Searching for GOD...

[ProfessorDavey]

Religions appropriated these words long before scientists and mathematians who tend to reduce everything to their own fields. It was not always thus.....it kind of appears with Lord Russell.

True for me thinking from antitheists is itself a reduction to everything aside from science being a matter of taste.

Science is available to everyone but it is limited and not an ontology. what you have Mr Dave seems to be scientism which is.

Not true of course as the concepts and use of the term truth (in various languages) can be readily traced back to ancient roman and greek philosophy.

But regardless of its etymology we have accepted definitions of words and we cannot simply redefine words as we might wish them to be for a specific purpose. To use the word truth to apply to a subjective opinion or belief (true to me) is fine - to try to use the word truth in an objective manner, when the reality is that we are talking about subjective beliefs or opinions wrong and a misuse of the word.

[ProfessorDavey]

Were you planning on taking this up with the people who are responsible for the BBC GCSE Bitesize  website?

Who effectively confirm that it cannot be used beyond a subjective, true for me, view. Indeed they actually put 'the truth' in inverted commas.

I don't see how this is in any way inconsistent with my view that the word truth can only be used in a  purely subjective - true for me - manner when related to beliefs of opinions, whether religious or otherwise.

'This is the sort of truth which we find in religion. This sort of truth deals with faith and belief. People may say that they 'know' God but they cannot prove it in a scientific way and, unlike some of the other sorts of truth, it is very difficult to persuade other people if they are sceptical or do not believe themselves.

People who follow a particular religion may say that by doing so they are discovering the 'real truth' about life and about God. This definition of truth is linked with the argument from experience.

One of the problems is that often people from different religions claim that they have ‘the truth’ and that other people do not. This is a difficult situation because it may be almost impossible to convince other people that you are right.'

[Gordon]

Christians seem fond of the phrase attributed to Jesus 'I am the way and the truth and the life': in this case 'the truth' sounds awfully like reification (as does 'the way' and 'the life').

Perhaps one of their number can explain.

 

[ProfessorDavey]

Christians seem fond of the phrase attributed to Jesus 'I am the way and the truth and the life': in this case 'the truth' sounds awfully like reification (as does 'the way' and 'the life').

Perhaps one of their number can explain.

I'm, of course, not one of their number - however to me it seems to be a way to try to portray believe and opinion as more important and more universal than is warranted. I think it is just wrong when people talk as if a subjective opinion or belief is an objective truth - it isn't.

It comes across as pompous and self aggrandising.

[Sriram]

Brains evolved to resolve choice (all choice, not just conscious choice) and the size and complexity of brains mirrors the complexity of species having them.  All this happens in a reality which we can regard, for all practical purposes, as deterministic.

No souls, required, a spurious concept.

Brains evolved to resolve...whose choice?!  And how does the presence of a brain automatically rule out a 'soul'? 

[ekim]

Christians seem fond of the phrase attributed to Jesus 'I am the way and the truth and the life': in this case 'the truth' sounds awfully like reification (as does 'the way' and 'the life').

Perhaps one of their number can explain.

I am not 'one of their number' so, I can put my spin on what that phrase might mean.  I suspect that the writer was referring to the truth of being or life, as opposed to concepts of truth or life forms.  I am being the way and am being the truth and am being life itself could be seen as a declaration of that realisation and is the sort of realisation which mystics of a number of religions aspire to.  You can only know the truth by being at one with it, and the truth they are seeking is an absolute, eternal, changeless truth rather than the relative or probable truth which passes for the objective reality around us.  If you want to test the claim then you usually have to follow a prescribed way or method.  It is about realising the subject 'I' rather than  subjective concepts and theories or objective formal states.

[Stranger]

Brains evolved to resolve...whose choice?!

The organism in which it resides.

And how does the presence of a brain automatically rule out a 'soul'?

It doesn't rule it out, it makes it unnecessary for making choices.

Souls aren't impossible, it's just that there is no evidence that they exist. Alan's version of free will, on the other hand, is impossible even for a non-material soul because it's self-contradictory.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am being the way and am being the truth and am being life itself could be seen as a declaration of that realisation and is the sort of realisation which mystics of a number of religions aspire to.

But that is a hugely subjective 'opinion' rather than a universal objective truth.

Firstly because 'I am being the way and am being the truth and am being life itself' is an opinion that cannot be proven or substantiated and other opinions - for example 'no you are not' are just as subjectively compelling.

But secondly because the very concept of the 'I' in question - presumably god, is itself a subjective belief - there is no objective evidence for god and therefore even whether god exists or not is a purely subjective belief.

This as a concept appears to be about as far from a universal and objective truth as you can get.

