Is there objective Truth?

[Edwardo Piet]

All truth is objective.

[bennyboy]

Perfect enough for government work.

Not. . . sure. . . how to. . . respond.

[Edwardo Piet]

With honesty.

[Soldat Du Christ]

Of course! Maybe a little too formal calling me sir alot, lol, but still refreshing. If you are okay with it i still have questions and propositions. Just can't tell if you are done or not so feel free to ignore me or call it quits.

So i'm curious to know what you mean when you imply something other than human sense making, as being a possible alternitive.

And rythm made me realise somthing i havn't been direct about, and that is, i see worldviews, and epistemology as being structured. While the contrary it's more of a mish mash of beliefs and facts, and you are just attempting to connect all the dots is that correct? Like a big puzzle piece of life? In that light, i comprehend alot more about the points you where making before.

Thanks for your response, Soldat Du Christ.  I think you are starting to understand my inquiries.  I like your "big puzzle piece of life" phrase. 

Now if this is correct or mostly correct, could you could give me your synopsis on the idea of these different ways to visualise a world view. (Negate the supernaturalism vs naturalism atm)

Unfortunately, my position is one of uncertainty. As a result, I do not think I'm capable of giving a meaningful and original response to your inquiry.  However, IMO, if theists and non-theists were to suspend their judgement of one another and be open to what each one has to bring to the table, then perhaps a new way of thinking can emerge, which will aid humanity in their quest to find objective truth.

I'm glad we are on the same page! That to me is important. Unfortunetly, the christian position is that we do have the truth of life. We have a proper explanation for laws, logic, objective morality. The reason why we fell behind in education, and succesively led to the ignorant christian stigma, is because that's not what's important in our word view. Love god, love your neighbor. That's all that is demanded of us. If you love god you will do your best to live how he intended for us. And if you love others you would do your best to help them find grace in gods eyes. Serve them, love them, pray for them. This life is realy nothing, no amount of comfort, or misery, makes a difference in the end.

Now erlier you say you think recognising universalism raises more questions than answers. I can't understand how one could see it that way, when there is an obvious answer. Even if you decline that answer, recognising objectivity is still a more sane, and cohisive than trying put the pieces together in a world without order IMO. I think it's a losing battle. And i'm also starting to realise that these are irreconcilable differences...

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

I'm glad we are on the same page! That to me is important

IMO, I don’t think that we are, sir. From my observations, you are only starting to understand me; whereas, from your perspective, I'm pretty much understanding you.  

Unfortunetly, the christian position is that we do have the truth of life. We have a proper explanation for laws, logic, objective morality. The reason why we fell behind in education, and succesively led to the ignorant christian stigma, is because that's not what's important in our word view. Love god, love your neighbor. That's all that is demanded of us. If you love god you will do your best to live how he intended for us. And if you love others you would do your best to help them find grace in gods eyes. Serve them, love them, pray for them. This life is realy nothing, no amount of comfort, or misery, makes a difference in the end.

 
 
I respect the fact that your beliefs make you individually unique and give meaning to your life.  To feel that way about anything is quite spectacular and beautiful.  However, IMO, the conflict between non-secularism and secularism begins when one side starts asserting that their truth is ‘the truth’, rather than one of many alternative ways of arriving at truth.  Hence, this point has really been at the heart of my inquiries throughout our dialog.

Now erlier you say you think recognising universalism raises more questions than answers. I can't understand how one could see it that way, when there is an obvious answer. Even if you decline that answer, recognising objectivity is still a more sane, and cohisive than trying put the pieces together in a world without order IMO.

 
I appreciate your thoughts on this matter.  However, based on your post, I’m afraid that it may be trying to make sense of the non-theistic position via a theistic lens.  Naturally, this approach wouldn’t make much sense to the sense-maker and would appear to lack order and not be sane.  However, the beauty of a non-theistic position is that it is very sane, rational, orderly, and sensible to say that we don’t know what objective truth is, or that we lack an objective basis to account for our counting; the whole point is to discover what that basis is via our own imagination, creativity, and intelligence. In other words, we value the challenge of being able to explain the truth of the mystery, rather than accepting the assertions of various truth-seeking approaches.  Thus, there is great beauty in the idea that an ultimate conclusion can be reached via alternative, diverse approaches, not just one.  Furthermore, from a non-theistic lens, it is very rewarding and meaningful to begin with the smaller parts of the whole and discover how and why they work before we make any conclusions about the true meaning of the whole. 

In contrast, IMO, theism begins with making conclusions about the whole and then tries to understand how its individual parts operate: this approach is like trying to see how the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle fit together based on what the picture of the completed puzzle looks like on the outside cover of the puzzle box. Naturally, making sense of the puzzle in this way inevitably results in pieces being jammed together in a non-orderly fashion.  Thus, this approach has ultimately resulted in theists being incapable of finding a complete order in their objectivity, as they do not fully understand it.  Hence, IMO, theists cannot rationally account for the smaller elements and details of their asserted objectivity.
 
