lately i have been thinking about absolutes... if my son tries to walk right now he will absolutely fall, if you go outside when its raining you will absolutely get wet...
what about truth?
are there any absolute truths?
if so, how do we know they are absolute?
let the conversation begin.
21 comments:
No, absolute truths DON'T exist.
-ha, I'm so funny.
Interesting. I think we can all make a fair argument that we as humans have a basic set of absolute truths like not to murder, lie, etc.
Or maybe absolute truths can be generational, or different for different groups? By definition, that probably makes them not absolute though...
What if as a Christian I believe that Jesus dying on the cross and I accepting that as sufficient for all my sins an absolute truth, but somebody whose not a Christian doesn't. Does that make it any less of an absolute for me? For them?
Is it possible to claim knowing an absolute truth, absolutely, when I'm a finite being? Shouldn't the only person with the credentials then to absolutely claim an absolute truth be the infinite one, God?
Herein lies the heart of the quest of the modern era. Certainty. With our technology, reasoning, philosophy, and scientific method we have arrived and our certain of what we know.
This arrogance oozed into Fundamentalist system.
I believe if we are going to talk about absolutes we need to re-frame the conversation. For so long the conversation has been about belief in absolutes. We need to refocus on the message of Jesus and LIVE the truth of his teachings.
It's one thing to talk about absolute truths and if they exist, it is an entirely different (and beautiful) thing to live in a way that connects with the ultimate truths of the cosmos, faith, love, and life.
i'm absolutely not sure.
i guess i posed the question with the idea of: as someone who follows the teachings of Jesus and one who believes that out of love He gave his life for mine (and for everyone else, but thats another conversation...) is it wrong to claim that as truth? absolute truth? but jen mentioned that if someone doesn't believe the same things about Jesus as i do, does that make them NOT absolute?
if there is no such thing as "an absolute truth" does that make life or following God any less true? does it change the way we project our beliefs?
maybe it would be wise to define what an absolute truth is...
wise indeed, good buddy! absolute truth has been defined as, "an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence" or as "inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts." if we can agree on these definitions, it's safe to say that absolutes are independent of humanity's ability to understand them or awareness of them. my believing something to be true absolutely doesn't make it so and in the same way, my finiteness has nothing to do with them either (in the words of derek webb, "i thank the Lord that the Truth's not contingent on me"). by extension, absolutes are also independent of cultures, philosophies and science, as these concepts are dependent on and defined by man. the truths jen refers to are simply based on sociological/cultural consensus and are thus subject to man as much as man is to them.
i disagree with blake's assertion that modernism is to blame for a couple reasons. firstly, modernism "encouraged the re-examination of every aspect of existence, from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was 'holding back' progress, and replacing it with new, progressive and therefore better, ways of reaching the same end." it was a deconstructionist movement, one more concerned with subjective interpretations of reality and similar - chronologically and philosophically - to the origination of jazz which began by 'jazzing up' (subjectifying) popular american & european dance music of the time. modernism was a reaction to the fruitless searches for certainty sought by romanticism, the renaissance, and the enlightenment. the latter two are founded upon the idea that man, autonomous and beginning from himself, could establish/discover absolutes by way of rationalism and the scientific method.
secondly, christianity affected rationalism (and thus modernism) more than rationalism affected christianity. for one, christianity predated rationalism by over a thousand years and as i've said above, spawned negative secular reactions pulling away from God and eventually, a notion of knowable truth. for another, christianity, operating on the idea that God is a god of order and thus could be understood, began what we know as the field of science. the renaissance then took the concept of order in nature and removed the presupposition of God to arrive at a humanistic epistemology. furthermore, this discussion, while good & healthy, is evidence of the postmodern pattern's influence on pop christianity.
as for sam's original question, i believe there to be three answers: 1) God does not exist, therefore, there can be no absolutes; 2) God does exist, but since he is not eternal, omniscient or fully evolved, he is no more able to set forth absolutes than man is; 3) God does exist and he, on the basis of his consistent, infinite existence is able to establish Truth that is independent of man (whether or not God has communicated this Truth is a matter of theism vs. deism).