[Enki]

I am not 'one of their number' so, I can put my spin on what that phrase might mean.  I suspect that the writer was referring to the truth of being or life, as opposed to concepts of truth or life forms.  I am being the way and am being the truth and am being life itself could be seen as a declaration of that realisation and is the sort of realisation which mystics of a number of religions aspire to.  You can only know the truth by being at one with it, and the truth they are seeking is an absolute, eternal, changeless truth rather than the relative or probable truth which passes for the objective reality around us.  If you want to test the claim then you usually have to follow a prescribed way or method.  It is about realising the subject 'I' rather than  subjective concepts and theories or objective formal states.

So let's put your ideas to the test:

The writer actually said:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So, if you are right, and these sort of truths are absolute and eternal truths, and 'you can only know the truth by being at one with it' and if you wish to test the claims made you have to follow some sort of prescribed way or method, do you happily accept that one can come to the Father only through following Jesus because that is what he claimed as part of his 'truth' or do you think his truths are not proved, or do you think that it simply meant it was true for him, and he was a tad overreaching himself to claim it for everyone or do you simply not know?

[ekim]

But that is a hugely subjective 'opinion' rather than a universal objective truth.

Firstly because 'I am being the way and am being the truth and am being life itself' is an opinion that cannot be proven or substantiated and other opinions - for example 'no you are not' are just as subjectively compelling.

But secondly because the very concept of the 'I' in question - presumably god, is itself a subjective belief - there is no objective evidence for god and therefore even whether god exists or not is a purely subjective belief.

This as a concept appears to be about as far from a universal and objective truth as you can get.

Yes, what you say is correct which is why the 'realisation' methods are attempts to bypass the reasoning, rationalising mind's tendency to dwell upon opinions, beliefs, gods, concepts, models, images, theories etc.   Inner conscious stillness tends to be the way.  The  problem arises when attempts are made to convey, whatever the realisation is, to others in words, which is why myth and analogy tends to be used.  Huang Po [9th C Ch.  Zen Buddhist Master] put it this way: 'Those who seek the truth by means of intellect and learning only get further and further from it.   Not until your thoughts cease, not until you abandon seeking for something, not until your mind is as motionless as stone will you be on the right road' and Socrates this way : Individual must experience life directly and not depend upon logic or borrowed learning.   Experience and achieve union with ultimate love by first knowing the beauty of the body, then the beauty of the soul and at last the impersonal beauty of the universe pulsating inside and outside the silent being.'

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, what you say is correct which is why the 'realisation' methods are attempts to bypass the reasoning, rationalising mind's tendency to dwell upon opinions, beliefs, gods, concepts, models, images, theories etc.

But true rational thinking doesn't rely on any of those things - it relies on empirical and objective evidence, which is a key component of determining objective, and likely, universal truths about the universal and all things within it.   

Inner conscious stillness tends to be the way.

The way to what? That statement sounds lie a highly subjective opinion and one that is difficult to verify. While I don't disagree that inner mindfulness and meditation may be valuable ways to understand our individual consciousness and improve individual well being that has very little to do with objective and universal truths. 

The  problem arises when attempts are made to convey, whatever the realisation is, to others in words, which is why myth and analogy tends to be used.  Huang Po [9th C Ch.  Zen Buddhist Master] put it this way: 'Those who seek the truth by means of intellect and learning only get further and further from it.   Not until your thoughts cease, not until you abandon seeking for something, not until your mind is as motionless as stone will you be on the right road' and Socrates this way : Individual must experience life directly and not depend upon logic or borrowed learning.   Experience and achieve union with ultimate love by first knowing the beauty of the body, then the beauty of the soul and at last the impersonal beauty of the universe pulsating inside and outside the silent being.'

Nice quote and certainly I can see how this approach supports subjective understanding of individual consciousness, but not as a mechanism to understand universal truths.

I think the problem here is that this quote and its approach is predicated on a notion that truth is somehow 'revealed' and as long as we know the right way of acting (in this case in a very passive manner) it will be revealed. I don't think that is the case. Truth and particularly universal truths have to be actively found, ruthlessly road tested and only those that remain standing once tested to (attempted) destruction stand the test of time.

So the sort of meditative mindfulness you describe may be hugely valuable in the early stages of that process - to come up with ideas, notions, hypotheses (the creative stuff) that perhaps run counter to the accepted norm. But that idea isn't necessarily a truth, merely a guess. The hard work starts then - to test that idea to see whether it stand up. Most revealed 'truths' simply don't and history is littered with side alleys, down which humanity has stumbled (sometimes astonishingly destructively) by accepting revealed 'truths' without critical assessment and testing only to find out in due course that they were actually a pack of lies.

