder, one that is not conducive with a integrated and well balanced person. If they don't suffer the consequences of the law they will through a guilty conscience and this will come out in one way or another. If they don't then there was something wrong with them to begin with.

Is this an empty claim? Or do you have some empirical evidence showing 100% of the people who commit what YOU call murder are mentally deranged? If you have evidence, please present it.

Do we really disagree though. If we take the core moral truths like murder, rape, stealing, lying etc and compare those with being kind, honest and loving I think we can safely tell the difference and realize one set of behavior is better than the other. You don't need a test tube to realize that. That's why we make them law including Human Rights laws and apply them to everyone regardless of personal views.

What one person may call murder, rape or stealing; another person will call it justified killing, making love, or taking what is rightfully theirs. What one person calls honest, or loving, another person might call insulting and mean. In the real world, we often disagree on right vs wrong.

 

[stevevw]

I never suggested truth needs to be proven scientifically. But there are those who make empty claims and expect you to take their word for it.

Of course and we should not blindly believe any truth. but what I think a lot of people do is find it hard to be open to other ways of knowing how reality works. they find it hard to imagine truth beyond empiricism and materialism. I guess dominant western culture is heavily based on a scientific material view of reality. Science and tech have been very successful and in some ways people believe in the ability of science to account for everything similar to how people believe in gods.

How do you know Christ is without sin? Because some guys wrote books claiming he was without sin? How do you know those guys were being truthful?

We have ample evidence of Christs claims. One was Christ claimed he was the Son of the old testament God, the Messiah. So there is general consensus that Christ made this claim as being the Messiah and then crucified by Pontius Pilate for this claim from biblical and none biblical sources.

Even the Jews who were a hostile witness to Jesus and the Muslims acknowledge Jesus and that he was crucified. The Jews say Jesus was not the Messiah as claimed. So in refuting Jesus as Messiah they were acknowledging that Jesus was regarded as the Messiah at the time.

So basically Christ was crucified an innocent man for the claim of being the Son of God and this is why he wore the crown of thorns as the Messiah King of the Jews. That's unless your a conspiracy alarmist and want to claim that Jesus wasn't innocent and there was some heinous crime he did that was worthy of crucifixion.

Ahh so it’s all about faith huh? My problem with faith is that there is no means of establishing the truth.

There is no means for establishing many things we regard as truth and yet we regard them as truth. For example we believe there is a color red but there is no way to test that. Are we to say because we have to believe there is a color red that there is no such color.

The same for many experiences we have. The same for 'love'. How do you prove there is such a thing as love or pain. There is no chemical or electrical signal. Yet its as real as the chair your sitting on when writing this post.

Even science takes belief because we can never step outside our reality to see is science is the real measure of reality. Reality maybe be a complex mixture of experiences, senses and psychology and there may be forces beyond sciences ability to measure like consciousness that influence the way we see things at the subconscious.

Do you know the biggest difference between the truth and a lie? From my experience, the truth never asks to be believed; that’s what lies do. The truth asks to be tested. The truth wants to be picked apart, studied, analyzed, the truth wants to be verified! Because once you’ve done all of that; belief comes natural.

That doesn't seem to follow. The biggest protestors of injustice are those who have been unjustly accused. Sometimes their fight goes on for years. Its those who fight for their rights who are standing on the truth because liars are not worthy and they know it in the end.

 

[stevevw]

Is this an empty claim? Or do you have some empirical evidence showing 100% of the people who commit what YOU call murder are mentally deranged? If you have evidence, please present it.

I never said that all murderers are mentally deranged. I said those who murder will be psychologically affected in some way. We are talking about the unjustified killing of another which is a significant event.

Seeming that even people who accidentally kill suffer psychological harm it follows that people who murder will suffer psychological harm even more so as they have taken a life through malice and violence and their conscience will cause them mental torment. If they don't feel anything then that is what we may call a psychopath.