if the first is true, then there can be no meaning, no reason for anything because there's no absolute point of reference from which we can derive the truth or value of anything else. so, even if we're living our hearts out for Jesus, we're no better off (in the long run) than anyone else. if the second is true, then God lacks the foresight to know the effects of today on tomorrow - the sum consequence of humanity's action - and his words are more accurately described as educated guesses or advice. if the third is true, then we have a single, absolute point of reference from which we can derive meaning. i, for one, (please tell me you saw this coming) consider the Bible to be God's true, but not exhaustive, Truth effectually communicated to man in such a way that he can understand it.
blake, could you clarify your statement that we should live the truth of what he taught regardless of the Truth of what he taught. and also the difference between absolute truths and ultimate truths of the cosmos?
i know some of you might disagree with some of francis schaeffer's work, but "how should we then live" is a thorough but readable, intellectually honest chronicle of western philosophy.
and...
i'm so much better at basketball than you.
gosh... and using big words too!!
okay, great response tyler. now let me see if i read everything correctly, you would say that the bible offers Gods Truth in a way that we finite humans can try to understand it. would you agree with that? and in saying that God provides us with a biblical example of what truth is, wouldn't that be claiming it as an absolute truth? or just a version of what "a" truth is?
does that make sense?
i'm not losing sleep over this question, it had just come up in conversations with some people recently and sparked my interest in hearing what people had to say on the blogosphere...
tyler, i liked the definitions that you quoted. i think those provide some guidelines for us before we go around claiming absolutes. in order for something to be absolutely true there has to be no way of contesting it... why are there not more people following Gods Truth then?
is it possible that people confuse absolute truth with foundational truth? you know, jesus being born from a virgin, lived, died, rose again, you know those sorts of things that the majority of christians would agree are foundational truths vs. claiming them as absolute truths?
keep it up.
alright, i'm gonna try to address all your questions, but no guarantees. and it should be noted that the big words aren't my own and, as you know, sam, i don't usually talk like this. i only feel that the weight of the matter demands accurate & established words & meanings (unless you REALLY want to get postmodern on me :). i don't want to hijack your blog with my long & droning comments, so if you want, i can post my responses on my blog.
i would say that the Bible is God's accurate & authoritative communication of Truth to Man. it's not the whole exhaustive Truth, but it is true Truth. it's the measure of Truth that God, in His infinite wisdom, has chosen to reveal to us. and again, it's not absolute because i, or anyone else, claim it to be absolute. so, regarding your clarification, i essentially disagree with the "try" element of your statement. would you say that a/the major factor in the conversion of the world to Christ is an inability to understand the Bible or Gospel? would you say that while God attempted to communicate Truth to Man, Man was unable to accurately translate the message and that despite a promised Helper (Holy Spirit), Man is still unable to accurately grasp even the inaccurate communication of Truth and thus further distort it?
your statement that the Bible cannot be proven, i think, is, in a way, irrelevant. for one, God never gives the command to "prove" the Bible to be true. as an ambassador of Christ, it's not my calling nor my responsibility to convince others as to the validity of the Bible or the Truth therein. it's a spiritual matter and on its own, no amount of clarity i can give can lead anyone to belief. that's not to say there isn't sufficient evidence of God's existence, but that the understanding of such evidence is outside my influence.
secondly, i think to say that "in order for something to be absolutely true there has to be no way of contesting it" and therefore the Bible, God or absolutes can't be true is to altogether ignore anything outside the realm of what Man can know empirically. it is also a fundamentally rationalistic & naturalistic statement, as it holds Rationalism to be more authoritative than God himself and assumes that Man posseses adequate means to discover not only knowledge, but Truth. (it also inherently disqualifies Christianity as a plausible reality.) tim keller, in The Reason for God, says, "It is one thing to say that science is only equipped to test for natural causes and cannot speak to others. It is quite another to say that science proves that no other causes could possibly exist. John Macquarrie writes: 'Science [as well as rationalism & naturalism, as these are simply philosophical extensions of science as a way of knowing] proceeds on the assumption that whatever events occur in the world can be accounted for in terms of other events.[...] The philospher Alvin Plantinga responds : 'Macquarrie perhaps means to suggest that the very practice of science requires that one reject the idea (e.g.) of God raising someone from the dead...[This] argument...is like the drunk who insisted on looking for his lost car keys only under the streetlight on the grounds that the light was better there. In fact, it would go the drunk one better: it would insist that because the keys would be hard to find in the dark, they must be under the light."
