What is true/truth?

[durangodawood]

I would never say such a thing because there is much about it that is false.

And it's fictional.

For sure.

And if you said "there is truth in Moby Dick", I would actually agree.

 

[variant]

For sure.

And if you said "there is truth in Moby Dick", I would actually agree.

That sounds more like what I would say.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What is true/truth to you as a human being? How do you see what is true or truth in your life? Some people say that facts are true if they are only testable with tools and human senses.

That is at least partially correct. Truth has to do with what is verifiable through a rational process based on one's experiences as a human being.

Is Jesus Christ really the truth to you, and if not, why?

No, because I have no rational reason to believe that Jesus Christ even exists.

However, I certainly believe that the universe exists, and that is the standard of truth for me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ruthie24]

That is at least partially correct. Truth has to do with what is verifiable through a rational process based on one's experiences as a human being.

No, because I have no rational reason to believe that Jesus Christ even exists.

However, I certainly believe that the universe exists, and that is the standard of truth for me.

eudaimonia,

Mark

I'm reading a book called the Language of God by Frances Collins. In it he stated "I practiced a thought and behavior pattern of 'willful blindness' referred to by the noted scholar and writer CS Lewis." CS Lewis was also an atheist who had converted to Christianity. Willful blindness he termed as anyone who willfully ignored the call to a higher spiritual authority.

I think we as human beings all go through this. I sometimes wonder if saying I need a rational reason for not believing is also being willfully blind. I don't know how a person can't see the spiritual side to things as if we only live in one dimension of physical matter alone. I don't know. I suspect that everyone who has those deep moments of what's out there also goes through periods of willful blindness as sometimes this great universe we exist in is terrifyingly big to our human senses.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm reading a book called the Language of God by Frances Collins. In it he stated "I practiced a thought and behavior pattern of 'willful blindness' referred to by the noted scholar and writer CS Lewis." CS Lewis was also an atheist who had converted to Christianity. Willful blindness he termed as anyone who willfully ignored the call to a higher spiritual authority.

I think we as human beings all go through this. I sometimes wonder if saying I need a rational reason for not believing is also being willfully blind. I don't know how a person can't see the spiritual side to things as if we only live in one dimension of physical matter alone. I don't know. I suspect that everyone who has those deep moments of what's out there also goes through periods of willful blindness as sometimes this great universe we exist in is terrifyingly big to our human senses.

How can one be willfully blind if they are seeking some rational reason, logic or evidence before they choose to believe in something? If someone choose to be willfully blind to available evidence that may go against a certain belief and they decide to believe anyway, wouldn't that be more like willful blindness?

You see, you state you can't understand how people don't believe like you and they don't believe in something that requires faith without any evidence to support it. The human mind and psychology play a large role in choosing to believe in things you can't see or produce evidence to support, so maybe, people who choose to believe in certain things, have a psychological need and predisposition to do so.

 

[variant]

How can one be willfully blind if they are seeking some rational reason, logic or evidence before they choose to believe in something? If someone choose to be willfully blind to available evidence that may go against a certain belief and they decide to believe anyway, wouldn't that be more like willful blindness?

You see, you state you can't understand how people don't believe like you and they don't believe in something that requires faith without any evidence to support it. The human mind and psychology play a large role in choosing to believe in things you can't see or produce evidence to support, so maybe, people who choose to believe in certain things, have a psychological need and predisposition to do so.

From their perspective though, it is possibly quite true that they don't understand your position or your perspective.

 

[bhsmte]

From their perspective though, it is possibly quite true that they don't understand your position or your perspective.

That is where the psychology comes in and the defense mechanisms that have developed to protect their faith.

 

[variant]

That is where the psychology comes in and the defense mechanisms that have developed to protect their faith.

The question becomes whether you can rationally extract a person from a position they did not rationally enter.

 

[Ruthie24]

How can one be willfully blind if they are seeking some rational reason, logic or evidence before they choose to believe in something? If someone choose to be willfully blind to available evidence that may go against a certain belief and they decide to believe anyway, wouldn't that be more like willful blindness?

You see, you state you can't understand how people don't believe like you and they don't believe in something that requires faith without any evidence to support it. The human mind and psychology play a large role in choosing to believe in things you can't see or produce evidence to support, so maybe, people who choose to believe in certain things, have a psychological need and predisposition to do so.

It all goes back to the pursuit of evidence and what you qualify as evidence.

Collins was a staunch atheist before he became a Christian. He is of sound mind and a scientist. So are many other scientists who are Christians. Obviously they feel they have the evidence as well and they aren't "psychologically predisposed ".

 

[bhsmte]

It all goes back to the pursuit of evidence and what you qualify as evidence.

Collins was a staunch atheist before he became a Christian. He is of sound mind and a scientist. So are many other scientists who are Christians. Obviously they feel they have the evidence as well and they aren't "psychologically predisposed ".

Collins woukd never state he has objective evidence like the evidence he speaks about for evolution. The evidence believers use is subjective and very personal in nature and can not be transposed to others. Nothing wrong with believing on faith, as long as it makes on a better person and does not cause them to need to ignore reality and or judge others negatively if they dont agree with you.

 

[pyramid33]

The Bible says not to lean on our own understanding.

God is all the understanding.

 

[pyramid33]

This is because our understanding about truth is fallible because of our human senses.

And yet you are still trying to explain to me how God is wrong and you have the answer's. I don't buy it.

