I have the TRUTH!

[glo]

I am hoping the title is attracting a few readers! :giggling:

I would like to explore how we all perceive truth.

The members here at LI represent a fair spectrum of different 'truths' - call them faiths, beliefs, worldviews, whatever ...
Let's assume that most members here at LI have come to their 'truth' through a process of pondering, reflecting and comparing other 'truths' ...

What I come across sometimes is an attitude in us that 'if only others thought things through properly, they would have to come to the same truth as I have - the very fact that their truth is different from mine must mean that they have not thought it through well enough!' (This attitude seems to be more common in monotheists and atheists)

Other people (more commonly agnostics and those who follow eastern faiths, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism) seem to have an attitude of 'all faiths and world views may contain some truth, or indeed all may lead to the truth'.

So what I am wondering is whether people can ponder the very same issues, but reach different truths/faiths/worldviews?
What do people think?

The trouble seems to be that I am as sure of my beliefs as many Muslims or atheists (as examples) are of theirs.
Because my beliefs seem so logical to me, it can be difficult to understand that other people cannot see/understand/accept 'my truth' for themselves.
This leads to frustration, which I recognise in myself and also in others in this forum.
This frustration can lead to angry exchanges, and is ultimately at odds with any tolerance for other 'truths' or a respect for the religious freedom, which we all cherish and demand for ourselves ...

Any thoughts?

Peace

 

[Keltoi]

It is a hard thing to accept sometimes that your "truth" isn't somone else's "truth". When it comes to faith it becomes sort of a no-win situation, as there isn't any material observable "evidence" to "prove" any one faith is the unvarnished and correct faith. So it boils down to each side repeating the same things over and over again, with nothing really coming out of it in the end.

 

[glo]

At what stage do we accept that somebody else has made an informed choice, although their truth is not the same as ours, and stop accusing those who believe differently from not thinking rationally or being misinformed or mislead?

What does it take to say (and truly mean) 'To me my truth, to you yours'?

peace

 

[crayon]

"So what I am wondering is whether people can ponder the very same issues, but reach different truths/faiths/worldviews?"

What I think is the most important factor for that is the environment. First off, if you're born to christian parents, for example, they'll raise you christian. Same as muslim parents, jewish parents, etc. Another factor in the environment is the people you interact with. If all the people you interact with tell you one thing, you will most likely believe it. Sure, you think about it yourself, try to find out if that's what you really believe, but subconsciously, you believe they are right.

For example glo, you're christian, right? Do you think, had you been born into a muslim family, in, say, Jordan, you would also be as convinced as you are of christianity today?

Same with me- had I not been born into a muslim family, I doubt I would have had thought enough about these kinds of matters, especially at my age, when everyone is out partying/dating/drinking, etc. I would have simply accepted what my parents and friends told me was right. By the time I got to an age where I actually started wondering and caring, I would have already had a subconscious imprint telling me that so and so was the truth, if that makes sense.

In my opinion, anyway.

 

[Keltoi]

At what stage do we accept that somebody else has made an informed choice, although their truth is not the same as ours, and stop accusing those who believe differently from not thinking rationally or being misinformed or mislead?

What does it take to say (and truly mean) 'To me my truth, to you yours'?

peace

I think everday average people feel that way most of the time. However, there is a point where one's personal faith takes a back seat to a faith entity, i.e. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. Many people view their faith like their own favorite football team. Got to root for your team and boo the bad guys. It stops being about faith and becomes an identity.

 

[crayon]

At what stage do we accept that somebody else has made an informed choice, although their truth is not the same as ours, and stop accusing those who believe differently from not thinking rationally or being misinformed or mislead?

What does it take to say (and truly mean) 'To me my truth, to you yours'?

peace

For me, it would be when you show them all the "truths" people claim to believe (specifically religions in this case, such as describing to them all the major religions), with evidence supporting and refuting each one as being the truth, and them thinking about it, honestly and completely, forgetting all beliefs, stereotypes, prejudices, anything they had before, and simply listening to all the information and soaking it up. Then they decide. Even if they don't reach the same truth we have, they have made an informed decision, and it's up to everyone else to respect their choices and beliefs.

 

[glo]

For example glo, you're christian, right? Do you think, had you been born into a muslim family, in, say, Jordan, you would also be as convinced as you are of christianity today?

Same with me- had I not been born into a muslim family, I doubt I would have had thought enough about these kinds of matters, especially at my age, when everyone is out partying/dating/drinking, etc. I would have simply accepted what my parents and friends told me was right. By the time I got to an age where I actually started wondering and caring, I would have already had a subconscious imprint telling me that so and so was the truth, if that makes sense.