any thoughts on that?
would you say that we can only know a part of the larger Truth and if so, how do we know all truths are part of the same larger truth? if not, in the absence of absolutes, how does Man discern the value of a belief, morality or action? without absolutes, can there be right & wrong, good & bad, meaning & purpose, righteousness & sin?
also, what's the difference between foundation truths & absolute truths? i figure if i deny absolute Truth in favor of relative truths, it's a lot like building my house on sand (freeform, shifting, unstable) instead of a rock (immobile, constant). what do you think?
Good thoughts, Sam.
What's the difference between truth and absolute truth? Can something be true but not absolutely true?
I think your second question is great. Assuming that there is some kind of reality out there--call it absolute truth or whatever--how do we know what is true and what is not true? What makes something "true"?
matt wrote: "I think your second question is great. Assuming that there is some kind of reality out there--call it absolute truth or whatever--how do we know what is true and what is not true? What makes something "true"?"
matt, that is the million dollar question.
who determines what is truth and what is not? just because an event was written in the bible, does that make it absolutely true? some would say that is where faith comes in; that faith fills in the gaps between what we can prove as truth and what we believe to be true. i don't know if i subscribe to that though, but i'm also not going to spend the rest of my life trying to find the ark of the covenant or noahs ark just to prove that it did happen.
is that even important?
matt also wrote:
"What's the difference between truth and absolute truth? Can something be true but not absolutely true?" matt, i thought we already addressed this with a definition of "absolute". i'm sure there are things that you would say are truth and i would see them differently and likewise.
what do you think?
Thanks for the response, Sam.
I think we are wrestling with two issues: (1) Is there absolute truth, and (2) How do we know absolute truth?
Tyler suggested a definition of "absolute truth" as "that which corresponds to reality" (paraphrase of what he said). I am okay with this definition of absolute truth.
My question was whether there is a difference between "absolute truth" and regular "truth." To me, reality doesn't have degrees--either something is real or it's not. Calling something "absolute truth" is like calling it "true truth"--it's redundant.
The reason that I raise the question is that some people seem to be working with a different definition of truth. Jen writes, What if as a Christian I believe that Jesus dying on the cross and I accepting that as sufficient for all my sins an absolute truth, but somebody whose not a Christian doesn't. Does that make it any less of an absolute for me? For them?
In this statement, she implies that whether or not someone believes something has an impact on whether or not the thing is "true." With Tyler's definition, truth is true whether or not I believe it. Thus, if the statement "Jesus is risen from the dead" is true, then it is true for everyone, regardless of what they believe about the "truth" of the proposition. If it's real, it's real.
You wrote, in order for something to be absolutely true there has to be no way of contesting it... why are there not more people following Gods Truth then?
I don't see why this is true. It is possible (in fact, it is very likely) that there are "true" things that no one believes. People can and do contest things that are true. Take the heliocentric view of the solar system, for example. For thousands of years people believed that the universe revolved around the earth. This idea wasn't true, despite how widespread the idea was. When it was suggested that the solar system revolved around the sun, people contested the idea, even though it was (absolutely) true.
So, I think the answer to question (1) is, "Yes, there is such a thing as absolute truth." But the question that you seem to be wrestling with is number (2). This is, as you put it, the million dollar question. Christians claim that the proposition "Jesus is risen from the dead" is absolute truth. Just because we claim it and just because it is in the Bible doesn't make it true. What does make it true? How do we know that the Bible’s claims are “true”?
Blake brings up a good point, too. Jesus didn't just teach truth, he is truth. Jesus' whole life was truth. When he healed the sick, that was truth. When he forgave sinners, that was truth. When he died on the cross, that was truth.
