The Varieties of Truth

[Nicodemus]

Exactly.

Would you mind citing the relevant passages from your bible?

 

[Tiltyred]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NIV

 

[niffer]

i don't believe in truth, only wishful thinking and betting on things that appear to make sense

i'll only bet on stuff if it seems convenient to do so, or i have no other way

 

[Spurgeon]

Would you mind citing the relevant passages from your bible?

Ok, this is a bit of a derail, but you asked for it.


On the pre-temporal existence of God:

"No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began." (1 Corinthians 2:7)

"This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time" (2 Timothy 1:9)

"The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time"(Titus 1:2)

"To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen." (Jude 1:25)

On Jesus' claims of being God:

“Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham?” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am.” (John 8:56-58)

Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (John 10:30-33)

Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how do you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (John 14:6-9)

Further references:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

"He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17)

"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3)

 

[Zarathustra]

i don't believe in truth, only wishful thinking and betting on things that appear to make sense

i'll only bet on stuff if it seems convenient to do so, or i have no other way

This is what I'm up against, Nicodemus!

Apathy, and intellectual laziness, and nihilism!

 

[niffer]

This is what I'm up against, Nicodemus!

Apathy, and intellectual laziness, and nihilism!

i'll be intellectual when the need strikes

 

[KDude]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NIV

I don't think the author of John was tapping into preexisting trinity ideals so much as platonic/neo-platonic ideals. There was a lot of Jewish/Hellenistic cultural exchanges before the New Testament for hundreds of years already, and some of the lingo in John shows it. The "Word" mentioned in the Gospel of John (Greek "logos") was already something widely discussed. For the Stoics particularly, they believed the "Word" was a sort of creative force that governed the universe. Near the time of the NT, the Platonic Jewish philospher Plotinus gave it divine attributes. Here, it was not just an impersonal force, but something that embodied God in every way. It was seen in the same sense in how some think the "word of a man" defines him. So it is with God, in Plotinus' way of thinking. The logos is God, more or less.

Next comes the writer of John who says this word, this Logos, took on the form of flesh. It's something that was never explored by the synoptic gospel writers (Mark, Luke, Matthew.. they had a more quick, down to earth, narrative style). John was trying to present something more profound.

It's not known whether he was responsible for the idea catching on though or if it was already prevalent. If you look at many Gnostic texts (which are also rooted in neoplatonic thinking), they play the Logos concept to the Nth degree. And the Gnostics were already taking root in the 1st century. Maybe John was one of them, or they were all offshoots of something.

 

[Zarathustra]

i'll be intellectual when the need strikes

But the position! The position!

"I don't believe in truth..."

 

[niffer]

But the position! The position!

"I don't believe in truth..."

truth could exist. but see with the position .. it's like something i'm agnostic about. i can't just leave it at that?

 

[Zarathustra]

truth could exist. but see with the position .. it's like something i'm agnostic about. i can't just leave it at that?

You can leave it at that.

Agnosticism is alright.

I would still call it lazy, in this case.

But it's certainly more acceptable than outright disbelief.

Saying truth doesn't exist is tantamount to denying the existence of reality.

Being agnostic about whether we can really know anything about reality: at least a little more acceptable.

If you're only 17, you still have much room for growth...

Consider this: by stating that you're not sure whether we can know the truth, you are stating a truth claim, no?

 

[wolfy]

I can see truth in things verifiable by my five senses. Truth in relationships is more difficult to verify and changes with emotions and perceptions. Truth in things I can't verify seems to rely on pragmatism, I really don't care as long as it works. It seems abstract truth exists, wisdom in how to live in the world but...

 

[AgentF]

the nicest part of searching for truth, is starting with the thought of it not existing.

(for some reason this approach seems to lend itself beautifully well to things like philosophy and anthropology, but less so to the arts.)

to answer your question, Nico: i see two types of truth: instantaneous and evolutionary truth. there is a third, infinitely more valuable, but i have limited access to it...it mainly reveals itself in my dreams and through tricks i play on my brain.