 

[pyramid33]

Before Christ died he said forgive them father for they know not what they do. So he understood even while hanging on that cross that human beings were fallible in their senses and that they didn't know he was the truth.

You are mistaken the willful sinner against the righteous. The reason Christ died is because of those lost in their sin. Ready and willing to sin every moment for their own gain, against God. If you want to claim the righteous don't exist, look at Elijah. Enoch. Christ died for all of those lost, not for those that already abide in Him.

All of those that enjoy sinning are lost. They know(understand) not what they do. They are lost and glad to be lost. God has given them a chance to be without excuse. A chance to understand that sin isn't good. If you are one of them, praise the Lord. He has suffered much for you to either understand and/or be without excuse.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm reading a book called the Language of God by Frances Collins. In it he stated "I practiced a thought and behavior pattern of 'willful blindness' referred to by the noted scholar and writer CS Lewis." CS Lewis was also an atheist who had converted to Christianity. Willful blindness he termed as anyone who willfully ignored the call to a higher spiritual authority.

I've read some C.S. Lewis. He may indeed have practiced willful blindness, and I don't think that he ever recovered.

I practice willful sightedness. I am not choosing to remain blind if I refuse to believe that some gypsy can see my future in tea leaves without a very good explanation for how that operates as a sense. I might be willfully blind if I refused to believe that a telescope can show me sights unavailable to my unaided eyes, but I do rationally accept the optical principles behind a telescope.

Willful sightedness is always about using reason to: 1) validate one's methods of gaining knowledge, and 2) to use those validated methods. Nothing that I've read by C.S. Lewis has properly validated a "higher spiritual authority" as such a method.

I don't know how a person can't see the spiritual side to things as if we only live in one dimension of physical matter alone.

What other dimension do you mean? I accept that human beings are not robots. We have an inner-life of conscious awareness. We have thoughts, feelings, desires, imagination, meaning, etc. That is the spiritual side to things for human beings. Some people confuse that for a perception of dimensions outside of ourselves, as I suppose shamans might confuse dreams for externally existing worlds.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ruthie24]

And yet you are still trying to explain to me how God is wrong and you have the answer's. I don't buy it.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I never said God was wrong and I certainly don't have all the answers. I said our human senses are fallible meaning there are lots of levels to situations and realities in life that we don't or have a difficult time understanding.

 

[FireDragon76]

How can a creature whose brain evolved due to random chance happenings ever know truth? It would seem to me if evolution is true, our brains are not wired for us to grasp naked truth; they are wired for survival; pragmatism and rationalization over curiosity and inquiry. That's why I don't understand the dogmatism of atheists, it's inconsistent with their own evolutionary account to be able to claim that kind of certainty and pontificate about things like morality or aesthetics (look at Richard Dawkins make sweeping statements about Christianity and God, for instance), when they have no transcendent basis for those assertions.

 

[bhsmte]

How can a creature whose brain evolved due to random chance happenings ever know truth? It would seem to me if evolution is true, our brains are not wired for us to grasp naked truth; they are wired for survival; pragmatism and rationalization over curiosity and inquiry. That's why I don't understand the dogmatism of atheists, it's inconsistent with their own evolutionary account to be able to claim that kind of certainty and pontificate about things like morality or aesthetics (look at Richard Dawkins make sweeping statements about Christianity and God, for instance), when they have no transcendent basis for those assertions.

Recognizing reality and truth, may just come in handy for survival, don't ya think?

 

[FireDragon76]

Recognizing reality and truth, may just come in handy for survival, don't ya think?

No. You need to study some psychology. Or look into the duckrabbit for an example of your senses being completely confused. Our senses do not necessarily help us discern truth, if anything they obscure it further. Our 5 senses are often ambiguous and unreliable.

 

[Kylie]

True-
Adjective
Agreeing with the facts, not false
Real or genuine
Having all the expected or necessary qualities of the specified type of person or thing

What is true/truth to you as a human being? How do you see what is true or truth in your life? Some people say that facts are true if they are only testable with tools and human senses. I say that truth and facts of truth go much deeper than that, to a dimensional level of being.

John 17:17 says
"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth."

John 8:32 says
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

1 Corinthians 13:6:
"Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth."

Galatians 4:16:
"Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?"

I've often heard it said, that truth is relative. I see this as a dismissal of the truth, and a cop out. Universal truths exist throughout the very fabric of life. In my opinion, it starts and ends with Jesus Christ. For others, this might not be truth to them. It just seems that as humanity gets closer to annihilating itself, the truth becomes ever more present in our lives. Is Jesus Christ really the truth to you, and if not, why?

Truth is knowledge about what is real which can be tested and passes the test.

In other words, if someone makes a claim about reality - say, "The sky is blue on a sunny day - this claim can be tested. And when tested, the claim is found to match what is found in reality. Therefore, I conclude the claim is true.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

 

[bhsmte]

No. You need to study some psychology. Or look into the duckrabbit for an example of your senses being completely confused. Our senses do not necessarily help us discern truth, if anything they obscure it further. Our 5 senses are often ambiguous and unreliable.

Well, I know a little psychology and though you are correct in saying our perceptions can be bias and wrong, having the ability to recognize truth, is clearly an advantage for survival and is part of the evolution process.

And if what you say is correct, doesn't help humans much to be able to determine if an invisible God is the truth, wouldn't ya think?