The psychology of inflicting harm to others or taking a life in the line of duty is complex and impacts several aspects of the individual’s life. In addition to the potentially traumatic nature of killing or injuring another individual.
The impact of killing and injuring others on mental health symptoms among police officers

According to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in his book, On Killing, it turns out that people, including soldiers, are not “naturally born” to pull the trigger.
Being responsible for ending the life of another human is a significant source of trauma;
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/...h-becomes-us-the-psychological-trauma-killing

What one person may call murder, rape or stealing; another person will call it justified killing, making love, or taking what is rightfully theirs.

I doubt that rape equates to making love as rape in against a persons consent and with force. That's not love. If someone takes back what was rightfully theirs then I don't think we can call this stealing. The differences in taking another life are clear and set out by the law. Murder is different to manslaughter and negligent homicide is different again. There are clear guidelines to differentiate.

What one person calls honest, or loving, another person might call insulting and mean. In the real world, we often disagree on right vs wrong.

No on these core morals there are clear differences and these are set out in the law and by social and moral norms .

 

[Kylie]

Of course and we should not blindly believe any truth. but what I think a lot of people do is find it hard to be open to other ways of knowing how reality works. they find it hard to imagine truth beyond empiricism and materialism. I guess dominant western culture is heavily based on a scientific material view of reality. Science and tech have been very successful and in some ways people believe in the ability of science to account for everything similar to how people believe in gods.

Yet such a truth is impossible to verify.

We have ample evidence of Christs claims. One was Christ claimed he was the Son of the old testament God, the Messiah. So there is general consensus that Christ made this claim as being the Messiah and then crucified by Pontius Pilate for this claim from biblical and none biblical sources.

Even the Jews who were a hostile witness to Jesus and the Muslims acknowledge Jesus and that he was crucified. The Jews say Jesus was not the Messiah as claimed. So in refuting Jesus as Messiah they were acknowledging that Jesus was regarded as the Messiah at the time.

So basically Christ was crucified an innocent man for the claim of being the Son of God and this is why he wore the crown of thorns as the Messiah King of the Jews. That's unless your a conspiracy alarmist and want to claim that Jesus wasn't innocent and there was some heinous crime he did that was worthy of crucifixion.

There is very little evidence from the real world to support the claims about Jesus put forward in the Bible. But that discussion would be taking this thread off topic.

There is no means for establishing many things we regard as truth and yet we regard them as truth. For example we believe there is a color red but there is no way to test that. Are we to say because we have to believe there is a color red that there is no such color.

We can measure the wavelength of light and assign a particular value to "red".

Of course, what one person calls red, someone else might call magenta. Where do you draw the line?

The same for many experiences we have. The same for 'love'. How do you prove there is such a thing as love or pain. There is no chemical or electrical signal. Yet its as real as the chair your sitting on when writing this post.

Science says otherwise...

15 Effects of Love on Your Brain and Body
7 physical and psychological changes that happen when you fall in love
This is your brain on love: the beautiful neuroscience of romance | BBC Science Focus Magazine

Even science takes belief because we can never step outside our reality to see is science is the real measure of reality. Reality maybe be a complex mixture of experiences, senses and psychology and there may be forces beyond sciences ability to measure like consciousness that influence the way we see things at the subconscious.

You don't really expect people to accept that "reality exists" is a claim made with just as much faith as "God exists," do you?

That doesn't seem to follow. The biggest protestors of injustice are those who have been unjustly accused. Sometimes their fight goes on for years. Its those who fight for their rights who are standing on the truth because liars are not worthy and they know it in the end.

And when was the last time you saw a guilty person saying, "Look at the evidence"?

 

[stevevw]

Yet such a truth is impossible to verify.

I think we've been down this road before and it goes nowhere. But I will say that there are impossible to verify ideas in science and yet we don't abandon these ideas. We live by many impossible to verify truths which affect our lives and make a difference to reality.

There is very little evidence from the real world to support the claims about Jesus put forward in the Bible. But that discussion would be taking this thread off topic.

