Luiseach

I agree. Karl Popper is my hero too.

;-)

Starboy

Greetings Thomas,

In those cases where I have come across the use of the term “absolute truth” in the context of “objective truth” the person involved usually equated “truth” with reality. Is this what you are trying to say?

I have advocated on several posts on this board that those who take an objective scientific view of existence abandon the word “truth” altogether. I argue, as you have pointed out that the word is loaded with ambiguous meaning that results in confused discussions. For people that equate “truth” with reality, why not use the word reality?

As to your last statement regarding using Ockham’s razor to justify your acceptance of physical explanations over supernatural, I think you miss the point of scientific enquiry entirely. The reasons to accept physical explanations over supernatural are:

1) In science the accepted authority for resolving disputes is the “result of experiment on nature”. ****Not Ockham’s razor.**** In the case where a definitive experiment has not been done the outcome is not decided by Ockham’s razor or any other method. There may be great conviction on the part of many scientists but that conviction is not the final authority. It is and hopefully always will be nature.
2) For religion the final authority is the supernatural. If this authority existed one would expect as in science, a very large amount of agreement as to the composition and properties of the supernatural. So, as in science there would really only be one religion, at most two or three that one would expect to merge over time. The huge and constantly growing varieties of religions is further evidence that the supernatural does not exist. Throwing doubt on any supernatural approach to understanding our surroundings.
3) The program of science has produced so much evidence for the success of the approach of accepting natural over supernatural explanations that it is difficult for me to understand how anyone that understood this point would ever consider ghosts, gods, spirits, souls, demons, pixies, angels or any other supernatural construct as an explanation of anything. History has shown that religions main contribution to understanding nature is to screw up legitimate human endeavors to understand our surroundings.
4) In the completely scientific view the “supernatural” is of no consequence. Everything that can be observed by man either directly or indirectly is by definition natural. Thus if some kind of ghost did exist, and it was discovered scientifically, it would no longer be called a ghost, but would now become a physical phenomena. Science destroys religion. What is the need for faith when there is science?
5) The concept of “truth” is foreign to science. How can there be “truth” when all scientific knowledge is accepted tentatively? I suppose you could redefine the word “truth”, but why screw with a word that is already loaded with ambiguous meaning. Why not just call it scientific knowledge, as it is already called?
6) Lastly, the term “truth” is synonymous with religion. “God is truth”. Why would any reasoning person wish to be associated with “truth”? Religion has given “truth” a very bad name. To make the statement “reality is truth” IMO is equally ludicrous. Why not just talk about reality?

So for “truth”, absolute or otherwise, I say: forget about it!

Starboy

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

abe smith

Nice distinction, Philosoft (: PREscriptive vs. DEscriptive): it , yours, mmight help; altho probably not, alas. Abe

Thomas Ash

Well yes, I am meaning truth to mean objective reality. The reason I use the term 'absolute truth' is because I don't like people assuming that atheists are postmodernists or relativists. And saying you accept the existence of truth is a clear way of getting that across.

I think the existence of objective of reality is as much a philosophical question as a scientific one, but I'll try and cover your points...
I totally accept that scientific conviction is never a final authority, but if you are talking about what you find in nature, you're effectively assuming that there is a truth to talk about in the first place.
Doesn't really apply to me, as I'm only talking about natural truths (and ethics, which isn't necessarily supernatural.)
I totally agree with this. No disrespect to the scientific method.
No need for faith. I'm not asking for faith in truth, just saying I think it's a rationally justified belief.
Because of the postmodernism/relativism point I made above. I'd be equally happy to call it scientific knowledge otherwise (or ethical knowledge, though that bit off topic.)
Ditto.

It's an interesting debate, and I'm enjoying debating you Starboy. I still think our disagreement may be mainly linguistic.

Starboy

Thomas, it would appear that our differences are semantic.

Just curious, would it cause a problem with those pesky theists if instead of insisting that there was "absolute truth" you claimed that there was a thing call "objective reality"? It seems to me that using the word "truth" around a theist is just asking for trouble, after all "truth" is the intellectual property of theists. You wouldn't want to infringe on their patent. Besides, there is no need to, it has been superceeded by reality.

Starboy

John Page

I don't like people assuming anything (which is probably why I'm a postmodern, relativistic atheist ). That aside, I'm struggling with the reasoning behind your statement above. Are you lying so that people won't type-cast you? Are you resorting to sophistry in definitions to avoid confrontation? Are you deceiving yourself?

If any theists had the absolute truth so well pinned down it should be pretty damn incontrovertible, a constant yardstick of objective reality as you call it.

Maybe I've been hard in this post but I am passionate about the freedom to believe (whatever) being the engine of human development. Is there a particular theist argument you are trying to assuage or defend against?

Cheers, John

Kharakov

I agree. What do they prescribe though? We have a nice definition of physical laws, lets have a nice definition of moral laws.

Luiseach

Moral Law #1: Freedom of choice for the individual balanced by a serious consideration of the rights and freedoms of other individuals.