I appreciate the dialogue and I'm looking forward to your response!
here's a humorous take related to the discussion here: http://www.qwantz.com/archive/001361.html
Sam, I've been looking forward to this for awhile.
There are so many ways to approach this topic, and I am glad to see that so many have already been employed. But I think there´s a critical question that precedes your initial inquiry.
Why do you want the truth in the first place? Why not untruth?
Now anyone who has studied, even briefly, western philosophy may recognize those questions as classic Nietzschean method (the socratic method on acid as I like to term it). Nietzsche wants you to think first about your motivation for the truth, and in your self-reflection, to determine if there are any presuppositions that are framing your quest for the truth (ie. that you suppose the truth to be the good)
Now Sam, I think you miss something in your original post. When you are giving the examples of absolutes (Soren and the rain) you are already talking about truths--that if Soren tries to walk, because he´s a baby, he will fall; and if you go outside when it is raining you will get wet (assuming you don´t have an umbrella!). To me, those are truths. They are objective truths. But maybe first, you need to tell me what truth is to you--not 'absolute truth', but regular old truth itself--assuming it's even possible to define. Then, before we go looking for it, I want you to tell me why you want the truth? What is your motivation for the truth? And maybe that will tell us something about why all of us want the truth.
Until then, I will work off of Tyler´s statement that without God there can be no meaning (paraphrased). By his decision to choose option 3, it is apparent that his motivation for truth is a motivation for meaning. And since his final objective is meaning, my task is to consider whether or not meaning truly hinges on the existence of God, or whether there is an alternative (or alternatives).
In short, I do not believe that meaning hinges on the existence of God, or for that matter, an absolute reference point. Meaning can reference, for instance, an agreed upon moral code. This code can be as lofty or as banal as desired and can be created by groups of any size. The codes of different groups may overlap, and stealing from Tyler's dinosaur cartoon, these areas may approach the universals for all people. Other parts of the code may conflict and lead to quarrel. When you step back, you realize you are looking at our world.
I´ll cut that short and wait for some responses, but I want to emphasize that I don´t see the existence of God as a prior the existence of meaning. I think we can and we do create meaning using other points of reference.
Furthermore, I will allow that the existence of absolutes is possible, but only because I can´t disprove it. On the other hand, I believe that overlapping codes of truth serving as absolutes is a more pragmatic, and therefore, a more reasonable resolution since we can observe it.
Don´t get me wrong, I have my own personal beliefs about the universe, meaning, etc that may differ from this analysis. But I see those beliefs as intrinsic to me and that they don´t lend a platform for argument beyond my own personal experience that cannot be documented, studied, or otherwise divulged to another in a compelling manner--unless, of course, we are experiencing a "holy moment" (shout out to the movie Waking Life).
That´s all I´ve got for the time allotted. I'll leave with this uplifting quote.
Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Thanks for the comment, Jesse. You bring up some good points.
Until then, I will work off of Tyler´s statement that without God there can be no meaning (paraphrased). By his decision to choose option 3, it is apparent that his motivation for truth is a motivation for meaning. And since his final objective is meaning, my task is to consider whether or not meaning truly hinges on the existence of God, or whether there is an alternative (or alternatives).
I agree, I do not think the existence of god is intrinsic to a search for meaning. However, if there is a god (especially if there is a god resembling the Christian God), then the existence of this god plays a significant role in a person’s quest for meaning. The Hebrew prophet Isaiah wrote, “The grass withers and the flowers fall, because the breath of the LORD blows on them. Surely the people are grass. The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.” (Isaiah 40:7–8) If he’s right and he speaks from YHWH, then man’s very existence depends upon the will and actions of YHWH. You may not need god for meaning, but the question of god almost certainly has to be asked.
I would add that atheism is an extreme minority position worldwide. Over 90% of the world’s population believes in a god of some kind. This doesn’t prove the existence of god, but it suggests that the quest for god is a near universal element of the human experience. It seems like most people feel “incomplete” without some sense of god in their lives.
In short, I do not believe that meaning hinges on the existence of God, or for that matter, an absolute reference point. Meaning can reference, for instance, an agreed upon moral code. This code can be as lofty or as banal as desired and can be created by groups of any size.