[ekim]

So let's put your ideas to the test:

The writer actually said:

So, if you are right, and these sort of truths are absolute and eternal truths, and 'you can only know the truth by being at one with it' and if you wish to test the claims made you have to follow some sort of prescribed way or method, do you happily accept that one can come to the Father only through following Jesus because that is what he claimed as part of his 'truth' or do you think his truths are not proved, or do you think that it simply meant it was true for him, and he was a tad overreaching himself to claim it for everyone or do you simply not know?

Simply, I do not know because there are so many unknowns.  It is not known whether the 4th Gospel actually reflects the words of Jesus or, as some think, they may have been written by a Jewish or Hellenist mystic based upon the Logos mysteries, but to answer your other questions.  It is difficult to know what 'God' represented to Jesus. It might have been 'Life', 'Love', 'Power', Truth but I would not accept 'only through following Jesus' as there are other methods.  As regards 'No one comes to the Father except through me.' I would suggest that he had already described 'me' as being the Way, being the Truth and being Life, and so to know the 'Father', the follower needs to be the same as Jesus and able to declare the same.  I would suggest that 'it was true for him' but he was keen to share the way for others to realise the same.  The Jews certainly thought he was overreaching himself but as I was not there, I couldn't say.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Who effectively confirm that it cannot be used beyond a subjective, true for me, view. Indeed they actually put 'the truth' in inverted commas.

I don't see how this is in any way inconsistent with my view that the word truth can only be used in a  purely subjective - true for me - manner when related to beliefs of opinions, whether religious or otherwise.

'This is the sort of truth which we find in religion. This sort of truth deals with faith and belief. People may say that they 'know' God but they cannot prove it in a scientific way and, unlike some of the other sorts of truth, it is very difficult to persuade other people if they are sceptical or do not believe themselves.

People who follow a particular religion may say that by doing so they are discovering the 'real truth' about life and about God. This definition of truth is linked with the argument from experience.

One of the problems is that often people from different religions claim that they have ‘the truth’ and that other people do not. This is a difficult situation because it may be almost impossible to convince other people that you are right.'

Yes that's fine. I think it is acceptable to use 'truth' in terms of religious people thinking something is true based on their personal religious conviction due to their subjective experiences. 

I was under the impression that you were objecting to the way the BBC GCSE Bitesize website had listed out the different types of 'truths' and that you objected to the sub-heading: 'Spiritual or religious truth'. Especially as your post #34071 seemed to suggest that you thought the acceptable way to use the word 'truth' was to say "it is true that I believe...". My mistake. In that case we seem to be in agreement.

I agree with the BBC GCSE Bitesize website's interpretation of a religious person saying "they are discovering the 'real truth' about life and about God".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Christians seem fond of the phrase attributed to Jesus 'I am the way and the truth and the life': in this case 'the truth' sounds awfully like reification (as does 'the way' and 'the life').

Perhaps one of their number can explain.

Maybe...………. I feel I've addressed YOUR ILK enough today.

[Gordon]

Maybe...………. I feel I've addressed YOUR ILK enough today.

So, Vlad, I take it you've been overwhelmed by theological queries posed by hordes of banjo-playing, motorcycle-riding, bearded Scotsmen?

I didn't realise there were so many of us!

[Enki]

Simply, I do not know because there are so many unknowns.  It is not known whether the 4th Gospel actually reflects the words of Jesus or, as some think, they may have been written by a Jewish or Hellenist mystic based upon the Logos mysteries, but to answer your other questions.  It is difficult to know what 'God' represented to Jesus. It might have been 'Life', 'Love', 'Power', Truth but I would not accept 'only through following Jesus' as there are other methods.  As regards 'No one comes to the Father except through me.' I would suggest that he had already described 'me' as being the Way, being the Truth and being Life, and so to know the 'Father', the follower needs to be the same as Jesus and able to declare the same.  I would suggest that 'it was true for him' but he was keen to share the way for others to realise the same.  The Jews certainly thought he was overreaching himself but as I was not there, I couldn't say.

Ekim, thank you for your reply.

Just a few thoughts.

Any truth has to appertain to something, whether that be related to the nature of god, self, reality etc. By itself, to suggest that somebody holds the truth, immediately invites the question, the truth about what?

What you seem to be suggesting here is that there are no valid tests which can ascertain such deep seated ideas as god etc. in any genuine truthful way except to the individual(s) concerned. Hence, whoever the writer of John was, and whatever he suggested that Jesus said, without outside validity of the words uttered, it remains a truism that this kind of truth statement can only be considered true by those who are willing to accept it as true based only upon their subjective interpretation. This version of truth cannot be reasonably accepted as 'an absolute, eternal, changeless truth' simply because other individuals may hold entirely conflicting/different ideas of these same truths based solely upon their own subjective interpretations.

