RE: Is there objective Truth?
October 20, 2016 at 2:27 am
(This post was last modified: October 20, 2016 at 2:38 am by Kernel Sohcahtoa.)
Soldat Du Christ Wrote:If i could use a diagram as an example, the point i'm trying to make is that this choice is the first axiom from which we build our beliefs, knowledge, and interpretations off of. And that no matter what "new" ways you discover to aproach lifes problems, it will always begin with this question.
Naturalism > Athiesm > militant athiesm
> reserved athiesm
> Gnosticism
> Solipsism
> Humanism
Super Naturalism > Christianity > Catholic
> orthodox
> Islam
> buudhism
If epistemolgy is a tree, this decision makes up the trunk. One could also think they have discovered a new epistemlogy, but still can be boiled down to reveal the ultimate axiom at the core of there reasoning. It's all about pointing out hidden assumptions. For example, athiests will general assume naturalism, but don't even realise how that decision dictates there following ability to reason, considering the absence of objectivity.
If you disagree please elaborate.
Thanks for your response, Soldat Du Christ. I do not agree with you, sir. IMO, I’m afraid we may have hit a barrier.
If I’m understanding you correctly, then any new discovery that enhances our ability to approach life’s problems will ultimately fall into two main categories: supernaturalism and naturalism. From a supernatural point of view, you have been given truth finding tools by your creator, which provides you with an objective basis for truth seeking. In addition, non-theists also possess these same truth finding tools; however, from your perspective, this approach to truth seeking lacks an objective basis. Therefore, supernaturalism is the better approach toward finding objective truth. Is this correct? Have I understood you, sir?
In regards to my disagreement with you, the main thing I’m trying to get at is that the truth seeking approaches of supernaturalism and naturalism make use of humanistic sense-making processes to understand and interpret reality. However, can reality only be interpreted via humanistic sense-making processes; does reality conform to the way we think? IMO, it seems somewhat premature to conclude that finding objective truth ultimately boils down to two truth seeking approaches. Hence, given our inability to explain and find objective truth via these two approaches, is it not plausible to conclude that they are tiny parts to some broader way of understanding reality that we have not tapped into yet? Or to put it another way, perhaps attempting to interpret reality beyond these two approaches would overload our circuits, because human imagination is still too limited to explore the other possibilities existing beyond these two approaches. Does this make sense?
Thank you for your time and attention, Soldat Du Christ.