 

I think it's a losing battle. And i'm also starting to realise that these are irreconcilable differences...

 
Based on my understanding of religion, especially Christianity, it is based in peace and understanding.  In addition, I can see that your actions toward me uphold that particular mindset.  Therefore, I cannot see how an individual of peace and understanding can ultimately conclude that these differences are irreconcilable.  IMO, the problem may be that we are searching for an ‘either or’ (win-lose) solution rather than trying to find that rare and beautiful ‘both-gain’  (win-win) solution.

Based on my studies of Christianity, especially C.S Lewis, humility is one of the seven heavenly virtues; it is a virtue against the sin of pride (please correct me if I'm mistaken).  Likewise, humility is a big part of the non-theistic position.  Thus, this is one commonality we share.  In addition, many non-theists (view the peacemaking thread on this site) value peace and understanding too, so those are two more commonalities.  Furthermore, I bet if we really put our minds to it, we could probably find a bunch of commonalities that we share.  Hence, IMO, the differences mentioned in your post are irreconcilable only if we allow ourselves to think that way.   

As always, thanks for your time and attention.

P.S. I truly appreciate the constructive manner in which we are able to respectfully disagree with each other.

[Arkilogue]

All truth is objective.

As long as you don't open the window and let in the cold....

[The Grand Nudger]

Christianity, based on peace and understanding?  Well now you're just blowing smoke up somebody's hole Kernel. Are you really treating a person with respect or understanding by pandering?

 It's based on vicarious redemption through blood sacrifice.  I'm sure plenty of christians find peace or understanding in it (after all, they;re good at seeing things that aren't there), or are..themselves, peaceful and understanding people (like most of us, some of the time)...but that doesn't change the core concept of the religion, the nature of the narrative and title of Christ from which the faith and term "Christianity" is derived. You;re not honestly addressing their faith if you have to whitewash it, and in doing so you are not respecting or accepting it for what it is, but rather what you wish for it to be. It's difficult to find the integrity in -that-.

It's not jesus-ism...it's not peace and understanding-ism.

Allow me to present a demonstration.

-Soldat (or any other christian who wishes to answer). Did Christ die on the cross for your sins, and is there any way to salvation apart from him? Would being a peaceful and understanding person...for example, atone for my sins and grant me salvation?

[Arkilogue]

Christianity, based on peace and understanding?  Well now your just blowing smoke up somebodies hole Kernel.

 It's based on vicarious redemption through blood sacrifice.  I'm sure plenty of christians find peace or understanding in it (after all, they;re good at seeing things that aren't there), or are..themselves, peaceful and understanding people (like most of us, some of the time)...but that doesn't change the  core concept of the religion, the nature of the narrative and title of Christ from which the faith and term "Christianity" is derived.  It's not jesus-ism...it's not peace and understanding-ism.

Get saved!




Penny for your thoughts: According to popular literature, when did Jesus become anointed/Christened?

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Christianity, based on peace and understanding?  Well now you're just blowing smoke up somebodies hole Kernel.

 It's based on vicarious redemption through blood sacrifice.  I'm sure plenty of christians find peace or understanding in it (after all, they;re good at seeing things that aren't there), or are..themselves, peaceful and understanding people (like most of us, some of the time)...but that doesn't change the  core concept of the religion, the nature of the narrative and title of Christ from which the faith and term "Christianity" is derived.  You;re not honestly addressing their faith if you have to whitewash it, and in doing so you are not respecting or accepting it for what it is, but rather what you wish for it to be.  Framing the narrative as-such presents nothing other than a fundamentally dishonest conversation.  How is that supposed to help anyone involved?  

It's not jesus-ism...it's not peace and understanding-ism.  

I respect how you feel about this Rhythm; I'm very aware about the atrocities and barbarism that have been committed in the name of religion, especially Christianity.  To be clear, I should have stated that I was basing my understanding of Christianity on my personal experiences and dealings with other Christians.  Based on these experiences, in particular, my experience at a Christian University, many Christians make the statement that their faith is based in peace.  Hence, it is this idea that I'm interested in understanding and exploring.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nothing to do with how -I- feel about it Kernel.  It's -their- faith, -their- story, -their- rules.  

You can either accept them for and as what they are or talk over and around them, albeit in a way designed to circumvent conflict regarding their very beliefs in conversation because they are unpalatable as they are...to you. If you want to understand, then you have to accept, first, what it is you're attempting to understand. Peace and understanding, apparently, means vicarious redemption through blood sacrifice. Take it up with them...or avoid it, and in doing so have -no- chance to understand it. Not sure how historical atrocities and barbarism got in there, the crucifixion of christ was neither. It's just a story.

"I'd really like to understand why you believe that chocolate is better than vanilla...so let's talk baseball!"
..................?