I am sensing a miscommunication here. The question of god runs deeper than just moral codes and social mores. In the western religious tradition, all of reality centers upon the existence and reign of an all-powerful god. God is bigger than just “be a nice boy”; god is the grounds for existence itself.
On the other hand, I believe that overlapping codes of truth serving as absolutes is a more pragmatic, and therefore, a more reasonable resolution since we can observe it.
I’m not sure I agree with this. Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by “pragmatic.” Despotism is very pragmatic. Intolerance is more pragmatic than tolerance, because tolerance means you have to get along with those who disagree. That being said, I’m not looking for the most pragmatic solution.
I’m also not sure what you mean by “overlapping codes of truth,” but I suspect that you mean people of differing perspectives living peaceably with each other. That’s more easily said than done. History has shown that people tend to react strongly, even violently, when their more significant “codes of truth” are threatened. I’m not saying it’s not a noble goal, but I think we should be realistic about human nature.
Finally, even if Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Atheists can live together in harmony, it doesn’t mean that they are all right or that their faiths are equally “true.” Islam teaches that there is no God but Allah, Hinduism teaches that there are thousands of gods. These statements run deeper than just moral codes and they can’t both be true. They are mutually exclusive. If Mohammed was right—there is not God but Allah—then those who search for meaning outside of submission to Allah are going to see their search fall tragically short.
In summary, my quest for meaning runs deeper than just questions like “should I be kind to my neighbor or cruel?” “should I be faithful or dishonest?” or “should I vote Republican or Democrat?” At the most fundamental level, my quest for meaning asks questions like “What is real?” “What is true?” “What is good?” “What is beautiful?” Why do we search for absolute truth? Because if we find absolute truth all of the other questions are answered. There are thousands of competing philosophies and religions that offer absolute truth—many of which are mutually exclusive. I have found that Christianity coheres most closely with reality as I have experienced it. The resurrection of Jesus has vindicated YHWH as the only true god, and everything else is interpreted in light of that.
Matt, in response:
Surely, if there is a supreme consciousness, an all-powerful force….a Christian God, then it is possible that meaning has to consider the whims of this entity. But to me, that´s a superfluous supposition, because it is just as likely that ‘God’ endowed creation with creative license, and that evolution of consciousness will dictate morality (which includes meaning), or that the Muslim God is essential to meaning, or the Tao is essential to meaning….see where I´m going here? We can postulate innumerable ‘absolutes’ that are essential to meaning. And many people are predisposed to assume that their ‘absolute’, their god, their belief, is the absolute upon which the rest of reality hinges. But you know, I think if you´re honest with yourself and with others, there´s no way for you to truly know. It´s subjective truth. Subjective knowledge. It´s perfectly fine for you to say that meaning is imparted to you by God´s voice within your heart, but to extend that expectation upon others, I believe, is presumptive, and in many cases, unfortunately, arrogant.
All I was saying in that first comment you quoted was that meaning in one´s life is not dependent, necessarily, on the existence of God or absolutes. We can choose anything as a reference point to give our lives meaning. However, there will be a question of degree, a question of which reference point is better, and I believe that´s why we have an intrinsic impulse to seek out an absolute reference point—we want to know that we have found the ultimate point by which to derive meaning in our lives. But still, in the end, our decision to determine a ‘God’ as our absolute is based on our own subjectivity, is based on assumption, and it is for you alone to take that ‘leap of faith’.
As far as 90% of the world believing in a ‘God’ of some type, I would refer back to my earlier comment that we are looking for that ‘absolute’ to hinge meaning upon, and thus, many are drawn to the idea of an ultimate reference point by which to base their morality. Also, there are many other pragmatic reasons for believing in ‘God’ ie. the existence of another reality where our deceased loved ones may still exist.
What interests me the most are the 10% that don´t ‘need’ a ‘God’. Now that´s interesting—that´s something to study from a social perspective. What causes them to disavow the existence of ‘God’? If you read Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett….you get the sense that it isn´t that they are content in their positions, but rather that they´ve been backed into their positions. Like Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, they are lashing out against what they´ve experienced of those 90%, and personally, I think it´s those 10% that are saying something very powerful about how those 90% are living out their faiths (a bit extreme, but I´ll live with it).
