Truth and Knowledge

[Akita Suggagaki]

It has been a long time since I read any epistemology but it seems to me that knowledge is awareness of truth. But truth is hard to come by because it is not always the same as belief. It seems to me that mathematical truth is the closest we can get to objective truth.

Most other things that are studies are not really knowledge so much as they are theories, opinions, and beliefs. That is especially truth with theology. We can study and know all the "isms" and I have a lot of respect who know the "isms" and can critically evaluate them but they really are not knowledge. They may be the study of ...society, the psyche, life, etc but unless we are describing an observation, we get into theory. So i should have done a little home work, there ia a posteriori knowledge, and a priori which I think is really inference. Sorry. I need to do some reading on this. And even then it is 'theories" of knowing.

I gues in this world of alternate facts and fake news I am tired of opinions, theories and a little like Descartes, want too get to the fundamentals of what we can know and not just choose to believe.

 

[Aussie Pete]

It has been a long time since I read any epistemology but it seems to me that knowledge is awareness of truth. But truth is hard to come by because it is not always the same as belief. It seems to me that mathematical truth is the closest we can get to objective truth.

Most other things that are studies are not really knowledge so much as they are theories, opinions, and beliefs. That is especially truth with theology. We can study and know all the "isms" and I have a lot of respect who know the "isms" and can critically evaluate them but they really are not knowledge. They may be the study of ...society, the psyche, life, etc but unless we are describing an observation, we get into theory. So i should have done a little home work, there ia a posteriori knowledge, and a priori which I think is really inference. Sorry. I need to do some reading on this. And even then it is 'theories" of knowing.

I gues in this world of alternate facts and fake news I am tired of opinions, theories and a little like Descartes, want too get to the fundamentals of what we can know and not just choose to believe.

The only Truth is Jesus. Get to know Him and you get to know Truth. He is the Living Word and God's Word is Truth. As far as the natural realm is concerned, yes, only mathematics is true.

One of the problems that Christians suffer is in attempting to use natural means to discover spiritual truth. That is never going to work. The human mind is simply unequipped to know spiritual truth. God's ways are not our ways. Everything that God is and does is beyond our understanding. That's why we need the Holy Spirit to enlighten us.

 

[ananda]

It has been a long time since I read any epistemology but it seems to me that knowledge is awareness of truth. But truth is hard to come by because it is not always the same as belief. It seems to me that mathematical truth is the closest we can get to objective truth....I gues in this world of alternate facts and fake news I am tired of opinions, theories and a little like Descartes, want too get to the fundamentals of what we can know and not just choose to believe.

Per Buddhist thought, the closest we can get to objective truth is phenomenological experience. Even mathematical truth is still considered to be a level of theoretical truth less fundamental than phenomenological experience.

 

[Carl Emerson]

My University Major was in Phenomenology of Religion and I would never suggest it is close to 'objective'.

Our only hope for truth is through the indwelling presence of the creator speaking direct to us.

This combined with the inspired Christian Scripture is all we need to be understanding of the reason and source of all things.

 

[pitabread]

Our only hope for truth is through the indwelling presence of the creator speaking direct to us.

What does that mean?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Lots of different definitions of "truth" being used in this thread. Perhaps OP should provide the definition they mean, then others can stop preaching.

 

[GaveMeJoy]

Lots of different definitions of "truth" being used in this thread. Perhaps OP should provide the definition they mean, then others can stop preaching.

We shan’t stop preaching anyway

 

[pitabread]

We shan’t stop preaching anyway

It's not useful to the discussion though.

 

[SelfSim]

The meaning of truth is assignable.
After all, its a human English word, and as long as the meaning chosen fits roughly within the general English dictionary definitions, we'll then all also roughly understand what you mean.

Truth in science is no more that the last best tested theory .. and truth in math is based on axioms that are pretty hard to argue with.

 

[Carl Emerson]

What does that mean?

All experiential 'truth' is relative to subjective interpretation.