Yet there is real world evidence of Jesus which most scholars agree with. Even hostile witnesses attest to this. The Jews for example were irate at the claim that Jesus was the Messiah and this is found in their own text. They say he was a sorcerer and a trouble maker and acknowledge he was crucified. But most important they say He was not the Messiah they were waiting for. Why would they refute the claim if it wasn't made.

It is relevant because its an example of a truth that cannot be completely tested to a scientific satisfaction. Yet lived experience shows it was a real claim and one that demands attention considering it is coming from one of the worlds most famous person in history who stood on the platform that lying was a sin.

We can measure the wavelength of light and assign a particular value to "red".

But all that does is describe red technically. But it doesn't actually explain the color red itself as we experience it. For example you can be color blind and know all the facts about color but never know what red is.

The color red cannot be reduced to its physical components because its experienced and experience doesn't have physical components. Yet the color red is a real phenomena.

Of course, what one person calls red, someone else might call magenta. Where do you draw the line?

That's not the point. The point is that we can experience colors in the first place as a real phenomena when there is no scientific explanation for how that happens. Yet its a fact that we experience the color red. You can know all there is to know about the mechanical functioning of colors experiencing color

Science says otherwise...

15 Effects of Love on Your Brain and Body
7 physical and psychological changes that happen when you fall in love
This is your brain on love: the beautiful neuroscience of romance | BBC Science Focus Magazine

All those explanations are mechanical and don't explain the experience of love which is a different thing to brain chemistry and signals.

Otherwise if it was just about mechanical processes like a robot we should then be able to build a robot that can love or experience red and music and have a conscious experience of itself. This would be impossible through robotics because conscious experience is more than the sum of mechanical processes.

You don't really expect people to accept that "reality exists" is a claim made with just as much faith as "God exists," do you?

Why what is reality. I don't think we can even know what reality is let alone have enough evidence to prove to us that it exists in a specific way such as only being material reality. We can never step outside our own reality to confirm it is as we perceive it. So therefore we do have a degree of faith because we can never completely confirm reality.

And when was the last time you saw a guilty person saying, "Look at the evidence"?

Exactly. Why would a guilty person say 'look at the evidence' when they know it won't look good for him.

 

[Ken-1122]

Of course and we should not blindly believe any truth. but what I think a lot of people do is find it hard to be open to other ways of knowing how reality works. they find it hard to imagine truth beyond empiricism and materialism.

That’s because materialism and empiricism is the only way things can be confirmed as true. Everything else requires faith, assumption, or imagination; terrible ways of establishing the truth.

I guess dominant western culture is heavily based on a scientific material view of reality. Science and tech have been very successful and in some ways people believe in the ability of science to account for everything similar to how people believe in gods.

No, belief in God claims require faith, belief in Science claims do not.

We have ample evidence of Christs claims.

The problem with Jesus is that he never wrote anything down. The only thing we know about him is what other people said about him. A lot of people said lots of stuff about him, and these claims do not align. So I disagree, we don't know what Jesus actually said.

One was Christ claimed he was the Son of the old testament God, the Messiah. So there is general consensus that Christ made this claim as being the Messiah and then crucified by Pontius Pilate for this claim from biblical and none biblical sources.

That is according to the men who wrote the books that eventually became the bible. What about those men who wrote the books that eventually became the Gnostic gospels, or the Holy Quran? According to those men, Jesus never even made those claims. How come don't you accept their claims on faith?

Even the Jews who were a hostile witness to Jesus and the Muslims acknowledge Jesus and that he was crucified.

No. According to the Muslims, the Jews were conspiring to crucify him, but Allah took him directly to Heaven before they could do it (sorta how Christians believe Elijah was taken directly to heaven)

The Jews say Jesus was not the Messiah as claimed. So in refuting Jesus as Messiah they were acknowledging that Jesus was regarded as the Messiah at the time.

