A Little Thought About Truth

[Cheerful Charlie]

Thre is much argle-bargle from Christians and Moslems that all truth comes from God/Allah, that
without God we would have no truth. See also pre-suppositionalism for a modern take on this.

The problem I see here for that is that there does not seem to be a magic path from that claim to true facts. Religious believers have to gain true fact about the nature of the Universe by empirical thinking and testing hypotheses like the rest of us.

That is top down epistemology like this simply is false.

In the real world, we start with obvious little facts, truths. 2 + 2 = 4, Rock X is more dense than Rock Y et al. From myriads of little truths we erect systems or theories that are larger truths, and the claims God exists simply don't get us anywhere.

So I see two attempted paths to truth as a theory.

1. Top down - Absolute truth to particular truths.
2. Bottom up - From small and local truths to larger, global truths.

I am sure somewhere, somebody else has stated this better and more at length than I, but this thought, for me crystallizes a rather obvious truism many seem to deny.

The key claim for me being there is no way to leap the gap from God as fount of all truth to the truths of physics, chemistry, history et al. Another subtle example of the God-of-the-gaps.

Fire away!

 

[Speakpigeon]

Thre is much argle-bargle from Christians and Moslems that all truth comes from God/Allah, that
without God we would have no truth. See also pre-suppositionalism for a modern take on this.

The problem I see here for that is that there does not seem to be a magic path from that claim to true facts. Religious believers have to gain true fact about the nature of the Universe by empirical thinking and testing hypotheses like the rest of us.

That is top down epistemology like this simply is false.

In the real world, we start with obvious little facts, truths. 2 + 2 = 4, Rock X is more dense than Rock Y et al. From myriads of little truths we erect systems or theories that are larger truths, and the claims God exists simply don't get us anywhere.

So I see two attempted paths to truth as a theory.

1. Top down - Absolute truth to particular truths.
2. Bottom up - From small and local truths to larger, global truths.

I am sure somewhere, somebody else has stated this better and more at length than I, but this thought, for me crystallizes a rather obvious truism many seem to deny.

The key claim for me being there is no way to leap the gap from God as fount of all truth to the truths of physics, chemistry, history et al. Another subtle example of the God-of-the-gaps.

Fire away!

I'd use a different vocabulary: Belief and knowledge.

We believe things, i.e. that something is true, but we never get to check whether what we believe is actually true or not, i.e. whether we actually know something, i.e. we know that something is true. However, we are desperate, whatever the reason for that, to convince others that our beliefs, or some of them at any rate, are true, especially when we also believe their truth is somehow critical. We seem trapped in this behaviour, including me, so we try again and again to prove our beliefs to be true, i.e. to prove they are somehow THE description of an actual state of affair. Of course some beliefs seem to work better than others, say, scientific beliefs work better that religious beliefs and today's Quantum Physics beliefs work better than 19th-century scientific beliefs. However, this apparently increasing efficiency of scientific beliefs come with the realisation that our notion of truth is vacuous. So, instead, we have to fall back on... efficiency itself. The magic that works has to be better than the magic that doesn't work. So the top-down persepctive is our desire for our beliefs (top) to match up with facts (bottom), while the bottom-up one is our efforts to conceive from elementary beliefs new synthetic beliefs when the old ones seem no longer good enough for our needs, whatever they are. All this applies to our knowledge of the material world and only if it is broadly what we think it is, since if we don't know anything about it it might well be that there is in fact no material world as we think of it and all bets are off.

You should have a look at society and its evolution. Truth is out, efficiency is in. But that's merely a cultural trend. In terms of the DNA of life, truth was never a factor. It has always been efficiency. The ontological idea of truth may be understood as a power trick. If I can lure you into looking at my right hand I can steel your fire with the left hand. Claiming to have somehow access to truth may dispense you from trying to find efficiency gains, which requires hard work. The search for truth is a psychological drive. Although, since we know so very little, it might be that we get there some day. However, it's likely to look rather like Quantum Physics, i.e. it will work perfect but nobody will understand it.

Or so I believe.
EB

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Theism posits that truth is top-down, tht all truth comes from God. But as I have pointed out, if God creates the rules and laws and very logic of the Universe, this omnibenevolent God could eliminate all moral evil with ease. God is good he has a good nature and free will. He never does moral freely. God could give man a God-like good nature and a God-like free will and bacause he crates the rules and laws and logic of the Universe, nothing could thwart his will.

So we are driven to state that God of the Bible and Quran does not exist. There then must be a metaphysical reality above and beyond God, not created by God or controlled by God.

