True

[Rob Osborn]

No, facts are always facts. This is a subtle distinction, but truth has to do with representations and conformity; truth is a feature of language and of symbols. The fact is the thing and truth its revelation. But what is the thing, really? In what universe or reality does it reside? Are the symbols capable of capturing its complete abstraction and presenting it to the human mind? What are the limits of the language? Is truth complete? How does one assess conformity of language to fact? How can we know? What is reliable? Do we inhabit an order of ignorance? On these questions, lines are drawn and battles fought.

These are the questions that trouble philosophers, theologians, and anyone who seeks to assert authority; for authority demands an answer to them in order to be justified. No man can intrude upon the conscience of another without justification or consent, and as justification in most "truth" is very difficult to come by, mostly we operate by consent.

Because to the naked self and to the authority of the soul, none of those hard questions matter one bit. Truth is merely saying what's right.

I can talk about fiction in a factual way and say true things about imaginary worlds and fairy tales. J.R.R. Tolkien used to talk about "true myths," and we find these all over the place in our religious texts--in parables and allegories, and in much of what is claimed to represent factual history as well. I contend that many such stories are true whether they really happened or not.

There are other things, besides facts, that are also true. For instance, when a thing conforms to one's aesthetic sense, to claim that it is beautiful is "saying things right." It is truth.

The problem with a lot of philosophers is that they cant get past the philosophy of if we really exist or not. Forget them cheese-hoses!

We know the definition of truth and we know the definition of fact. People use the words incorrectly a lot of the time especially in religion. Truth is anything that is proved by the supporting facts, whatever it may be and to whomever may be part of it. Yes its true that truth in something or someone can be witheld from others thus causing some debate but it still can be truth. Take something simple- Is Joseph Smith a real historical figure? There are enough factual evidences and witnesses that we can most assuredly say he is a real historical figure. Thus, Joseph Smith as a historical figure is a truth. Now, as to what he did, the religion he established, and the beliefs he taught as truth can be debated as to the truthfulness of it. There is a distinction thus between a known truth based upon facts versus perceived or believed truths based off of ideas, faith, with some facts in place. I can thus have a hope that Jesus Christ is who Joseph Smith says he is. That is what we call a "belief". All beliefs are things we "hope to be true" which do not carry enough factual evidece by the believer to know if it is yet true or false.

[Calm]

My question in response to your question: Can God reveal something to you, or tell you something, without you perceiving it?

Suppose he came down here and stood right in front of you and said something to you without you realizing he was God and he was talking to you, for example.

If your mind or body or spirit in anyway responds to something, you have experienced a perception. No perception, no revelation.

[Ahab]

If your mind or body or spirit in anyway responds to something, you have experienced a perception. No perception, no revelation.

So only if you respond? People can have experiences they don't respond to. Like when Jesus was in front of them, teaching them, while they didn't recognize who he was or the value in his teachings. They heard wth their ears but they didn't really listen or perceive what they heard. Some people don't perceive what is right in front of their face, and as the saying goes, if it had been a snake it would have bit them right in their face.

[Calm]

So only if you respond? People can have experiences they don't respond to. Like when Jesus was in front of them, teaching them, while they didn't recognize who he was or the value in his teachings. They heard wth their ears

Responds as in receiving stimulation...a neuron flaring or whatever they do would be a response.

If they heard something, they perceived, a perception occurred. Whether or not comprehension occurred or not is another thng.

[Ahab]

Responds as in receiving stimulation...a neuron flaring or whatever they do would be a response.

If they heard something, they perceived, a perception occurred. Whether or not comprehension occurred or not is another thng.

IOkay, so your perception of what the word perception means may be different than mine. I'll repeat my original question:

Can God reveal something to you, or tell you something, without you perceiving it?

[pmccombs1]

What kinds of things did you have in mind? I understand what you mean, I think, but this just confuses the issue. Only sentences, (propositions) can be true or false.

Chairs and tables can be beautiful or wonderful for their purpose, but to call them "true" I think just confuses everyone.

Then we end up with discussions on "What is TRUTH"!

You are quite right, of course, and it was poor wording on my part. What I meant by my confusing and contradictory sentence was that language (the sentences and propositions that you mention) can still be true even if it involves things other than "facts." Facts, of course, are illusory things that we like to think are measurable and intrinsic to the ontology of external objects, which is the sense in which I was using the word. We like to think that facts are "objective."

