Truth. Intuited or Philosophical Theory?

I see what you're saying, but that is not a case of relative truth. It's just a case of different views or opinions or maybe subjective views of truth.

There is no truth of whether Narnia is the greatest fantasy saga ever written because that is not an objective fact. So there are only views and opinions of it's greatness or lack thereof.

Truth is absolute or truth does not exist.

To say truth is relative means that statement ("truth is relative") is not true, because if truth is relative, then no true absolute statement can be made about truth or about anything.

I lived most of my adult life believing that my truth is my truth and your truth is your truth - I did not believe in absolute truth. Of course, I was fooling myself. Sadly, this view is even getting into the church.

A great book on this and responding to such statements is by Paul Copan, True For You But Not For Me. It's excellent!

 

Marcia, I see what you're saying, but I disagree. An opinion is relative truth. If I say "CoN is the greatest ever," that statement is true for me but not necessarily for you. Therefore, it is true, but only relatively. I agree entirely that to say all truth is relative is a self-defeating statement and meaningless. As I stated, any relative truth (ie. opinions--that which can be true for me but not for you) must exist in the context and within the parameters of a system based on absolute truth.

I think we agree, except in semantics, and the question becomes "Is an opinion an example of relative truth?"

Michael

 

Hi, Michael,

Maybe it is semantics. I would say the example you are giving is not about truth but about opinion. To say one thing is true for one person but not true for another is really just a way of saying they have different views of something, not that there are different truths. Truth is objective and is absolute. So I would reply, no, opinion is not an example of relative truth, but an example of opinion or perception of something.

The statement "truth is relative" is a statement itself of absolute truth (which is why it's self-defeating), or you could say it's an absolute claim to truth. I learned all this from a experienced apologists - it's not just me saying this.

Something to you might be true because you see it that way, but that is still based on how you see it (such as your opinion of Narnia), it is not based on an objective truth.

To illustrate: You are looking at a white cloud through a red lens, so the cloud looks red; someone else is looking at it with a blue lens, so it looks blue. To you, the cloud is red, to the other person, it is blue. But that is not relative truth - those are just different perceptions. The truth is that the cloud is white.

I'd prefer to say your or my view of something is just our view, not that it's a relative truth, since truth by definition cannot be relative.

 

If you make truth absolute by definition, then you are forced to change your semantics about any statement that involves relative truth. So when you say truth, you mean something different that what others on this thread mean by truth, because you have assigned a semantic definition to truth that requires it to be absolute.

 

So Marcia, you only see black and white but I believe there are many shades of gray. You are correct, in the end, factual truth will endure (Ps 100:5) but there are still levels or understanding of truth that may later be proven is not factual. So was it true, on the day and hour I believed it yes it was.

 

Are you talking only about the truth of God or the truth of Jesus? I am talking about any truth. A truth could be that I had oatmeal today or that your cat is black. Either those things are true or they are not. You may think I did not have oatmeal, but you would be wrong. It is true I had oatmeal today. I am also talking about the concept of truth being absolute.

A non-believer may not agree that Jesus is truth but that does not mean Jesus is not truth.

To say that "God exists is an absolute truth" might be seen by an unbeliever as an opinion. But either God does exist or he doesn't. I don't doubt that he does - it may be that I believe he exists, but either he exists or he doesn't. If I say I am not sure or that I cannot say it's an absolute truth that God exists, I might as well not be a Christian.

I think you are confusing categories -- you are confusing proof of something with whether there is an absolute truth. You are right that I need faith since I cannot prove God exists. But I have no problem saying that God exists and that is an absolute.

Truth cannot be relative - do you realize to say truth is relative is an absolute claim to truth? You are making an absolute statement of truth in saying that truth is relative, so you just denied your statement that truth is relative. Truth exists whether we know it or believe it or not.

I think we are going in circles now. :sleep:

 

So then let's define truth and agree on a definition. If you all are going to use Webster's -- that it's a "correct opinion" then I'll be bowing out of the discussion. I think to define truth as correct opinion is baloney.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." So what does that mean? Either he is or he isn't.

 

It is politically correct /PC/ in the USofA to be 'searching for the truth'.
However, if you ever find it in the person of Messiah Jesus,
then you will be damned by PC persons.

The Truth isn't some warm/fuzzy thoughts.
The Truth is a person: Messiah Jesus.

 

No, it was an opinion. You said it yourself, and I didn't claim it was an absolute truth to say Webster's definition is baloney. Clearly, I was giving my opinion.

Truth is usually defined as that which corresponds to reality. Of course, if one does not believe we can know reality or that the reality we perceive is an illusion, then one would think we cannot know truth. But that would be going along in harmony with Hinduism, the New Age, and the postmodern people (including some postmodern Christians).That's where I used to be - for close to 20 yrs.

Very sad.

 

Understanding that the common english usage of the word truth as described by websters and other dictionaries that has a relative aspect does not mean you believe all perception is an illusion.