To his followers maybe, but going by that logic, Jim Jones (Jonestown of the 1970’s) said he was the Messiah, many Christian leaders said he was not, but by refusing him as Messiah, they were acknowledging Jim Jones was regarded as the Messiah at that time

So basically Christ was crucified an innocent man for the claim of being the Son of God and this is why he wore the crown of thorns as the Messiah King of the Jews. That's unless your a conspiracy alarmist and want to claim that Jesus wasn't innocent and there was some heinous crime he did that was worthy of crucifixion.

Or… that the men who made those claims were not telling the truth.

There is no means for establishing many things we regard as truth and yet we regard them as truth. For example we believe there is a color red but there is no way to test that. Are we to say because we have to believe there is a color red that there is no such color.

You test the color red by looking at it

The same for many experiences we have. The same for 'love'. How do you prove there is such a thing as love or pain. There is no chemical or electrical signal. Yet its as real as the chair your sitting on when writing this post.

Love and pain are personal feelings. You may not be able to prove it to others, but you can prove it to yourself

That doesn't seem to follow. The biggest protestors of injustice are those who have been unjustly accused. Sometimes their fight goes on for years. Its those who fight for their rights who are standing on the truth because liars are not worthy and they know it in the end.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Ken-1122]

I never said that all murderers are mentally deranged. I said those who murder will be psychologically affected in some way. We are talking about the unjustified killing of another which is a significant event.

And what constitutes an unjust killing? Is a soldier killing during war unjust? How about a cop trying to stop a crime? How about if someone breaks into your house attempting to do you harm, and you accidentally kill him in the process? How about if he isn’t in your house but is on your property threatening to harm you? Are you sure you want to claim everybody who commits what is considered murder will be psychologically affected?

I doubt that rape equates to making love as rape in against a persons consent and with force. That's not love.

Are you sure? If a 19 year old guy has consensual sex with his 17 year old girl friend in the State of California, that is rape. Move next door to the State of Nevada, and it’s called making love.

If someone takes back what was rightfully theirs then I don't think we can call this stealing.

Many people have had their property legally taken from them and given to another due to unjust judgments. For that person to take that property back is called stealing.

The differences in taking another life are clear and set out by the law. Murder is different to manslaughter and negligent homicide is different again. There are clear guidelines to differentiate.

Actually depending on the circumstances, it isn’t always clear.

No on these core morals there are clear differences and these are set out in the law and by social and moral norms .

Not all moral issues are core moral issues.

 

[Kylie]

I think we've been down this road before and it goes nowhere. But I will say that there are impossible to verify ideas in science and yet we don't abandon these ideas. We live by many impossible to verify truths which affect our lives and make a difference to reality.

I'm not aware of any idea in science that is impossible to prove and is still presented as an objective fact.

Yet there is real world evidence of Jesus which most scholars agree with. Even hostile witnesses attest to this. The Jews for example were irate at the claim that Jesus was the Messiah and this is found in their own text. They say he was a sorcerer and a trouble maker and acknowledge he was crucified. But most important they say He was not the Messiah they were waiting for. Why would they refute the claim if it wasn't made.

It is relevant because its an example of a truth that cannot be completely tested to a scientific satisfaction. Yet lived experience shows it was a real claim and one that demands attention considering it is coming from one of the worlds most famous person in history who stood on the platform that lying was a sin.

And what evidence from the real world is this?

But all that does is describe red technically. But it doesn't actually explain the color red itself as we experience it. For example you can be color blind and know all the facts about color but never know what red is.

The color red cannot be reduced to its physical components because its experienced and experience doesn't have physical components. Yet the color red is a real phenomena.

So you are saying that you can not have a subjective experience that is objective?

If your criticism is that subjectivity is not objective, you aren't making a point, you're simply stating the obvious.

That's not the point. The point is that we can experience colors in the first place as a real phenomena when there is no scientific explanation for how that happens. Yet its a fact that we experience the color red. You can know all there is to know about the mechanical functioning of colors experiencing color

And the same response to this.