I agree, crayon, that the religion and the culture we are raised in have a big influence on how we perceive the world, and consequently what we believe.

I guess that's why I added this sentence to my original post:

Let's assume that most members here at LI have come to their 'truth' through a process of pondering, reflecting and comparing other 'truths' ...

There are many people here at LI who have moved from one belief to another in one way or another.
Those are clearly people who have risen above their upbringing and found a truth that wasn't necessarily the same as the truth of those around them ...

For me, it would be when you show them all the "truths" people claim to believe (specifically religions in this case, such as describing to them all the major religions), with evidence supporting and refuting each one as being the truth, and them thinking about it, honestly and completely, forgetting all beliefs, stereotypes, prejudices, anything they had before, and simply listening to all the information and soaking it up. Then they decide. Even if they don't reach the same truth we have, they have made an informed decision, and it's up to everyone else to respect their choices and beliefs.

According to what you said earlier about the influence of our upbringing, that should almost be impossible to do.

I think this thinking runs through Islam and Christianity - anybody who cannot accept the 'truth' (whatever that may be) has 'hardened his/her heart and is too proud to believe'. I certainly recognise that kind of thinking in myself, if I am honest. Do you?

 

[Isambard]

Id say there is no evidence for a (T)ruth(s).

But Ill play along. Atheists ask for evidence of deities that follows a logical process. It isnt a faith based position.

So its not about how much you may will something like in religion, but rather your ability to perform logic w/o resorting to a cop-out ie. "You need to have faith!"

 

[glo]

Id say there is no evidence for a (T)ruth(s).

But Ill play along. Atheists ask for evidence of deities that follows a logical process. It isnt a faith based position.

So its not about how much you may will something like in religion, but rather your ability to perform logic w/o resorting to a cop-out ie. "You need to have faith!"

I am glad an atheist is joining this discussion.

Isambard, I am assuming (from conversations I have had with other atheists) that you feel there is not enough evidence to support a belief on any god.
Therefore, until you should come across further evidence, this is your belief: There is no god.
(Am I right? Please correct me if I am wrong. )

This is your 'truth', based on your own pondering and rational thought.

How then do you (personally) feel about people, who have done their own thinking, pondering and reflecting, and still come away believing that God exists?
Are they uninformed? Unintelligent? Mislead?

I would love to hear your thoughts.

Peace

 

[Isambard]

I am glad an atheist is joining this discussion.


Glad to be here:shade:

Isambard, I am assuming (from conversations I have had with other atheists) that you feel there is not enough evidence to support a belief on any god.
Therefore, until you should come across further evidence, this is your belief: There is no god.
(Am I right? Please correct me if I am wrong. )

"There is no god how religion pictures him", but there is a possibility for a deist's god. In which case I'd say I act as if there isnt as Ill never know.

This is your 'truth', based on your own pondering and rational thought.

A truth assumes agreement. A fact of life exists and continues w/o anyone necessarily saying its true. Im with the latter.

How then do you (personally) feel about people, who have done their own thinking, pondering and reflecting, and still come away believing that God exists?
Are they uninformed? Unintelligent? Mislead?

I'd say misled. You can never test for a deist's god, but you can for one that is specified. ie. Christian God/ Muslim God/ Hindu gods etc.
You can make the statements try and follow a logical process. So far, all logical sequences point to no.

Its a bit like having 2+2=5. I can test for that and tell you its wrong. Doesnt mean the person making the mistake is stupid or misinformed (thou that does increase likelyness), it could simply be that person has a vested interest in believing the answer is 5.

 

[crayon]

There's an aya in the quran that says:

"[Hajj 22:53] So that He may make what the devil includes a trial for those in whose hearts is a disease, and those whose hearts are hardened; indeed the unjust are extremely quarrelsome."

So yes, I do believe that their hearts are hardened. Also, I believe that Allah only guides who he wants. You could show someone the truth, have it shine bright as day in front of them, and have them still reject it.

 

[Trumble]

The 'truth' can only be experiential. Anything else is 'just' belief.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Interesting thread, glo - thanks for bringing it up. The subject of truth is a deeply controversial one. Philosophers have spent whole lifetimes trying to get to grips with it.

I am glad an atheist is joining this discussion.

Here's another.

Isambard, I am assuming (from conversations I have had with other atheists) that you feel there is not enough evidence to support a belief on any god.
Therefore, until you should come across further evidence, this is your belief: There is no god.
(Am I right? Please correct me if I am wrong. )

That applies to me, only I'd say there is no evidence for a god.

How then do you (personally) feel about people, who have done their own thinking, pondering and reflecting, and still come away believing that God exists?
Are they uninformed? Unintelligent? Mislead?