[torridon]

Brains evolved to resolve...whose choice?!  And how does the presence of a brain automatically rule out a 'soul'?

The choices of the enbrained creature.  For a simple organism, a simple system suffices, the central nervous system.  When creatures evolved greater complexity so too the nervous system had to evolved in parallel.  Brains are that bulbous outgrowth of a nervous system, the expansion of cortex allowing for choice of greater complexity.

I don't do 'souls'.  As mentioned earlier, the term comes loaded with so much baggage that it introduces more confusion than clarity so I prefer to stick to (comparatively) well defined terms such as consciousness, perception, personality, self awareness etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes that's fine. I think it is acceptable to use 'truth' in terms of religious people thinking something is true based on their personal religious conviction due to their subjective experiences.

There is a world of difference between:

'It is the truth that I believe that Jesus is the son of god'

And

'My belief that Jesus is the son of god is the truth'

[Sriram]

The choices of the enbrained creature.  For a simple organism, a simple system suffices, the central nervous system.  When creatures evolved greater complexity so too the nervous system had to evolved in parallel.  Brains are that bulbous outgrowth of a nervous system, the expansion of cortex allowing for choice of greater complexity.

I don't do 'souls'.  As mentioned earlier, the term comes loaded with so much baggage that it introduces more confusion than clarity so I prefer to stick to (comparatively) well defined terms such as consciousness, perception, personality, self awareness etc.

What do you mean enbrained creature?  If brains have evolved to help the organism to choose...that means there is something in the organism that is independent of the brain.  The brain is only an aid. 

I can actually agree with that.  That's the idea of the soul/consciousness.

You may not like the word 'soul' because of its religious baggage. But you are unwittingly proposing something similar.

[torridon]

What do you mean enbrained creature?  If brains have evolved to help the organism to choose...that means there is something in the organism that is independent of the brain.  The brain is only an aid. 

I can actually agree with that.  That's the idea of the soul/consciousness.

You may not like the word 'soul' because of its religious baggage. But you are unwittingly proposing something similar.

I don't follow that.  For most purposes we can model a creature as a discreet bounded system, bounded by it's skin, say.  The organism prospers or not according to how well it processes information, or how good its choices are.  The brain is the focal point of all that internal activity.  I'm not suggesting that it is 'separate' in any way.  The brain may be a functionally distinct unit but it is intimately connected to everything else in the system.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

There is a world of difference between:

'It is the truth that I believe that Jesus is the son of god'

And

'My belief that Jesus is the son of god is the truth'

The second statement seems more in line with the way 'true' was used to explain 'religious truth' in the Religious Studies section on the BBC GCSE Bitesize website.

Also, the second statement seems more useful to the individual - unless a person thinks that their belief is true, what would motivate them to act on their belief?

[ProfessorDavey]

The second statement seems more in line with the way 'true' was used to explain 'religious truth' in the Religious Studies section on the BBC GCSE Bitesize website.

Also, the second statement seems more useful to the individual - unless a person thinks that their belief is true, what would motivate them to act on their belief?

No the second statement implies an objective truth, which cannot be sustained without evidence, and that isn't compatible with a subjective opinion or belief.

The first statement is fine, but lacks any relevance as it is simply countered by someone else having an alternative view, namely:
'It is the truth that I do not believe that Jesus is the son of god'

The second statement is unsustainable as whether or not Jesus is the son of god is not a matter or subjective belief but is either objectively true or not objectively true.

Let's use a different - and less contentious example. Rather than 'Jesus is the son of god' let's use ' the earth is flat'.

So we now have:

'It is the truth that I believe that the earth is flat'

And

'My belief that the earth is flat is the truth'

Only the first statement is sustainable (albeit wrong) as the truth refers to the belief, a subjective notion. The second is not sustainable as the truth relates to the shape of the earth - an objective truth, not one determined by subjective belief. The earth is either flat, or it isn't and no amount of belief one way or the other will change that objective truth.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No the second statement implies an objective truth, which cannot be sustained without evidence, and that isn't compatible with a subjective opinion or belief.

The first statement is fine, but lacks any relevance as it is simply countered by someone else having an alternative view, namely:
'It is the truth that I do not believe that Jesus is the son of god'

The second statement is unsustainable as whether or not Jesus is the son of god is not a matter or subjective belief but is either objectively true or not objectively true.