I was trying to point this out in the earlier part of my comment, but you know, we generally have such a bad habit of using speech in this nonsense way that I sometimes fall into it. We often call things "true" when actually, it is our language that is true or false, measured against what we perceive and believe.

If I say, "That chair is beautiful," I am speaking a truth which reveals something about myself more than about the chair. So you see, the fact is in the observer and not in the chair. But even that is arguable, as it deals with the nature of fact, which you have reduced to interpretations--a safe bet as you understand that nothing can be proven. This would require some way to step outside of oneself in order to become the universal and impartial spectator. Only God can prove things, it turns out. Curiously, that seems not to be His business. Apparently God wants people to consent to things and not be compelled by them. So He has not offered much in the way of proof, or justification... only in the way of gifts.

[pmccombs1]

The problem with a lot of philosophers is that they cant get past the philosophy of if we really exist or not. Forget them cheese-hoses!

Mmmmmmm, cheese-hoses.... You know, I'm on a cheese hose diet too. Stuff is really bad for you. Tasty, though.

Hey, what is this? Are we playing a game of "name that rhetological fallacy?" Um, let me think... "Hasty generalization?" Or is it "Red herring?"

Do I win?

We know the definition of truth and we know the definition of fact.

No, we only agree upon those things in certain contexts, some of the time. You will find various definitions accepted by the dictionary. For instance, Collins lists at least ten for the word "truth."

There is a distinction thus between a known truth based upon facts versus perceived or believed truths based off of ideas, faith, with some facts in place.

And, do you have an example of a "fact" that is not also perceived? Must not facts be perceived and believed? So how is there a distinction? Just what do you think a fact is?

I keep using that word, "fact." I'm not even sure I know what it properly means. So, enlighten me.

[mfbukowski]

My question in response to your question: Can God reveal something to you, or tell you something, without you perceiving it?

Suppose he came down here and stood right in front of you and said something to you without you realizing he was God and he was talking to you, for example.

I know who my wife is but still sometimes I don't perceive that she is talking to me or what she is saying.

You answered your own question.

Read carefully what I said.

Someone might say: "Independent of your perceptions, how do you know that God has revealed something to you?"

Do you KNOW what your wife said if you didn't listen?

Everybody tends to miss that point. I never talk about "what is real"- who cares? All that matters is what we KNOW is real. Out of sight, out of mind.

[mfbukowski]

So only if you respond? People can have experiences they don't respond to. Like when Jesus was in front of them, teaching them, while they didn't recognize who he was or the value in his teachings. They heard wth their ears but they didn't really listen or perceive what they heard. Some people don't perceive what is right in front of their face, and as the saying goes, if it had been a snake it would have bit them right in their face.

Go to the blackboard and write the word "KNOW" five hundred times.

[mfbukowski]

You are quite right, of course, and it was poor wording on my part. What I meant by my confusing and contradictory sentence was that language (the sentences and propositions that you mention) can still be true even if it involves things other than "facts." Facts, of course, are illusory things that we like to think are measurable and intrinsic to the ontology of external objects, which is the sense in which I was using the word. We like to think that facts are "objective."

I was trying to point this out in the earlier part of my comment, but you know, we generally have such a bad habit of using speech in this nonsense way that I sometimes fall into it. We often call things "true" when actually, it is our language that is true or false, measured against what we perceive and believe.

If I say, "That chair is beautiful," I am speaking a truth which reveals something about myself more than about the chair. So you see, the fact is in the observer and not in the chair. But even that is arguable, as it deals with the nature of fact, which you have reduced to interpretations--a safe bet as you understand that nothing can be proven. This would require some way to step outside of oneself in order to become the universal and impartial spectator. Only God can prove things, it turns out. Curiously, that seems not to be His business. Apparently God wants people to consent to things and not be compelled by them. So He has not offered much in the way of proof, or justification... only in the way of gifts.

I agree. The trick is not only learning how to speak differently but how to think differently.

Took me 20 years probably before I FULLY realized and internalized that all we were doing for the most part is talking about talk. Now I am trying to point that out to others, because when you really get that, it is life-changing. That's what that other thread was about, the 45 minutes to change your life.