As far as your other comments regarding overlapping codes of truth, that conception was used merely to illustrate another means by which we can create seeming ‘absolutes’. When I believe a handful of things to be true, and you believe a handful of things to be true---and suppose a few are the same ---then we have a subset of overlapping truth which we can, and often do, assume as ‘absolute’ (especially when many codes of truth spanning many generations and cultures are involved). And I referred to this type of ‘absolute’ as pragmatic because it represents a realistic, observable reference point for our humanity to find common ground.
The quest for the transcendent absolute is a quest for validation. We want to know that what we believe no one can believe better. And we want it to be static. Because that´s easy, and we won´t have to work to keep it in full frame.
Somehow this conception that static, absolute, truth is the epitome of meaning, has injected itself into our modern way of thinking and cast dynamic truth aside. It has told us that truth like a rock is better than truth like a river. But I am not convinced. More and more I believe that truth is relational—that it has to be wrestled with, questioned, reinterpreted, doubted---and that possibly that cycle never ends. So either you can embrace this ever moving, ever changing truth, or you can fight against it. Try to capture it. Try to box it. Try to encapsulate it in one philosophy (which maybe we have to do to make sense of our lives). But in the end, I think we have to acknowledge that we chop up the infinite to create our philosophies, for it is “only a bird strayed and fatigued by flight, which now lets itself be captured with the hand--with OUR hand!”
I say all this only to emphasize that much of what we deem to be true in life is a choice on our part—an agreement with ourselves, and sometimes others, to believe that something does exist, that something is true, that something did happen….We read our history books and believe that those events did happen. We believe that each person sees the same ‘red’ that we do. We assume many things and take them for absolute. But then we find out that Columbus wasn´t as heroic as we first thought in 1st grade—that maybe the authors of the new testament had social reasons to project Jesus as a divine figure.
We have to be skeptics because there is so much crap out there competing for our belief. In the end, it´s between us and ourselves…between us and God.
Now you tell me if that´s not dynamic…
Thanks for the response, Jesse. You bring up some good points.
Surely, if there is a supreme consciousness, an all-powerful force….a Christian God, then it is possible that meaning has to consider the whims of this entity. But to me, that´s a superfluous supposition, because it is just as likely that ‘God’ endowed creation with creative license, and that evolution of consciousness will dictate morality (which includes meaning), or that the Muslim God is essential to meaning, or the Tao is essential to meaning….see where I´m going here?
Great points. Although I think you go to far in saying that the supposition that god exists is “superfluous.” Surely, there are an infinite number of explanations for the nature of reality. Perhaps YHWH created the world, perhaps it all came together by chance, perhaps Allah created it, perhaps a purple unicorn in another dimension is imagining all of this and none of us really exist. But multiplicity of options does not mean that any one of these options is “superfluous.” One of them may be right, and it is the quest of humanity to discover which one (if any) it is. If “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet,” then I am in trouble.
We search for meaning by examining the claims of the religions and how they have panned out in history. When it comes to the existence of God or the gods, what matters is said god’s intervention in history. Who cares if the purple unicorn is god if he exists in another plane and never interacts with what happens here? How could we know him (or her)? Why would it matter? However, if god intervenes in human history—say in the resurrection of the dead, or the establishment of a kingdom of peace, justice, and beauty—then the existence of this god is relevant.
We can postulate innumerable ‘absolutes’ that are essential to meaning. And many people are predisposed to assume that their ‘absolute’, their god, their belief, is the absolute upon which the rest of reality hinges. But you know, I think if you´re honest with yourself and with others, there´s no way for you to truly know. It´s subjective truth. Subjective knowledge. It´s perfectly fine for you to say that meaning is imparted to you by God´s voice within your heart, but to extend that expectation upon others, I believe, is presumptive, and in many cases, unfortunately, arrogant.