Bill Snedden

My apologies for the lengthy delay in reply. I was traveling last week and didn't get a chance to follow-up.

I think your rejection is a bit too hasty.

The ontology I set forth wasn't just "a good idea at the time", IMHO it's the only idea worth considering. I just can't see any other way out. If we want to engage in any activity other than navel contemplation, we simply must assume the existence of an external world.

Can I prove that such a realm exists? No (not directly), but any argument against it is self-defeating, so why bother? I thought that your opening "disclaimer" was amusing in a way, but really, if "you" don't exist, who am I engaging? Myself? I certainly hope not; I'm not usually given to disagreeing with myself.

And BTW, I'm sure that you weren't attempting to "poison the well" by raising the specter of theism, but if it allays your suspicions, I'm not a theist.

Well, since the system/facts that give rise to my truth is also known as "reality", I really don't think there's too much problem there!

I would argue that there is no "outside" to the system/facts that give rise to the absolute truth of my existence. There is no reality other than the one which exists; by definition, that which exists is reality. Although I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "system of thought", human knowledge would be completely unintelligible without LOI, LNC, and the principle of the excluded middle. So, if logical reasoning defines a "system of thought", then there is no "system of thought" other than the one we use.

Accordingly, this is one absolute truth I do know: I exist.

Besides, whether or not I can "claim access" to an absolute truth is beside the point. The question is whether or not it exists. As I've pointed out before, I believe that our ability to know truth is a separate question from its existence.

Well, if you don't even exist, why do you need a jacket?

Are you saying that a question about any one predicate of the jacket is qualitatively identical to a question asked about the jacket as a whole? Isn't that sort of like the fallacy of division?

Of course the jacket has qualities, but to ask "does this jacket exist?", is to ask whether all of those qualities are simultaneously instantiated. Granted, if you and I have differing ideas of what "jacket" means, we might have some issues. Discussion and experiment could assist us in confirming that the thing both of us see is, in fact, that which we might both identify as "a jacket". Language is a barrier, but not an insurmountable one.

But I think that's somewhat off the point. We're getting more and more into epistemology again. Wouldn't you agree that regardless of language or other symbolic references, something is either there or not there?

But John, a "self-evident truth for you" is exactly what I'm talking about! My existence is self-evident to me. I cannot deny it.

I'm going to get into this more, below.

You apparently missed where I did exactly that.

From my most recent previous post: "I perceive that something exists. That perception tells me two things: that something exists that perceives ("I"), and that something is the object of perception (the external world)."

So, my definition of "I" is "that which perceives."

Now, let's return for a moment to the "self- evident" truth of my existence.

As I see it, there are two possibilities:

A) Only I exist; that which appears to me to be an external world is only a fantasy.

B) I exist and that which I perceive as an external world actually exists (whether my perception of it is accurate or not).

In both cases, absolute truth must exist. In A, that truth will be necessarily subjective, but nonetheless absolute (because I will be the only existent). In B, the fact that an external world exists guarantees that absolute truth exists. This must be so because in order for things to exist in that world, they must be something and not something else (LOI). It absolutely doesn't matter whether or not I can define or identify what they are, the fact remains that they either are or are not. Whichever is the case, is absolutely the case and therefore an absolute truth.

Now, it seems to me that you would posit an additional possibility:

C) Something might exist, but there's no way to determine what it is, nor is there necessarily anything to do the determining. However, that something might also not exist, or perhaps both simultaneously. It might also not be something, but something else, perhaps at the same time.

You'll pardon me, please, if I've somewhat intentionally parodied what you might actually believe, but I simply can't grasp exactly what it is that you're arguing.

I am unable to "pick either", because there's only one. Your question is a non-sequitur.

It's probably not in any textbook because no one could imagine anyone not understanding that English only makes sense to people who speak English.

My claim is inherent in the definition of the term "contradiction". For example: the french word for "red" is "rouge". Using your logic, this is a clear contradiction with the english word "red". They can't both mean the same thing, right?

In fact, you used the same reasoning upon which I depend in your own post: "A truth is only true in relation to the system of thought and the facts to which it applies."

Exactly what the "I" is that exists is irrelevant to this discussion. The question is does something exist? If so, how can the existence of that something not be an absolute truth?

Is it your contention that objects must remain immutable in order to possess identity? If so, I daresay you will find yourself unable to ascribe identity to any existent.

Of course the "I" that existed a nanosecond ago is not "identical in all respects" to the "I" that exists right now. They are nevertheless the same "I".

However, that's really a different topic for another discussion. Turning this back to the topic of this thread, would you agree that the answer to your question is either "yes" or "no"?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Keith Russell

Bill:

I agree, but I look at identity this way. Identity means that a thing will act (change) and can only act (change) in accordance with its nature.

So, what exists now is the direct and only possible result of what existed a nanosecond (or whatever tiny unit into which you wish to subdivide time) ago. Each entity can only change according to its nature, so the way you determine the relationship between what is, and what was is to recognize the nature of what was, and how that led directly to what is.

Keith.