Truth then comes from that realm. Metaphysical naturalism.

The question then is, does truth come from some overarching metaphysical thing, or from basic brute existent things, small facts that are the basic elements of existence and therefore the metaphorical thing we call truth?

Seems to me to be so. But to claim God has anything to do with it seems to be false because God seems so much like nothing, what one would expect from a Universe without a caring, loving, sentient God that causes all things. Which is what revelation claims God is.

It just struck me that bottom up truth based on brute facts seems to be coherent and logical. The rest is due to emergent qualities. Drive by how brute existent things behave in relationship to each other. That reality that must be beyond the God the theists want us to believe in.

And so much for pre-suppositionalism.

 

[JohnG]

Everything is dynamic, so what is "true" now may not be true tomorrow. So with that in mind, what is it exactly we are talking about? Absolute truth? Or more of an abstract, somewhat objective descriptor of a temporary thing. as in "The sunset is pink"

This whole truth thing baffles me. It seems like an archaic notion. I'm probably way off base but I'm guessing, to a theist, truth represents an unchanging god or creator, moreover, this grand notion of "truth" can only apply to this being's actions - like a magic power of some sort.

I mean, at some distant point in time, everything in this universe will be gone. So what is true then? Is the sunset still pink?

 

[Juma]

I think that the strong feeling that that there is a truth out there indicates that it is just that: a feeling, hardcoded in our brains by evolution.

 

[DBT]

The World is, matter/energy, galaxies, stars, planets, mountains, rivers, people, cats, dogs, mice etc, what it is regardless of how we perceive it, or the beliefs we may hold about it. The closer our perceptions are to the World as it is, the closer we are to Truth^tm

 

[Under the Rose]

I recall an exercise in which each participant was asked to write down only those things that they knew to be absolutely true and to be prepared to validate same.

It was quite fascinating with the end result being a great number of blank pages.

(Even my name, by which I have been called since birth was in error for my parents have always called me by my middle name and my birth certificate spelling is different from how I was taught to spell it.)

Truth is a concept that is not constant from all perspectives.

 

[fromderinside]

Any consideration of truth or true exceeds our ability to confirm. Simply we don't know enough to determine what is true. At a more personal level most of us have what we consider to be truths by which we navigate life. My truths all involve relationships and observations of the physical world only.

For instance I take it as true I was born, that I was born of a particular woman who was married to a particular man. I take the notions of man and woman and child to be literally true.

As for the physical world I take the latest notions of science of which I am aware to be conditionally true, that is true until proven less than true.

As for emotions I take it that I have emotions. These emotions I which express I take as true representations of them as I have learned them. I believe emotions I witness by others to also be true until I learn they are not true.

As you see I employ some of what Speakpidgeon talks about in my belief system. That we can not know the truth you and I can have faith there is truth even though those truths are dependent on belief. From that no one person's beliefs are provably the same as another persons beliefs.

So, mostly, I keep my truths to myself.

 

[Juma]

The closer our perceptions are to the World as it is, the closer we are to Truth^tm

I understand why you write this but you are wrong. We cannot have perceptions that exactly represents the world as it is. That wouldnt be useful.

 

[Treedbear]

Any consideration of truth or true exceeds our ability to confirm. Simply we don't know enough to determine what is true. At a more personal level most of us have what we consider to be truths by which we navigate life. My truths all involve relationships and observations of the physical world only.

For instance I take it as true I was born, that I was born of a particular woman who was married to a particular man. I take the notions of man and woman and child to be literally true.

As for the physical world I take the latest notions of science of which I am aware to be conditionally true, that is true until proven less than true.

As for emotions I take it that I have emotions. These emotions I which express I take as true representations of them as I have learned them. I believe emotions I witness by others to also be true until I learn they are not true.

As you see I employ some of what Speakpidgeon talks about in my belief system. That we can not know the truth you and I can have faith there is truth even though those truths are dependent on belief. From that no one person's beliefs are provably the same as another persons beliefs.

So, mostly, I keep my truths to myself.

That we can not know the truth you and I can have faith there is truth even though those truths are dependent on belief.