Let's use a different - and less contentious example. Rather than 'Jesus is the son of god' let's use ' the earth is flat'.

So we now have:

'It is the truth that I believe that the earth is flat'

And

'My belief that the earth is flat is the truth'

Only the first statement is sustainable (albeit wrong) as the truth refers to the belief, a subjective notion. The second is not sustainable as the truth relates to the shape of the earth - an objective truth, not one determined by subjective belief. The earth is either flat, or it isn't and no amount of belief one way or the other will change that objective truth.

Yes I know. I was making the point that the way 'true' is used in religion is that it is someone's internal spiritual conviction that something is true but they can't justify that belief by providing objective evidence as it is only based on their subjective feeling and moreover it would be impossible to test. That seems to be how the BBC website explained the use of 'true' in relation to religious truths.

So if a religious person says that it's the truth that Jesus was the son of God or talks about following the true faith - those are assertions based on their subjective, internal spiritual conviction. It might sound 'arrogant' but if a Christian is asked the question "do you think Jesus being the son of God is true?" the simple answer is "yes" because that is their belief. If they didn't believe it was true they would not be particularly committed to act on their faith, which means the faith would not really be serving the purpose for which people seem to use faith.

[ekim]

But true rational thinking doesn't rely on any of those things - it relies on empirical and objective evidence, which is a key component of determining objective, and likely, universal truths about the universal and all things within it.   
The way to what? That statement sounds lie a highly subjective opinion and one that is difficult to verify. While I don't disagree that inner mindfulness and meditation may be valuable ways to understand our individual consciousness and improve individual well being that has very little to do with objective and universal truths. 
Nice quote and certainly I can see how this approach supports subjective understanding of individual consciousness, but not as a mechanism to understand universal truths.

I think the problem here is that this quote and its approach is predicated on a notion that truth is somehow 'revealed' and as long as we know the right way of acting (in this case in a very passive manner) it will be revealed. I don't think that is the case. Truth and particularly universal truths have to be actively found, ruthlessly road tested and only those that remain standing once tested to (attempted) destruction stand the test of time.

So the sort of meditative mindfulness you describe may be hugely valuable in the early stages of that process - to come up with ideas, notions, hypotheses (the creative stuff) that perhaps run counter to the accepted norm. But that idea isn't necessarily a truth, merely a guess. The hard work starts then - to test that idea to see whether it stand up. Most revealed 'truths' simply don't and history is littered with side alleys, down which humanity has stumbled (sometimes astonishingly destructively) by accepting revealed 'truths' without critical assessment and testing only to find out in due course that they were actually a pack of lies.

I think you are reading too much into what I am suggesting, probably because I am not finding adequate words.  I don't think (let's call it) the way of the mystic is about understanding consciousness or universal truths as this will inevitably lead to the mind saying 'I think the problem here is.....' and come up with the 'ideas, notions, hypotheses' you mention. Using 'reveal' in its original sense of 'removing a veil', the veil is, amongst other things, all the thoughts, notions etc. and the way or method tends to be about transcending them rather than indulging them and then experientially identifying with the conscious being 'beyond'.  This is sometimes referred to as the Truth (of Being), sometimes Life, sometimes Power (perhaps in the sense of potential), sometimes Nothing, none of which is important.  What is considered to be important is the experience and the practice of the method.  What I suspect happens is that during the practice there is a 'sense' of expansion, timelessness, freedom which later gets interpreted rightly or wrongly as universal or eternal, or God even.

[ekim]

Ekim, thank you for your reply.

Just a few thoughts.

Any truth has to appertain to something, whether that be related to the nature of god, self, reality etc. By itself, to suggest that somebody holds the truth, immediately invites the question, the truth about what?

What you seem to be suggesting here is that there are no valid tests which can ascertain such deep seated ideas as god etc. in any genuine truthful way except to the individual(s) concerned. Hence, whoever the writer of John was, and whatever he suggested that Jesus said, without outside validity of the words uttered, it remains a truism that this kind of truth statement can only be considered true by those who are willing to accept it as true based only upon their subjective interpretation. This version of truth cannot be reasonably accepted as 'an absolute, eternal, changeless truth' simply because other individuals may hold entirely conflicting/different ideas of these same truths based solely upon their own subjective interpretations.

More or less. See my reply to Prof Davey.  I would say that interpretation of the experience is the problem.  I remember listening to a South Pacific Islander who had experienced snow for the first time and on his return home tried to explain his experience to fellow islanders who had never had the experience.  He failed and that was mostly sensory related.  Perhaps Buddha had the right idea, when asked about God, 'he maintained a noble silence'.  The alternative is 35,000 postings on this site's topic.