[Ahab]

Go to the blackboard and write the word "KNOW" five hundred times.

Here it comes. Get ready. I'm about ready to write it:

the word "KNOW" five hundred times.

p.s. Kinda reminds me of a riddle I heard a while back:

Railroad crossing, look out for cars. Now spell that without any r's.

that doesn't have any r's.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Ahab

[Ahab]

I agree. The trick is not only learning how to speak differently but how to think differently.

Took me 20 years probably before I FULLY realized and internalized that all we were doing for the most part is talking about talk. Now I am trying to point that out to others, because when you really get that, it is life-changing. That's what that other thread was about, the 45 minutes to change your life.

You're still missing the big picture, though, because facts are as real as anything else that is real. Not just the interpretations, but the facts themselves. State a fact or something that someone else would consider to be a fact, for example. Or allude to it, if you can't state it. What the heck are you talking about? Is that real? Yep, even if you don't think so. And even if it isn't good.

[mfbukowski]

You're still missing the big picture, though, because facts are as real as anything else that is real. Not just the interpretations, but the facts themselves. State a fact or something that someone else would consider to be a fact, for example. Or allude to it, if you can't state it. What the heck are you talking about? Is that real? Yep, even if you don't think so. And even if it isn't good.

Someone here is definitely missing the big picture, but I don't think it's me

Give me an example of one "fact" which no one knows.

If they are "in the world", that should be easy. If they are in our collective minds, then it will be impossible. What we call "facts" are linguistic propositions- words- sentences- which are considered "true".

[Ahab]

Give me an example of one "fact" which no one knows.

Sheesh. Make up your mind. First you say there are no such things as facts, only interpretations, and now you want me to come up with a fact that nobody knows? How about an example of a fact which somebody knows? Even if only one person knows it, it would still be an example of a real fact. It's not my position that there is a fact which no one knows. My position is that there are facts and people who know them.

If they are "in the world", that should be easy.

Go for it, then. Give an example to make your own point.

If they are in our collective minds, then it will be impossible. What we call "facts" are linguistic propositions- words- sentences- which are considered "true".

Right, and those facts allude to and include things that are real, too. It's not just a word, but also what the word represents.

[mfbukowski]

Ahab, Ahab, what am I going to do with you?

We are on opposite sides of the universe but in the same church, Bro Ahab. You are speaking Greek and I am speaking Chinese, or might as well be.

[Ahab]

Ahab, Ahab, what am I going to do with you?

We are on opposite sides of the universe but in the same church, Bro Ahab. You are speaking Greek and I am speaking Chinese, or might as well be.

Then learn my language, bro. I'm doing my best to try to understand you, and we're both writing in what is called English.

[Rob Osborn]

Mmmmmmm, cheese-hoses.... You know, I'm on a cheese hose diet too. Stuff is really bad for you. Tasty, though.

Hey, what is this? Are we playing a game of "name that rhetological fallacy?" Um, let me think... "Hasty generalization?" Or is it "Red herring?"

Do I win?

No, we only agree upon those things in certain contexts, some of the time. You will find various definitions accepted by the dictionary. For instance, Collins lists at least ten for the word "truth."

And, do you have an example of a "fact" that is not also perceived? Must not facts be perceived and believed? So how is there a distinction? Just what do you think a fact is?

I keep using that word, "fact." I'm not even sure I know what it properly means. So, enlighten me.

Its rather simple- a fact is something observableor known to be true. For instance- there is such a book called "The Book of Mormon". I can present it to be seen and felt. That is an example of a "fact". I can take it further and state that the book claims to be an account of the ancient inhabitants in the Americas. That "claim" is also a fact. Now as for if that claim is true, well, thats debateable by many people.

[altersteve]

IOkay, so your perception of what the word perception means may be different than mine. I'll repeat my original question:

Can God reveal something to you, or tell you something, without you perceiving it?

Of course. He doesn't force us to listen.

[Gervin]

How do you know?

I suppose that sometimes I know and other times I don't and there are times when I think I know and times when I think I don't know. And everything in between.

"Knowing" is not my response to Christ's claim. Is it supposed to be?

[mfbukowski]

I suppose that sometimes I know and other times I don't and there are times when I think I know and times when I think I don't know. And everything in between.