 

[niffer]

You can leave it at that.

Agnosticism is alright.

I would still call it lazy, in this case.

But it's certainly more acceptable than outright disbelief.

Saying truth doesn't exist is tantamount to denying the existence of reality.

Being agnostic about whether we can really know anything about reality: at least a little more acceptable.

If you're only 17, you still have much room for growth...

Consider this: by stating that you're not sure whether we can know the truth, you are stating a truth claim, no?

yes, i am lazy. and not just intellectually.

i am stating a truth claim that objective truth/reality may or may not exist, which may or may not be true.

when i say "i don't believe in truth", i'm more referring to the idea of certainty or concreteness people have about reality from accumulation of knowledge.

"i don't believe in it" = "i have no faith in it outside of pragmatic use"

 

[A window to the soul]

According to your conception of truth, what is required for statement 'x'* to be true?

I'm not particularly impressed with status quo x or what the majority says x should be. I see the possibilities of what x could be and that's what I want to get to the bottom of. The first step might be to identify the prevailing context that influences x and manipulate it. Compare and contrast. Etc.

 

[Mole]

Guessing and Testing

Probably the most important thing about truth is that we are mistaken a lot of the time. Our senses deceive us. Our thoughts deceive us. Society deceives us. So we need a way to confirm or disconfirm something we perceive as true. And it is the scientific method that enable us to winnow the truth from fable, from illlusion, from delusion, from wish fulfullment, from ideology, from social imperatives, and even disinformation.

For two hundred thousand years, without the scientific method, we believed wrongly, that the Sun went round the Earth, but just recently the scientific method told us, counter-intuitively, that the Earth goes round the Sun. Who would have guessed?

And so many things the scientific method tells us are those things we could not have guessed.

Yet for two hundred thousand years we have been guessing at the truth, and now we can guess and test our guesses against evidence and reason.

 

[Zarathustra]

And it is the scientific method that enable us to winnow the truth from fable, from illlusion, from delusion, from wish fulfullment, from ideology, from social imperatives, and even disinformation.Yet for two hundred thousand years we have been guessing at the truth, and now we can guess and test our guesses against evidence and reason.

And what of the things that the scientific method cannot tell us?

 

[Spurgeon]

And what of the things that the scientific method cannot tell us?

Seriously.

 

[KDude]

And what of the things that the scientific method cannot tell us?

You shut up (for your own sake and others) and admit that things then come down to faith or chance. This is what any self-respecting spiritual or atheistic person does. They don't proclaim they know the truth.

 

[Zarathustra]

You shut up (for your own sake and others) and admit that things then come down to faith or chance. This is what any self-respecting spiritual or atheistic person does. They don't proclaim they know the truth.

I'm not sure why you'd have to shut up.

Admitting that these things come down to faith would seem enough.

Telling people they have to shut up would seem a bit (and unnecessarily) aggressive.

ETA: There are also whole realms that you seem not to have considered. Off the top of my head, common sense, self-knowledge, experience, these can all tell us things that are true; I would not say that our knowledge of these things would most suitably fall under the umbrellas of faith or chance. I'm sure there are others as well. Just need to think about them. Oh, intuition, that would probably be a good one. It can be wrong, but it can also be right. It can even be right a very high percentage of the time, and, in those cases, I'd be willing to call it more than just chance, and faith would probably not be the most suitable umbrella for it to fall under.

 

[KDude]

I'm not sure why you'd have to shut up.

Admitting that these things come down to faith would seem enough.

Telling people they have to shut up would seem a bit (and unnecessarily) aggressive.

I think it's very necessary. Some people will just persist or try to take advantage of others if you don't. They will dangle their truth over people's heads, and in the worst cases, bully and control them with it. I'd rather just be proactive about setting certain boundaries, rather than wait for that to happen. Whoever wants to proclaim they know better than others without any evidence will have to do it through power alone. And they're free to try it.