by Albert 1

# 1. 9/12/05 1:04 PM by BF
Can one have religious faith without necessitating "absolute truth"?

Editor's Note: very definitely

Mario Cuomo used to say he had "a reason to believe"

Something may seem logical without being completely understood so your faith is a type of working hypothesis.

The important thing is to leave room for change which if supported by proof contradicts the original concept which you have held.

# 2. 9/12/05 2:38 PM by BF
If change is supported by proof then what you have is fact; this seemingly contradicts a definition of faith: "firm believe in something for which there is no proof."

"Absolute Truth" will not change because to be absolute is to be constant.

Forgive my being obtuse; I'm trying to figure this out.

Editor's Note: The supporting proof is more conditional than absolute.

What is considered Absolute Truth can usually be related to the cultural context from whence it comes. As the culture evolves the former absolute becomes relative.

Space and time were once considered absolutes.

Einstein's demonstration of the relativity principle has shown them to be relative.

BTW there is an obscure alternative philosophy which claims that all true reality is static and it is only our shifting perspective of it which creates the illusion of change.

# 3. 9/12/05 3:23 PM by BF
"Perception is reality." Yep.

"What is considered Absolute Truth can usually be related to the cultural context from whence it comes. As the culture evolves the former absolute becomes relative."

I think many devout religious will disagree with you, but I won't.

Editor's Note: thanks BF

# 4. 9/12/05 4:32 PM by Jonathan
I do believe in aboslute truths, the Laws of the universe so to speak.

I see them as what we are trying to discover by science. We work through theories and things we call laws but we leave space for them to be proven wrong.

They are bigger than anyone has imagined. We just want to know what they are and try our best to find out through subjective truth.

Yet again I'm clear as mud water.

Editor's Note: As long as you leave space for error.

I guess the problem is that too many think they have perfect knowledge of absbsolute truth.

# 5. 9/12/05 6:17 PM by BF
To Jonathan: your thoughts are clear. Don't ever stop thinking and questioning.

To Albert: you are so right. Those who think they have perfect knowledge of absolute truth cannot leave room for error, because then their knowledge would be neither absolute nor perfect.

Even those with imperfect knowledge of absolute truth coupled with unquestioning faith often believe they cannot be wrong due to not leaving room for error. Leaving room for error is key.

Editor's Note: well said-thanks BF

# 6. 9/12/05 7:58 PM
thumbsup.gif To be is to do Aristotle To do is to be Plato Do be do be do Sinatra

Editor's Note: cool!

# 7. 10/3/05 10:39 PM by markus - taylorsville
As you state your views on "relativism" you seem "absolutely" sure of them. Does that make the whole concept of relativism an axcepted "absoulte" in your eyes?

About moral relativism .., who gets to define its standards? Who gets to draw the lines on acceptable behavior?

Conservatives are trashed by the left for drawing a line in the sand and saying no to the cultural and moral norms being re-defined. They have acepted the moral bounds that thier God or Gods have defined for them.

My question for the left is- are they ever going to draw a line at some point and stop our moral devolution(?), and say enough is enough? And at that point are they going to be refered to as 'intolerant', 'bigoted', or possibly called 'pedofile-a-phobes' or 'beastiality-a- phobes', or maybe even a polgamy-a-phobe? Do you see the left ever drawing the line, or wiil they let their constituency and humanity regress to an animal state?

It seems they have drawn a few lines that are politically expediant at the moment. Do you feel comfortable letting a socialist government become the new moral arbiter?

Editor's Note: 1. I am not "absolutly sure of anything other than "I Am".

2. "Who gets to define the standards" That is exactly the problem with "absolutes".

Yes I know that some claim that they speak for God and others listen to that speech but I consider such claims opinion rather than fact.

Yes I know you seem to see Socialism as another one of your absolutes evils, I don't.

I see the need for a mixed government which includes it.

3. I differ with you in opinion that a moral devolution is occurring as I take a long view of history. One could take a narrow view and focus on the negative. It's your choice.

As I stated in a previous reply to you we are far apart on many things and I don't expect this to change soon. In fact I Am "absolutely " sure of it. (oh sorry, that was Mr Ego speaking)

# 8. 11/10/06 9:20 AM by Cowboy Bob
I believe in the absolute truth of relativism.

Editor's Note: Now yer talking

# 9. 7/1/08 3:09 PM by Jim - Rochester
I think I am; therefor I just might be!

Editor's Note: I think it's Latin equivalent is "Cognit Ergo Sum"

# 10. 7/1/08 9:18 PM by Gary - Williamson
Very well done Albert, and I agree in principal with your argument. The key to everything in life, as you said, is to leave room for error. Everybody thinks, believes, has faith or an opinion, but nobody actually knows. To think otherwise is nothing more than arrogance.

Editor's Note: The only thing I know for sure is that there is always more to learn.

You could also call those "true believers" who you deem arrogant as being sincere but deluded.

# 11. 7/4/08 10:39 PM by Michael Richard
"...conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding."

"Truth" and "Moral Values" are two distinct concepts. Truth is best placed within the philosophical subdiscipline called Epistemology. Morality is best placed within the the branch of philosophy known as Ethics.

Editor's Note: I recognize the distinctions you have presented but still recognize my statement as applying to both.

# 12. 7/6/08 12:25 AM by Michael Richard
Given your mysticism, what gives you the confidence to say that you are sure you exist? We all know that Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." argument fails because it presupposes the existence of an I.

Editor's Note: Be careful with the use of the "we"

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the Lone Ranger-Tonto joke.

You seem quite familiar, perhams more than me, of classical Western philosophy.

Much of my understanding comes from Eastern philosophy, specifically Hindu Adviata and Chinese Taoism.

The simple act of seeing one's self in a mirror is adequete proof of existance.

Occam's razor is the theory which supports this.

Even then I don't consider my awareness of Self as absolute but it seems to work for me, for now, at least.

# 13. 7/12/08 11:56 PM by Michael Richard
I was trying to be complimentary by including you among those who are aware of the fallacy.

Editor's Note: Then I'll thank you in advance of re-reading your comment again.

include comments