1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

metaphysical understanding

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by UnchartedSpirit, Dec 4, 2005.

  1. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    I don't get it......this sentence seems to say that truth is absolute, and truth is speculative and astract. I'm not understanding how it can be both. Further, it looks like a statement that purports to be true for everyone.

    What do we know of truth? We know that it exists, but we also know it has certain characteristics that make it truth. That is the concept of truth. It is absolute.

    In actuality, however, truth is abstract and speculative, because we will never fully agree on all the facets of what truth is. We are, in effect, striving for that concept of absolute truth.

    So.......
    If your position is not the only interpretation, does this mean that mine could apply also?


    Yes, because truth is subjective. We are each entitiled to our own interpretations. What is true for me, may or may not, be true for you.
     
  2. Humblesmith

    Humblesmith Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are correct that truth has certain characteristics that make it truth. The characteristic is that the statement corresponds to reality. If a statement corresponds to reality, i.e., how things really are, then it is a true statement. The statement "This page contains 700 words" is true only if it corresponds to the page actually containing 700 words.

    However, whether or not we can agree on all facets of a statement does not change whether it actually corresponds to reality. We, as fallible humans, may not be able to determine whether a statement corresponds to reality, or we may disagree on whether the statement corresponds to reality. But this does not change whether or not the statement actually corresponds...whether it is actually true. If, in reality, the page contains 700 words, the statement is true, whether or not I am good at counting. So my opinion of whether a statement is true has no impact on whether it is really true. That we are striving for truth does not change the fact that absolute truth exists.

    And you have agreed that it does exist. You said so two posts up, and I think you would agree that the opposite of what you are saying is false.

    Also, in the last post you agreed that my interpretation could apply also. So I can hold that truth is absolute, and be correct. Yes?
     
  3. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    I have agreed the concept of truth is absolute. The minute anyone tries to define what absolute truth entails it becomes relative, because it is speculative and abstract. The fact that we, as fallible humans, cannot agree on all facets of what truth is, makes it subjective. You may hold that truth is objective, but it is a speculative objectivity, because, as you pointed out, we may not be able to determine how truth corresponds to reality. It is only in subjectivity that our truth actually exists. The question is not about essential, or absolute, truth, but how truth is essentially related to our existence. Take mathematics, for example. Can truth exist outside of mathematics, which we have already determined is objective, in and of itself? Could it be that the objective mathematical equation deals with WHAT is true, but that truth which exists outside of mathematics, which is, by nature, abstract and speculative, deals with HOW it is true? Isn't abstract truth, by nature, akin to faith? We, as Christians, accept the truth that God exists, however, isn't our objective knowledge of God's existence limited by our objective uncertainty, in that we cannot prove the existence of God? We accept the truth that God exists, through our faith alone.

    Also, in the last post you agreed that my interpretation could apply also. So I can hold that truth is absolute, and be correct. Yes?

    Truth is subjective. You may hold that all truth is absolute, not just the concept, but, imo, you are creating a paradox. Truth is absolute, in and of itself, but how is that truth related to an existing fallible human being, when we can never fully agree on all facets of what truth is?
     
  4. Humblesmith

    Humblesmith Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You said:
    "It is only in subjectivity that our truth actually exists."

    Is this true? Is it true for everyone?

    See, for anything we say, or any position that we take, ....and I mean ANY position that we hold to be "correct".... we're maintaining that it is a correct viewpoint that applies to everyone. We all hold our view to be actually correct, not just an opinion, and the opposite of it to be actually false.

    I know you'e speaking of perceptions. I'm not challenging that we have different perceptions and that our senses can fool us.

    But for anything we say, the secret to testing our viewpoint is to turn the statement back on itself, and apply it's principles to itself.

    Skeptical? Are we skeptical about skepticism?
    Agnostic? Are we agnostic about agnosticism?
    Relativism? Are our statements about relativism absolute or relative?


    I understand your position about human perceptions....I think. But if we take a position that "we can't know" then, aren't we saying "I know that I can't know?" This was the trap that Kant came very close to falling into.

    Again, I apologize, I'm not trying to be difficult. But I challenge you to test your beliefs against themselves. Every one of your statements you are holding to be true for everyone, and you're saying it's possible for everyone to percieve them correctly, understand them correctly, and you believe they accurately represent reality. In other words, you're saying that they are true.

    Look for one of the several books on this, such as "Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air", which I think is by Beckwith.

    As for proving that God exists, I disagree with that also. There are several lines of reasoning that prove (yes 'prove') that God exits. Kalaam, vertical cosmological, moral, teleological are all VERY solid arguments in the hands of a good philosopher. See several works by Geisler.

    Absolutely sincere,
    Humblesmith
     
  5. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    You said:
    "It is only in subjectivity that our truth actually exists."