I'm afraid I'm one of the people who thinks that they just haven't thought about it enough. I realise that makes my position vulnerable, as a theist could just as easily say the same thing to me. However, we're talking about beliefs here, and none of us can be certain our beliefs are true, otherwise they would no longer be beliefs but facts. I do not know for certain that atheism is true, but I very much suspect that it is. In the same way, a religious person does not know their religion is true, even though they may feel very strongly that it is.

The idea that god is a concept invented by primitive humans in order to explain unexplained phenomena and to keep society under control has just seemed incredibly obvious to me from a very young age. However, I wanted to try and inform myself about the question as much as I could, so I held off from making a firm decision on it until I was between the ages of eighteen and twenty. It was only then, after reading, thinking and wondering a lot that I realised I'd actually been an atheist all along.

Peace

 

[wilberhum]

an attitude in us that 'if only others thought things through properly, they would have to come to the same truth as I have - the very fact that their truth is different from mine must mean that they have not thought it through well enough!' (This attitude seems to be more common in monotheists and atheists)

Well that is my opinion. But why don't you think that is common among agnostics?

Other people (more commonly agnostics and those who follow eastern faiths, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism) seem to have an attitude of 'all faiths and world views may contain some truth, or indeed all may lead to the truth'.

Well this agnostic doesn't agree to that at all. IMHO if a religion contains any truth, it is just a matter of luck.

whether people can ponder the very same issues, but reach different truths/faiths/worldviews?

Because we are all individuals, it will be as common as rain.

Because my beliefs seem so logical to me, it can be difficult to understand that other people cannot see/understand/accept 'my truth' for themselves.

Now that fits me to a T.
Having sent an enormous amount of time thinking about it I don't understand how people can really think about it and come to a different conclusion.

So I conclude that they have not really spent a lot of time thinking about it.

 

[aamirsaab]

Depends on how you define the truth.

e.g: 2 plus 2 = 4. 4 is the answer, thus in this case 4 is the truth to the question: what is the sum of 2 plus 2. So, the truth in this case is the answer to a question.

However, truth is only the truth if you don't deny it, as previous posts have stated. This leads to truth actually not being based on logic, rather it fits more into an emotion (faith/belief) ---> 2 + 2 is 4 only if you believe it is so. However, this example is rather simplistic. Truth arguments usually come into play when things are uncertain (religion and things that require faith are usually targeted in such arguments) - so using 2 + 2 or variations on the theme are crude and do not illustrate the truth argument completely - partially yes, but not completely.

Now if we go down the religious root, it fundementally requires an element of belief - logic can influence this, most certainly. However, the reason why we are not all practicing the same religion comes down to belief and not logic. The reason for this is that humans are governed more by emotion than logic - if one takes a moment to think about it, logic is learnt whereas emotion (especially fear) is innate.

 

[Umar001]

I think alot more people would accept the truth, meaning that which I believe is truth if they took more time. I say that not as an individual trying to inflate my ego, but just as someone who doesn't mind admitting he was wrong, as I have been in the past. I say that based on just personal experience, people use as 'evidence' selective matters, which if confronted on will agree is not evidence at all, and I think most of mankind is happy deceiving themselves.

I think people can ponder the same issue and understand different things, due to their personal views on matters, an athiest might see the fact that he has never seen God as evidence that God does not exist whilst a thiest might see that as evidence that God has a divine plan through which His existance is only revealed directly to some in the hereafter..etc

I think differences of opinions are acceptable in the right context, like that amongst scholars on issues where even the companions differed. But other differences of opinions are not due to it really being a need for it, but rather due to lazyness or stubborness or self pride and these are not acceptable.

My view.

 

[Muezzin]

As Ben Kenobi once told Luke Skywalker, 'many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view'.

Course, he flat-out lied, but it's a sound principle.

 

[MustafaMc]

What is Truth? Is there a single absolute Truth? What simply about the "Truth" concerning God?

Atheist - there is no supreme being known by some as "God".
Christian - one God that exists in three "persons" - Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God became a man to live a perfect life and die on the cross as a redeeming sacrifice for the sins of mankind.
Muslim - there is only One God with no father, mother, son, daughter, equal, partner or anything comparable to Him. This Supreme Being is known as Allah.

(Note that I left out the agnostics because they straddle the fence and say there may or may not be a "god", they just don't know.)

Now can all three of these be true 1) there is no god, 2) there is a God in 3 persons including Jesus, 3) there is only One God without equal? Although each of the adherents to these 3 faiths (yes, atheism is a belief that there is no god) believe that they have the correct "Truth" about God, none of them can prove conclusively to the other that his "Truth" is actually false. Each of these rely upon their own reasoning based on their faith in what they have been taught, faith in a book, or reliance upon the lack of perceivable evidence.