When the indwelling presence of the creator indwells us - His voice communicates direct to our Spirit and not via our natural senses. This eliminates subjectivity. The Greeks had a word to describe this - Epi-gnosis which means 'total knowing'

 

[Kylie]

The only thing that we can justify as saying is even close to being truth is that which can be independently checked and verified by others.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

We shan’t stop preaching anyway

Of course not. The Statement of Purpose for this forum only applies to non-Christians, right?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The only Truth is Jesus. Get to know Him and you get to know Truth. He is the Living Word and God's Word is Truth. As far as the natural realm is concerned, yes, only mathematics is true.

One of the problems that Christians suffer is in attempting to use natural means to discover spiritual truth. That is never going to work. The human mind is simply unequipped to know spiritual truth. God's ways are not our ways. Everything that God is and does is beyond our understanding. That's why we need the Holy Spirit to enlighten us.

That requires faith.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The meaning of truth is assignable.
After all, its a human English word, and as long as the meaning chosen fits roughly within the general English dictionary definitions, we'll then all also roughly understand what you mean.

Truth in science is no more that the last best tested theory .. and truth in math is based on axioms that are pretty hard to argue with.

Definition of TRUTH


I think of truth simply as a correspondence with reality.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But then my reality can be different than yours? To some degree. So maybe Kylie is on to it best: " that which can be independently checked and verified by others".

 

[pitabread]

When the indwelling presence of the creator indwells us - His voice communicates direct to our Spirit and not via our natural senses.

But what does this actually mean?

For example, how does one distinguish a purported communication from an external entity versus simply hearing our own voices in our head?

How is this communication taking place?

This eliminates subjectivity.

How?

 

[pitabread]

But then my reality can be different than yours? To some degree. So maybe Kylie is on to it best: " that which can be independently checked and verified by others".

In my experience, discussions of epistemology usually boil down to setting a philosophical baseline.

For example, science as a means of epistemology involves certain philosophical assumptions about the nature of universe and the assumption of an objective reality.

Likewise, any purported theological "truths" invariably start with philosophical beliefs.

The fact that there are different and sometimes contradictory philosophies about the nature of self and reality, imho, suggest it's not likely possible to arrive at a truly objective "truth".

 

[Kylie]

In my experience, discussions of epistemology usually boil down to setting a philosophical baseline.

For example, science as a means of epistemology involves certain philosophical assumptions about the nature of universe and the assumption of an objective reality.

Likewise, any purported theological "truths" invariably start with philosophical beliefs.

The fact that there are different and sometimes contradictory philosophies about the nature of self and reality, imho, suggest it's not likely possible to arrive at a truly objective "truth".

I'd say that there is a single objective truth. Whether or not we can find it is another matter. But that truth is there.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I'd say that there is a single objective truth. Whether or not we can find it is another matter. But that truth is there.

I agree but pitabread also has a point in that we most likely have to start with some basic assumptions. And maybe probabilities. "My car started this morning." But did it? I probably was not hallucinating...not lying. So I pretty well know that it happened. Like some kind of functional level of phenomenal probability tantamount to truth.

 

[Carl Emerson]

But what does this actually mean?

For example, how does one distinguish a purported communication from an external entity versus simply hearing our own voices in our head?

How is this communication taking place?



How?

Looking at the beauty in creation we see something of the character of the creator. But that is all external in our experience

However when He is directly living in us as promised and speaking to us inside as promised, the ball game changes.

How?

Well we don't know a lot about ourselves for starters. Forget about the God bit for a moment - we all have unique DNA and fingerprints. Never in the history of man two fingerprints the same... Why?
Some among us are prodigies born with incredible giftings. Why?
Some of us get into a trance and walk on fire without getting burned. How?

So much is yet to be understood about man but we believe he exists.

Likewise so much about God we don't understand - but because we don't understand we demand that He doesn't exist. This is folly.

Even our best thinkers like Einstein said that when reading the bible you could sense the spirit of Jesus pulsating in the pages. He did not know why or how but recognised that matters beyond the mind to comprehend were not a cause for dismiss the existence of such.

So with a concept of a supreme creator, matters in that domain are beyond the mind to comprehend. We don't have the tools to get our heads around the why or how, and shouldn't demand non existence on the basis of our inability to understand.

Back to topic - read John 10 to understand more about the voice of God within and listen to this video right through for a contemporary and dramatic example.

I Am Week 5

Lastly the experimental method applies to physical laws - was established by Carl Popper a believer - and was never meant to validate spiritual issues.