    Is this true? Is it true for everyone?

    See, for anything we say, or any position that we take, ....and I mean ANY position that we hold to be "correct".... we're maintaining that it is a correct viewpoint that applies to everyone. We all hold our view to be actually correct, not just an opinion, and the opposite of it to be actually false.


    I agree, when we take a position, any position, we hold that position to be the true and correct position, but it is here that the similarity in our position ends, so to speak. Although, I hold my position to be true, it is not binding on others.

    To clarify further, we are rational beings, which hold autonomous sets of values and absolutes. These value systems are based on own unique set of experiences, and are qualified by our own changing situations. What I hold to be true, today, is not binding on you, nor is it binding on me in the future. The fact is we exist outside of the metaphysical realm. We are not static. We are constantly changing and learning; therefore, our value systems are forever changing. Hence, the statement, "it is only in subjectivity that our truth actually exists".

    Kant's flaw was that he advocated on one hand for autonomous value systems, but on the other hand, bound them on everyone else metaphysically. He claims, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal law". His premise rests on the assumption that rational beings have universal practical reason, and from this we can determine an ethical universal law. his categorical imperative is flawed, in that it cannot account for every autonomous value system, by every autonomous rational being. It lacks the ability to determine rules sufficiently. It lacks flexibility.

    I understand your position about human perceptions....I think. But if we take a position that "we can't know" then, aren't we saying "I know that I can't know?" This was the trap that Kant came very close to falling into.

    Ah, the great philosophical conundrum stemming from the Parmenidean legacy. You are right, if we take the position of "we can't know" we are, in effect, claiming that "we know we cannot know". Subjective truth; however, broaches this problem from a different perspective. Notice I did not say that we cannot "know" truth, just that we "know" truth differently. It cannot be defined, because we will never agree on all that it entails. We know truth existentially, not metaphysically. The criterion for truth is different. You assumed, because I failed to clarify, that my criterion for truth was based on our differing sensory perceptions, when, in essence, my criterion for truth rests on the reflection of our personal experiences, or rather, how truth is related to our existence.

    But for anything we say, the secret to testing our viewpoint is to turn the statement back on itself, and apply it's principles to itself.

    Skeptical? Are we skeptical about skepticism?
    Agnostic? Are we agnostic about agnosticism?
    Relativism? Are our statements about relativism absolute or relative?


    Again, I agree.

    As for proving that God exists, I disagree with that also. There are several lines of reasoning that prove (yes 'prove') that God exits. Kalaam, vertical cosmological, moral, teleological are all VERY solid arguments in the hands of a good philosopher. See several works by Geisler.

    You are right, and I should have been more clear. We can prove that God exists, but we cannot prove that "OUR" God exists. I have not read any of Geisler's works, but I will be sure to in the future.

    Sincerely,
    Filmproducer
     
  6. Humblesmith

    Humblesmith Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree with most of what you're saying. But I still think you're mixing ontology and epistimology. Absolute truth exists. Whether or not we can determine it is another issue.

    I think you'll like Geisler's work....he's one of the few Christians who truly has a deep and wide understanding of philosophy.....try a couple of older works called "Philosophy of Religion" and "Christian Apologetics" .......or Vol. 1 of his newer systematic theology series which gives a history of how philosophy has impacted the church over the centuries.

    In Truth,
    Humblesmith
     
  7. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    Absolute truth exists. Whether or not we can determine it is another issue.

    Exactly, this was the point I was trying to make.

    But I still think you're mixing ontology and epistimology.

    Probably because I am taking the existential approach, which is centered on the individual not the universal. To quote, Kierkegaard's The Journals:

    I think you'll like Geisler's work....he's one of the few Christians who truly has a deep and wide understanding of philosophy.....try a couple of older works called "Philosophy of Religion" and "Christian Apologetics" .......or Vol. 1 of his newer systematic theology series which gives a history of how philosophy has impacted the church over the centuries

    Thank you for the suggestions. He is the next on my reading list, so to speak.

    In Truth,
    Filmproducer
     
  8. UnchartedSpirit

    UnchartedSpirit New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    there also seems to be this one-size aspect of faith, that as long as we continue to walk with God, we won't have to divert our focus to the breakdown of things becuase God is handling them himself e.g. our faith produces our spiritual gifts, not personal devolpment, does that work?
     
  9. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer Guest

    Not sure what you are saying here UnchartedSpirit. Are you saying that our faith negates our free will, or that our faith negates the need to learn? :confused:
     
  10. UnchartedSpirit

    UnchartedSpirit New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just said that true faith is the only way to gain spiritual gifts, and that when God gives them to us they dont need to improve- they are already perfect- we just have to grow in our faith/understanding?
     
Loading...