The difference between science and religion is that with the former faith is proportional to the probability that something is true, while for the latter it is inversely proportional.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It is of course true that there are truths. This is so because all is needed is that you know these truths. If you know one truth then it's a truth. And therefore you know there's a truth. Now, I accept that maybe you personally don't know even one little truth. I couldn't tell either way. All I can do is observe that I certainly know not just one or two truths but, actually, quite a lot of them, more that I could possibly write down in my entire life. Not that that would be of any use. That being said I agree that we apparently don't know any truth about the material world and that's a shame. We don't even know if it's true that there is one. But the fact that we know certain truths gives sense to the notion itself and, from there, what it would be like to know truths about the material world, or even God for that matter! So it's not as if the whole thing was nonsense. On the contrary. However, we haven't found any way to move from that situation to a situation where we could say that we know something about the material world. Still, just because we haven't got there doesn't prove it's impossible to get there. After all, many people throughout history have produced some very remarkable ideas that other dudes couldn't have dreamt up for themselves. So, maybe let's hope and let's pray some lad find a way. Amen.
EB

 

[Gila Guerilla]

Thre is much argle-bargle from Christians and Moslems that all truth comes from God/Allah, that
without God we would have no truth. See also pre-suppositionalism for a modern take on this.

The problem I see here for that is that there does not seem to be a magic path from that claim to true facts. Religious believers have to gain true fact about the nature of the Universe by empirical thinking and testing hypotheses like the rest of us.

That is top down epistemology like this simply is false.

In the real world, we start with obvious little facts, truths. 2 + 2 = 4, Rock X is more dense than Rock Y et al. From myriads of little truths we erect systems or theories that are larger truths, and the claims God exists simply don't get us anywhere.

So I see two attempted paths to truth as a theory.

1. Top down - Absolute truth to particular truths.
2. Bottom up - From small and local truths to larger, global truths.

I am sure somewhere, somebody else has stated this better and more at length than I, but this thought, for me crystallizes a rather obvious truism many seem to deny.

The key claim for me being there is no way to leap the gap from God as fount of all truth to the truths of physics, chemistry, history et al. Another subtle example of the God-of-the-gaps.

Fire away!

Pre-suppositionalism assumes that everything comes from "God".
Sye Ten Bruggencate (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sye_Ten_Bruggencate), says that he will not debate atheists or their ideas, because atheists have no basis for truth or logic - period.
But suppose we provisionally accept that all truth and logic comes from "God". So let us evil atheists find out what this logic is, by asking our god-believing counterparts.
Surely the elements of logic will be the same as those to which we godless atheists already adhere, (i.e. (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity).
So now we can apply this supposedly god- given logic, in order to disprove that god exists, (i.e. show how various conceptions of what "God" is supposed to be are illogical incoherent contradictory etc.).
So we metaphorically use the theists own gun to shoot them with!

The pre-suppositionalist might say that atheists may not use their logic to oppose anything upon which it is supposedly based, but that in itself must surely be an in-valid application of their own logic?

 

[Juma]

It is of course true that there are truths.

.
There are nothing obvious or necessessary about the notion of thruths except that it is avery complex and convoluted matter.

This is so because all is needed is that you know these truths. If you know one truth then it's a truth. And therefore you know there's a truth.

But since you cannot now that it is a truth then you cannot say that you know that there are any truths.

All I can do is observe that I certainly know not just one or two truths but, actually, quite a lot of them

Which falls together if you ask; How do I know this?

 

[Speakpigeon]

It is of course true that there are truths.

There are nothing obvious or necessessary about the notion of thruths except that it is avery complex and convoluted matter.

I didn't say it was obvious, I said "of course blah-blah-blah". Which is an expression of my point of view.

This is so because all is needed is that you know these truths. If you know one truth then it's a truth. And therefore you know there's a truth.

But since you cannot now that it is a truth then you cannot say that you know that there are any truths.

I know that these are truths. And so I can say that there are truths.

All I can do is observe that I certainly know not just one or two truths but, actually, quite a lot of them

Which falls together if you ask; How do I know this?

How do I know the truths I know and how do I know that they are truths? Sorry, these questions weren't in the OP so it would be a derail to answer them. And if you remembered what I said many times, coupled with a little bit of judgement, you would guess straight away how it's done.

Further, it doesn't matter really that you knew how you got to know a truth as long as you know it's a truth. The question was, are there truths? My answer is yes because I know many truths myself. I have to say I suspect we all do but I don't know that this is the case. It's possible in any case that you would know some truths but don't know that you do. No big deal, I think most people live their lives unaffected by this little imperfection. Even famous philosophers could earn a living without knowing that they knew some truths. And of course, most people pretend throughout their lives they know things they don't so it really doesn't matter that much.
EB

 

[Juma]

There are nothing obvious or necessessary about the notion of thruths except that it is avery complex and convoluted matter.