"Knowing" is not my response to Christ's claim. Is it supposed to be?

I think we are confusing words here, that's all.

You keep speaking of "truth claims" which in my book mean something which can be verified scientifically.

I would not consider Christ's teachings "truth claims" though of course I consider them "true". Maybe that's where we jumped the track.

[pmccombs1]

Its rather simple- a fact is something observableor known to be true. For instance- there is such a book called "The Book of Mormon".

But my question was whether or not one can observe or know a fact absent perception and belief. Isn't perception part of knowledge? Don't we have to bring meaning or understanding to our senses in order to "know" something? What does it mean to sense something, but not to interpret it? Therefore, is not all knowledge subjective?

I'm not suggesting there isn't an objective reality, I'm only suggesting we can't know it as it really is, but only through our unique experience of it. Our knowledge comes from experience. When we say we know something, we are talking about a thing that has been filtered through the mind and body with whatever limitations those are subject to. That means our "facts" are subject to the same limitations and subjectivity. What we call "objective" is merely a degree of subjectivity tempered by a perceived reliability. The more universally reliable the subjectivity is perceived to be, the greater the justification for it. When something is considered "authoritative," it must have achieved a very high level of justification indeed.

[Gervin]

I think we are confusing words here, that's all.

You keep speaking of "truth claims" which in my book mean something which can be verified scientifically.

I would not consider Christ's teachings "truth claims" though of course I consider them "true". Maybe that's where we jumped the track.

I'm not talking about teachings which, I perceive to be, different than Christ's claim that he was truth. Does that help?

[Rob Osborn]

But my question was whether or not one can observe or know a fact absent perception and belief. Isn't perception part of knowledge? Don't we have to bring meaning or understanding to our senses in order to "know" something? What does it mean to sense something, but not to interpret it? Therefore, is not all knowledge subjective?

I'm not suggesting there isn't an objective reality, I'm only suggesting we can't know it as it really is, but only through our unique experience of it. Our knowledge comes from experience. When we say we know something, we are talking about a thing that has been filtered through the mind and body with whatever limitations those are subject to. That means our "facts" are subject to the same limitations and subjectivity. What we call "objective" is merely a degree of subjectivity tempered by a perceived reliability. The more universally reliable the subjectivity is perceived to be, the greater the justification for it. When something is considered "authoritative," it must have achieved a very high level of justification indeed.

You are getting too philisophical. Pretty soon it wil digress into if we really exist or not as all philosophy tends to come back too. Thinking too much into it.

Truth is truth no matter what. Facts are facts no matter what. Everything is either one of two- its either true or false. We can "know" truth and false when facts are applied and the results shine plain as day. Knowledge of things comes from all avenues including- experience, study, revelation, etc. All knowledge is also either true or false depending on how one interprets the facts. But in the end it all comes down to simple truth or a lack of it.

[pmccombs1]

You are getting too philisophical.

Uhhhh.... Sorry, I've got nothin'.

How does one argue with that? It's brilliant. Next time someone brings up a logical contradiction, I'm just gonna say, "you are getting too philosophical." Poof! Problem gone.

Pretty soon it wil digress into if we really exist or not as all philosophy tends to come back too. Thinking too much into it.

Oh, nonsense. I've been reading philosophy for years and have yet to observe this "digression." And how does one think too much into something? Is this attitude the anti-intellectualism I sometimes hear about?

Truth is truth no matter what. Facts are facts no matter what. Everything is either one of two- its either true or false.

Let's see... begging the question, begging the question, and tautology.

Honestly, I'm surprised at you. With an outlook like that, what's the point of having a discussion on a board like this one? I mean, I don't mind that people think this way, and I'm quite happy if they do (see my original comment, for example....), but such things can't be argued. You have created a reality by fiat, and there's really no point in talking about it or investigating it.

[pogi]

What does true mean with regards to religion? Does it matter and why?

Is there only one truth?

There might be some clues in the following verse: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world (James 1:27)."

While James is not giving a full definition of true religion, or truth in religion, he does mention some of the effects of it, without which it cannot be true and genuine. Somebody mentioned love earlier, I think they were on to something. In regards to religion, perhaps truth is simply that which is pure and undefiled before God.

Edited August 14, 2013 by pogi