Pick something we can all agree is relative, like taste in food. My recognition that "spicy food is awesome" is a relative statement doesn't mean that this is an illusion.

Additionally, recognizing that some truths are relative does not mean one believes that all truths are relative.

I don't understand this statement because none of the above groups, Hinduism, New Age and postmodernism believe that reality is an illusion. Of those groups, postmodernism is the only one that considers the relative nature of truth to be an important concept.

 

I agree that Christ is the Truth.

That doesn't mean that all truth is Christ. By that, I mean that not everything that is true is Christ. 1+1=2 is an absolute truth that is not Christ.

One can say that all truth is from God and that is a fine perspective. But that doesn't mean that all truth is God.

Also the statement that Christ is the Truth has nothing to do with whether truth can be absolute or relative or both or neither.

 

I realize that, but I was using that as an example of disagreeing with the definition as truth being what corresponds to reality. I just took it a step further to say that some don't believe we can know truth from what we call reality.

Yes, that is relative but it's not relative truth. It is true that you like spicy food; it is true I don't like spicy food; it is true that Jane Doe sometimes likes spicy food, etc. That is not relative truth. We were given this example to explain this: John says the room is hot, Mary says the room is cold. That is not relative truth. It is true that John thinks the room is hot and it is true that Mary thinks it's cold, but the actual temperature is another truth separate from the truth of how John or Mary feel. It's another category. If the temperature of the room is 78 degrees, that is an absolute truth that does not conflict with the truth that Mary feels hot or John feels cold. No matter how much John and Mary disagree, the temperature is still 78 degrees and it is still true that for Mary it is hot and for John it is cold.

There is no relative truth. The term is an oxymoron. Think about what truth means -- how can it be relative? If it's relative, it's not truth.

Some forms of Hinduism and much of the New Age do believe the world is an illusion projected from our consciousness or set up to play out our karma. This is even expressed in books like Walsch's _Conversations with God_ series and other New Age books.

Also, New Agers will usually say there is no absolute truth. (Of course, that statement is absolute, as is the statement, "truth is relative").

 

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ..
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

God (Christ) is the essence of truth. All truth comes from Him. Apart from God there is no truth. He said: "I am the truth."
1 + 1 = 2 because God made it so. (but in a base two numbering system even that is not true ). It was man that chose to use a base ten numbering system. Other societies chose to use a base twelve numbering system at one time or another in history. Man only discovers what the great designer and Creator of the universe has put together.

You say:
"Also the statement that Christ is the Truth has nothing to do with whether truth can be absolute or relative or both or neither."
Aaaah, the public humanistic teaching of: "there are no absolutes"
"everything is relative."
"The only absolute is the statement that: 'nothing is absolute.'"
This all comes from the religion of humanism, not the Bible.
The Bible is a book of absolutes. Christ is absolute truth. There is no relativism in Him.
In Christ there is no "Thou shalt not commit adultery for you, but for me it's okay"
It is "Thou shalt not commit adultery" as an absolute for everyone. There are no grey areas.
Christ is truth. All truth emanates from Him. No truth is relative.
DHK

 

I refuse to carry water for the purpose of the OP because I think his point is just as obviously false as if I tried to say that compatibilist free will is a first truth of reason known to all persons. The existence of someone disagreeing with me who is not crazy and is indeed a human person proves my claim to be false and my argument never gets off of the ground. I've argued that the first truth regarding moral responsibility is the necessity of freedom, but as to whether that freedom is libertarian or compatibilistic is to go further than a "first truth" because it requires an argument. You don't need an argument for the law of non-contradiction: an actual first truth.

Anyways, I feel a little sorry for the poster of the OP because no one is discussing the issue much, and as a joke I would say that this discussion illustrates that if truth is intuited one needs to at least explicate things with philosophical theory to get everyone on the same page and using the same definitions. Obviously, truth, as we normally use the word in various contexts, has more than one meaning and degrees and so must be qualified somewhat if any discussion is possible beyond definition quibbling.

For instance, it is true that if Sarah has a smile, then her smile has a shape.
It is also true that if I am a bachelor, then I am not married.
It is also true that if I am a human being, then I cannot breathe on my own underwater.
It is also true that I like to watch "the Office" on NBC on Thursday evenings.

Does the word "true" mean the same things in all of the above statements. Or are there degrees to "truth" and we use the word in different ways (necessary truth, contingent truth, etc.) with different propositions (analytic, synthetic).

Hopefully, these two links can help people out. Analytic philosophers have a good system for sorting out levels of truth and how people normally speak of things and what not and it is called modal logic. Here's a good intro. from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic

Of course, there is another issue here that is more metaphysical: divine voluntarism of the medieval stripe vs. contemporary essentialism. I won't discuss whether or not God can defy the laws of logic, but a much more interesting question is as old as philosophy itself: Plato's discussion of it in euthyphro-Is something good because God wills it or does God will it because it is good? This discussion should help those on this thread talking about truth in light of God's existence and what not. Here's the wiki link for that discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Hopefully that will help somewhat for those interested .