I didn't say it was obvious, I said "of course blah-blah-blah". Which is an expression of my point of view.

This is so because all is needed is that you know these truths. If you know one truth then it's a truth. And therefore you know there's a truth.

But since you cannot now that it is a truth then you cannot say that you know that there are any truths.

I know that these are truths. And so I can say that there are truths.

All I can do is observe that I certainly know not just one or two truths but, actually, quite a lot of them

Which falls together if you ask; How do I know this?

How do I know the truths I know and how do I know that they are truths? Sorry, these questions weren't in the OP so it would be a derail to answer them. And if you remembered what I said many times, coupled with a little bit of judgement, you would guess straight away how it's done.

Further, it doesn't matter really that you knew how you got to know a truth as long as you know it's a truth. The question was, are there truths? My answer is yes because I know many truths myself. I have to say I suspect we all do but I don't know that this is the case. It's possible in any case that you would know some truths but don't know that you do. No big deal, I think most people live their lives unaffected by this little imperfection. Even famous philosophers could earn a living without knowing that they knew some truths. And of course, most people pretend throughout their lives they know things they don't so it really doesn't matter that much.
EB

Of course it matters. A lot of idiotic thinking is based on the misconception that there is a truth.

 

[fast]

It is of course true that there are truths.

I agree.

Not only are there truths where propositions expressed by statements that correspond with facts of the world, but there are also truths, facts of the world.

This is so because all is needed is that you know these truths.

I disagree.

Truth is independent of knowledge such that there are unknown truths. Knowledge implies truth but not inversely. I may not have knowledge of where a land mine may lay, but it's true that it lies just where it does, so I don't have to know what is true for there to be truths for our discovery.

 

[untermensche]

First truth.

For us apes all is seen through the prism of the human mind with it's passions and irrationality.

And worse, all is seen the prism of our limited and therefore distorted experience.

But the idea of truth implies something beyond the mind that has fixed properties for some reason.

So the ultimate truth is: Why do these properties exist? Not: What are the properties?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Of course it matters. A lot of idiotic thinking is based on the misconception that there is a truth.

Whoa! Is that all you can do! You sometimes complain I'm "evading" and now you're just wasting my time, once again. Pathetic. You prefer to merely assert deviously that there are no truths rather than argue your case. Of course, the assertion that there are no truths is in itself a contradiction. So you have no argument but it didn't stop you pretending you were prepared to argue your viewpoint. Nah. Not even that. Waster.
EB

 

[Juma]

Of course it matters. A lot of idiotic thinking is based on the misconception that there is a truth.

Whoa! Is that all you can do! You sometimes complain I'm "evading" and now you're just wasting my time, once again. Pathetic. You prefer to merely assert deviously that there are no truths rather than argue your case. Of course, the assertion that there are no truths is in itself a contradiction. So you have no argument but it didn't stop you pretending you were prepared to argue your viewpoint. Nah. Not even that. Waster.
EB

Calm down.
Truth is in itself a contradiction.

As the information systems we are all we can do is to gather information.

Some information fits better with how the world out there behaves.

We project that back out on the "world out there" and call it "truth". But there is nothing out there that is true per se.

Truth has to do with information we have not with the real world.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I agree.

Not only are there truths where propositions expressed by statements that correspond with facts of the world,

I disagree.

but there are also truths, facts of the world.

"Fact" is a better word than "truth" in my view, as "truth" in this case has religious connotations. So let's stick to propositional knowledge.

And I also disagree that we would know that there are "facts of the world". Maybe there are facts of the world but I certainly don't know that and I doubt very much you do either. And of course your merely asserting it is no convincing argument.

This is so because all is needed is that you know these truths.

I disagree.

Truth is independent of knowledge such that there are unknown truths. Knowledge implies truth but not inversely. I may not have knowledge of where a land mine may lay, but it's true that it lies just where it does, so I don't have to know what is true for there to be truths for our discovery.

Either my English is less than perfect, which is impossible, or you are drunk. My statement, if you care to look at it again, doesn't suggest that truth is dependent on knowledge. So, your comment is misplaced. My claim said that it is enough to know one truth to be able to claim there is a truth. Which is true. It didn't say that it was necessary that you know a truth for there to be a truth. That would be absurd.

Now, you also have to be careful here (I'm trying to use your style there). You may be confusing our belief that there are truths (and by "truth" I mean a propositional truth) independent of our knowledge of them and the claim that there are truths independent of our knowledge of them. If you don't know a particular truth then you have no basis for claiming that there is this truth.
EB