All those explanations are mechanical and don't explain the experience of love which is a different thing to brain chemistry and signals.

Otherwise if it was just about mechanical processes like a robot we should then be able to build a robot that can love or experience red and music and have a conscious experience of itself. This would be impossible through robotics because conscious experience is more than the sum of mechanical processes.

Aghain, all you're doing here is complaining that subjective experiences aren't objective.

Why what is reality. I don't think we can even know what reality is let alone have enough evidence to prove to us that it exists in a specific way such as only being material reality. We can never step outside our own reality to confirm it is as we perceive it. So therefore we do have a degree of faith because we can never completely confirm reality.

You missed the point by so far I don't think you could even see it in the distance...

Exactly. Why would a guilty person say 'look at the evidence' when they know it won't look good for him.

Again, you completely missed my point.

 

[ottawak]

I don't think that matters. On the core beliefs all Christian denominations share the same beliefs. The disputes are often about the details. Like whether God created the world in 7 days or over a long time. But they all believe God is the creator which is the important factors of that belief.

Yes, core beliefs like those being asserted in this country, like that Jesus hates gun control, thinks global warming is a hoax and that Christian charity need not be extended to LGBTs or immigrants.

 

[stevevw]

I never suggested truth needs to be proven scientifically. But there are those who make empty claims and expect you to take their word for it.

Yes that is one of the fallout of modern society who don't put value in a persons word or being honest anymore. A lot of people get caught out. But that doesn't mean that people don't tell the truth and we can trust them. The thing is those who are not truthful usually don't get away with it and are found out. But the truth will stand in the end and we can learn lessons and be confident about that truth.

How do you know Christ is without sin? Because some guys wrote books claiming he was without sin? How do you know those guys were being truthful?

Then we would have to say that everyone from Jesus to the witnesses, and disciples to all the non-biblical people and events all being lies. That means Jesus or whoever lied has fooled the world. They are all deluded or liars. Now I know that people can be deluded and lie about all sorts of things usually for self gain. But what benefit would there be for this hoax.

We know that something pretty significant happened that changed our world and reality a little over 2,000 years ago by a man named Christ. I think where there's smoke there's usually fire. There has to be some truth as this impact has lasted and when its a scam or some crazy person, Charles Mason comes to mind there are telling signs eventually.

Ahh so it’s all about faith huh? My problem with faith is that there is no means of establishing the truth.

That's because you are narrowing what truth is down to empirical measures. As you have acknowledge there are truths that cannot be tested by the science method. We use faith with just about everything in some ways even when it comes to science.

Science can tell us that the world is made of matter but it cannot tell us what that matter is, what ultimately caused it and what it represents in the greater scheme of things. But by claiming that reality is only made up of matter science is actually making an ontological claim about reality and that's beyond science and a metaphysical position.

Do you know the biggest difference between the truth and a lie? From my experience, the truth never asks to be believed; that’s what lies do. The truth asks to be tested. The truth wants to be picked apart, studied, analyzed, the truth wants to be verified! Because once you’ve done all of that; belief comes natural.

All the methods you mention to measure the truth can be described as science measures. But as you have acknowledge there are different ways of finding a truth. Like we couldn't test, analyze, pull apart love.

Imagine testing and analyzing your partner to see if they loved you and have been faithful. I don't think the relationship would last long. But many people believe their partners love them and are faithful without any scientific support.

We can study and analyses the color red and find out all the physical processes involved. But that doesn't explain how we experience red. Yet it is true that we have conscious experiences of colors. But we cannot test for this.

I disagree that the truth never asks to be believed. I think we have all seen people protesting an injustice calling out for the truth sometimes for years. Dylan wrote a song about it with the song Hurricane. I don't think liars and the guilty can maintain any false declaration of truth as they don't even believe themselves and it eventually comes out in one way or another.

Though we can be mistaken I think we are pretty good at discerning the truth most of the time because that is what allowed us to live as a society.