Answer to "Does Truth Exist?" by thereforegodexists
For the original post that is being answered here, go to thereforegodexists.
As so often atheists are being challenged on the topic of whether we can use logic to come to a true conclusion and as so often this challenge needs a twist of words and a false representation of our original position:
"Is there anything that is absolutely true? More frequently we find that when posed with questions of religious or philosophical significance, our university professors and our preachers will tell the world that there is no absolute truth."
I'd love to say "so far so good", but this is already taken out of context and subsequently used in exactly that way. When saying absolute truth does not exist it is usually not proposed that something can't be figured out to be true as we use it in every day life. What this concept is describing is the fallibility of our perception, something religious folks tend to use to send us the message that logic then also is a fallible concept and we can't base our scientific advances on anything. Apparently "fallible" seems to appeal to religious people as "plain wrong" at this time, while of course having no support of their views at all - in their case not even observation.
Yes, to do science we presume one thing, namely that our day-to-day experiences/observations are what they are. This concept comes in a lot of forms and names but all in all it just means that we are actually ourselves, we're really living, time really continues and we mostly perceive what's really there and don't live in some kind of "Matrix" where our perception is controlled by a computer projecting these images into our mind and so forth. If that assumption is not made we are allowed to dismiss all following arguments as this includes everything we know (but it would also expand to religious beliefs). To give this possibility credit we say there is no "absolute" truth. It surely is a more natural assumption than the exact picture of the Christian god or any other one, though.
As soon as the assumption is made we can use our observation to find out that logic works and expand that to our prevalent picture of science and distinction of true from false. The phrase "this red carpet is not red" is false because we have observed that things never are something and not are the same at the same time, not because we wish it to be so to make our life easier.
The writer uses this misconception to discredit the statement "there is no absolute truth" further down, but not before becoming entirely ridiculous:
"Consequently people delve into this sort of spirituality wherein they are told to just go for the gusto, to do what satisfies them and makes them happy. People are told that they need not concern themselves with what is true, for there is no absolute truth, and all religious claims are of equal merit."
This goes on for a wile assumption after assumption more weird than the previous one. The author is suggesting that there are people who, using the above statement, don't use their brains at all any more because apparently they have become completely blind to distinctions by following that thought. Sound completely crazy yet? I can assure the writer that people who don't use logic and observation at all die off pretty quickly though as they might be tempted to jump down the Hoover Dam just for the fun of it. Not saying they always use it though *cough*.
"The notion that truth does not exist, presupposes that truth does exist. Just think: is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist? If it is absolutely true, then an absolute truth does exist! If it is not absolutely true, then the statement is… not true."
Well apart from the failure to see that following this obscure train of thought would lead to this "logical" piece also not being assigned any merit whatsoever because of being subjected to the same ability to be true as everything else this is merely a continuation of the above misconception. I've chosen to quote it merely because of the very thematic and practical sweeping under the table of the word "absolute" at the end of the statement, closing the bridge from the quite real "we have to assume something little to be true to use logic" to the plainly idiotic idea that we can't figure out what's true within the system we are assuming we live in.
And of course even if we assumed that we couldn't find truth at all it still wouldn't mean that it didn't exist. If we all live in the Matrix that's still the truth, whether we perceive it or not. But that's already so far beside the point that I won't elaborate on that.
At least we get some good stuff at the end of it though:
"Another closely related dogma of post-modernism is the idea that something can be ‘true for you, but not for me.’ [...] These stances may be emotionally beneficial, but I just cannot see how they can be maintained rationally. Our beliefs about reality have absolutely no impact on it. If it is true-for-me that Jesus rose from the dead, it has absolutely no bearing on whether Jesus of Nazareth actually was risen from the dead. This event either did or did not occur, independently of whether I believe it."
Yeah, I agree. It might be to the writer's disadvantage here though that mostly religious people tend to wrongly use this kind of logic to give us reason to leave their beliefs alone.
"If truth is true, then that means that something must be true. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” If he was speaking truly, would you want to miss that truth?"
No, I wouldn't. But I'll risk it "just" on the simple notion that he might have been high, lying or misquoted at that time. Shocking, I know.
Give me a like or a repost or become a follower if you liked what you read and message me if you don't. You can also talk to me on Twitter ( @Z3roBl1ss ).