Like a dog chasing his tail - arround and around we go trying to convince the other of "the Truth".

 

[snakelegs]

I am hoping the title is attracting a few readers! :giggling:

I would like to explore how we all perceive truth.

The members here at LI represent a fair spectrum of different 'truths' - call them faiths, beliefs, worldviews, whatever ...
Let's assume that most members here at LI have come to their 'truth' through a process of pondering, reflecting and comparing other 'truths' ...

What I come across sometimes is an attitude in us that 'if only others thought things through properly, they would have to come to the same truth as I have - the very fact that their truth is different from mine must mean that they have not thought it through well enough!' (This attitude seems to be more common in monotheists and atheists)

Other people (more commonly agnostics and those who follow eastern faiths, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism) seem to have an attitude of 'all faiths and world views may contain some truth, or indeed all may lead to the truth'.

So what I am wondering is whether people can ponder the very same issues, but reach different truths/faiths/worldviews?
What do people think?

The trouble seems to be that I am as sure of my beliefs as many Muslims or atheists (as examples) are of theirs.
Because my beliefs seem so logical to me, it can be difficult to understand that other people cannot see/understand/accept 'my truth' for themselves.
This leads to frustration, which I recognise in myself and also in others in this forum.
This frustration can lead to angry exchanges, and is ultimately at odds with any tolerance for other 'truths' or a respect for the religious freedom, which we all cherish and demand for ourselves ...

Any thoughts?

Peace

i am not sure that there is an objective thing as The Truth. if there is, i think untimately it would be beyond our understanding.
as an agnostic, i believe these things are ultimately unknowable.
we ponder the same questions and reach different conclusions because we are each unique. even among 2 believers of the same faith, each one has their own individual concept and relationship with god - it can never be identical. even if 2 people are looking at the same tree, each will see it differently.
the different religions are attempts to know the Unknowable. to me it is arrogant to claim to have a monopoly on The Truth. it is as though it were a jewel, with many facets and none of us can see the entire jewel.
basically, i believe we are all born with god and as we grow and develop, we become separated. some of us spend our entire lives trying to overcome this separation, with the ultimate goal of being back in god's presence.
do you remember the tale of the blind man and the elephant?
in my opinion, an agnostic would never say a particular religion is false, because it is beyond our knowledge.
some try to approach god in one religion and some in another and some, with no religion. ultimately, do we all not yearn for the same thing? why do we get caught up in the differences?
i find the concept of The One True Religion, as in islam and christianity, to be arrogant and simplistic. how can god be so narrow as to be any one group's monopoly?
just rambling here....

 

[Pygoscelis]

I'm afraid I'm one of the people who thinks that they just haven't thought about it enough.

I am of a similar view. I believe that we are most vulnerable to social and belief programming in our youth and that is when religion does its work on people. Christianity and Islam attach a feeling of wrongness to even questioning their doctrines so once the child is locked into the belief it becomes incredibly difficult and painful to disengage. So much so that believers in one religion who do manage to disengage will often latch onto another religion, as they have become dependent upon the sense of direction, purpose, cosmic justice, etc that religious belief has provided them in the past.

Some christian families and communties and many muslim ones shape an entire worldview, doctrines and rules about just about everything around themselves and it can shake one's very foundation to question if the religion is true.

Those who were raised in less religoius or non religious families don't have these trappings, and have found secular sources of purpose, direction, justice, etc. They have been around religion though, they've seen the rituals and the believers and more often than not they've found them to appear irrational and potentially dangerous. It only takes a fred phelps, osama bin laden, or pedophile priest to poison the public image of an entire religion.

Those raised outside religion are also often raised to prize logic and reason and to see faith and obedience to authority not as virtues but as a vices.

The idea that god is a concept invented by primitive humans in order to explain unexplained phenomena and to keep society under control has just seemed incredibly obvious to me from a very young age.

Yes, I agree with this as well. To an outsider one assumes initially that the religion is invented as a social control tool or comfort aid and experience with believers re-inforces this view more often than not.

This thread gets at something similar that I'd been thinking about over the past few years: Do believers believe in non-belief and do non-believers believe in belief?

For many years I believed that nobody TRULY believes in these religions, and that deep down inside they all know that there were no talking snakes or resurections or Gods talking to people, and that people just went along with it and convinced themselves of these things for a sense of security and cosmic justice and acceptance into society.

I have likewise met many believers who will flat out tell me that I too believe but I am rebelling against God. They don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of me truly not believing in their God. This effects every conversation I have with them and makes some topics impossible to discuss with them at all.

It is an interesting phenomenon and it seems to come from both sides.