I am sorry if I came across as arrogant, if you knew me you wouldn’t say that. (Such is the nature of electronic communication.) I am not going to deny that there is an element of “power play” in communication, but I don’t think that I am the only one guilty here. There is just as much arrogance in the claim “YHWH is Lord” as there is in the claims “It’s subjective truth; subjective knowledge” or even “It’s going to rain today.” Both claims make assertions about the nature of reality that are implicitly valid for the listener (or, in this case, reader.)
We need to be careful how we communicate because, as you pointed out, communication involves power play (the communicator makes claims about reality, claims implicitly relevant to the receiver, or they wouldn’t have been communicated). But we also need to be careful about being the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. All communication is guilty of this.
But still, in the end, our decision to determine a ‘God’ as our absolute is based on our own subjectivity, is based on assumption, and it is for you alone to take that ‘leap of faith’.
This is true of all knowledge claims. We don’t know anything except through our senses. All knowledge is inherently subjective. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t an objective reality or that some answers/interpretations aren’t “wrong.”
As far as 90% of the world believing in a ‘God’ of some type, I would refer back to my earlier comment that we are looking for that ‘absolute’ to hinge meaning upon, and thus, many are drawn to the idea of an ultimate reference point by which to base their morality.
You are certainly entitled to this interpretation of reality, but I would refer you to your statement above about arrogance. In short, “you’re black.”
What interests me the most are the 10% that don´t ‘need’ a ‘God’. Now that´s interesting—that´s something to study from a social perspective. What causes them to disavow the existence of ‘God’? If you read Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett….you get the sense that it isn´t that they are content in their positions, but rather that they´ve been backed into their positions. Like Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, they are lashing out against what they´ve experienced of those 90%, and personally, I think it´s those 10% that are saying something very powerful about how those 90% are living out their faiths (a bit extreme, but I´ll live with it).
True.
The quest for the transcendent absolute is a quest for validation. We want to know that what we believe no one can believe better. And we want it to be static. Because that´s easy, and we won´t have to work to keep it in full frame.
Interesting assertion—but an assertion nonetheless. Are you claiming to know my motivations for believing in God better than I know my motivations for believing in God?
I say all this only to emphasize that much of what we deem to be true in life is a choice on our part—an agreement with ourselves, and sometimes others, to believe that something does exist, that something is true, that something did happen….We read our history books and believe that those events did happen. We believe that each person sees the same ‘red’ that we do. We assume many things and take them for absolute. But then we find out that Columbus wasn´t as heroic as we first thought in 1st grade—that maybe the authors of the new testament had social reasons to project Jesus as a divine figure.
This is certainly true, and it’s important to keep this in mind as we make knowledge claims. But we can believe the right things for the wrong reasons and the wrong things for the right reasons. Our motivation for belief doesn’t effect the reality of our beliefs.
We have to be skeptics because there is so much crap out there competing for our belief. In the end, it´s between us and ourselves…between us and God.
Absolutely. In the end the individual has to decide what truth “works” for them. But, again, that has no impact on the legitimacy of their beliefs.
You bring up good points and I appreciate your perspective. None of us has an impermeable fortress of truth propositions. But I would reiterate that this doesn’t mean that there aren’t answers out there.
For me, I would point to the resurrection of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian community. I am drawn to Christianity because of the lives I have seen changed by faith, and because of an empty tomb 2000 years ago. If YHWH intervened in history to resurrect this guy Jesus from the dead, then I think Jesus’ claims about the nature of reality are worth a second look. That “works” for me.
matt, jen is a dude.
and i love reading your debates. thanks for the challenge sam.
I think it's funny how that's the first comment in a month...Maybe I should finally replace my wedding photo with a manly one to totally confuse people?
Blake, could I borrow your beard?
Sorry, Jen. I should have looked at your profile.
Is that a Scandanavian name? Is it pronounced like "Yen"?
no, my dad just wanted a girl.
Just kidding (I think).
No worries Matt, you're not the first nor will you be the last.
Kind of a long story but basically my parents tried to come up with names that sounded like both English and Japanese (my mom).
The Scandinavians spell it with an "s" Jens, I've meet some guys with that name before.
Moving right along, some of you guys were hurting my head with your thoughts on the subject. All I could think about though was that if you deny there being any Absolute Truths, you could never be right...right?
Post a Comment