Truth and its pursuit

[bevin]

Math's actually provides an interesting example for trying to determine what is truth.

Consider the statement

1 + 1 = 2

What is "1"? What is "2"? What is "+"?

It turns out that there is no really simple set of things that math is built up from, even the foundations are tricky with interesting choices to be made

/Bevin

[Woody]

You are right Bevin. Our ideas of truth are just subjective. We do our best to measure the "proof" and "Words" but in the end ... it is just our subjective interpretation of "truth" that we accept.

A lot of grace and acceptance for the ways that we all interpret scripture/truth is needed.

I will not criticize anyone's faith and belief. It is their responsibility. I will show tolerance for where they are at in their experience. I will show them LOVE. But I will not impose my interpretation on them. If they are interested ... I will share my experience , faith and belief. But I will not show arrogence by saying MY way is "objective truth" and their way is mere opinion.

We have been given "Objective Truth" but what we have is simply opinion as to the interpretation. IN Heaven ... we will be reprogrammed and instructed in "Objective Truth".

[David Koot]

Just some further reflections on several posts, and on the topic . . .

I perceive a possible distinction in the minds of some, between the 'truth' about what is--that is, tangible, observable objects such as a desk or a tree; and God, Who we cannot directly observe. Granted, that distinction based on observational limitations IS there. However, God's existence is a matter of fact--just as much a matter of fact as is the tree. The limitations in our ability to observe God do not detract from those facts.

Thus we come to the question of procedure. If a person is going to observe a desk or a tree with the purpose of gaining an understanding of its nature, proportions, composition and so forth, then a high degree of carefulness is required in observation, analysis and interpretation. How about the procedure in gaining an understanding of the nature and characteristics of God? Should a student come to that task with any less carefulness than s/he does to the desk, or the tree?

I submit that a student should come to the study of God with a greater degree of carefulness than s/he would in studying a readily-observable object such as a tree. First of all, we are dealing with the great God, the Creator. For that reason alone, I believe that the greatest carefulness should characterize any study about God or the things of God. Secondly, we are dealing with an object which cannot be readily observed. We must rely on circumstantial evidence. Thus, great care must be taken to stick to the data, stick to the facts. The potential for inaccuracy is much greater because we cannot directly observe God.

The carefulness with which scientists collect, analyze and interpret observational data is commendable. When a scientist publishes, the procedure he has followed, and his conclusions, are laid out for peers to review. That may be quite vigorous. Flaws may be uncovered somewhere in his procedure. He had better dot his i's and cross his t's, or SOMEONE out there will discover it, and he will have egg all over his face, and be discredited. In such a case, his job, or his tenure, may be affected.

Should our procedure for the study about God be any less discriminating? Isn't the subject of the study far more important than, for example, the life cycle and mating practices of an arachnid? Should we not, therefore, be EXTREMELY careful in how we handle the evidence about God, and how we handle His holy Word? I submit that the importance of the subject mandates the most careful attention to detail, and the greatest accuracy in carrying forward the study, with vigorous and incisive peer review. And, to help keep personalities out of it, particularly since no one's tenure or job is on the line, then perhaps it would be well to keep it all anonymous. For it should not matter, IMO, WHO publishes the study. All that should matter is the content.

Dave

I

[bevin]

To continue, and not to disagree, with David's line of thought

When a scientist studies something, they not only measure but they also estimate error bounds. When they get 10 different measurements for the tree, they try to understand why the errors are happening and to reduce them - but in the end they understand that their measurements may not be exact.

Similarly when we investigate God, there needs to be estimates of error bounds. Very often these error bounds are going to completely dominate the measurement.

Let me give a simple example - authorship of the books of the Bible.

(a)Did Moses write Job?

(b)Did the same person write the Book of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles?

©Did John the Beloved write Revelation?

(d)Did Paul write all the NT books usually attributed to him?

What are your answers? What is the probability that your answer is right?

One of the biggest problems in science and engineering is cascading errors. If you are building a tower, and there is a 95% likelyhood that any given floor is structurally sound, then there is only is only about 1/3 chance that a twenty story high building will be sound!

When we build a doctrine out of many steps, each of which is much less likely than 95% to be solid, we should not treat the result as solid.

/Bevin

[D. Allan]

Redwood shows a healthy skepticism about the human attempts to nail down truth. That kind of an attitude can help free us from superstition, prejudice, and mistakes. It clears the way for real learning. For when we are satisfied with the present state of our understanding - we can't learn more.

David's urgings to be careful, to take care in studying and learning about God might be construed as a healthy skepticism also. But somewhat in a different way I feel. Am I right?

I agree with Bevin that when looking for truth we should expect to find some errors. Nothing is sacred when studying the truly sacred, if you know what I mean. Our attitude to the Bible especially. For God is not affected in His reality by the authority of the Bible being diminished in scientific and cultural areas. However, to be really pragmatic about it, I have to say the old ways work for some people. They don't work for me. Yet I am closer to God than ever, but He was never any further from me than now, for He was never far from me.

The very word, God, carries a very subjective meaning for people ,that is if it has any useful meaning at all, for it must be a personal meaning. So the word means many different things to many different people. How can we call that objective? The reality is impossible for us to know. We can only state or claim that an objective reality exists, and only experience our subjective understandings.

Perhaps theology is not understood empirically! Perhaps Pragmatism is more useful in understanding it and other subjects that are not tangible, like math and music and art. A pragmatist believes that if it works its good! A thing is judged by its results. By its fruits.

[Bravus]

Quote:

pardon moi, but wasnt some math invented to proove theories?

That would be math being used as a tool of science, which I did mention. Or did you mean theories in math?

The word 'proof' is used in math but not in science, and in math it means something different from our everyday sense of the word.

[D. Allan]

Amelia, are you thinking of Newton inventing calculus? Or some of those esoteric new geometrys?

Why wait 'til heaven to think about the philosopy of truth any more than waiting 'til then (or there) to sing or anything else we might put off 'til then?

[David Koot]

(2) Is it your view that Scripture is infallibly factual in its reports of the character and nature of God? In other words, you've talked about the fallibiity of our observations. Does that apply to the Bible writers, or does your view of inspiration make that impossible?

I should like to elaborate a bit more on this issue. To recap, I believe in thought inspiration, which means that God gave a prophet a revelation, which the prophet described and recording using his own understanding and words.

The question logically occurs, what is the potential for error being introduced in the process of writing the account? Specifically focusing on the Bible writers' 'reports of the character and nature of God' . . .

I would look at the definition of 'inspiration' with reference to the Bible writers, which is 'theopneustos' or 'God-breathed.' I submit that that changes the parameters. That is, even though the Bible writers used their own language to describe what they had seen, I believe that God guided them in the process of doing so, to ensure accuracy in writing their 'reports of the character and nature of God.'

Dave

[bevin]

David, I take it you also believe that the selection of which literature to include in the Bible was also inspired - making the equivalent to

" what is the potential for error being introduced in the process of writing the account? "

be

" what is the potential for the erroneous inclusion or exclusion of a book from the canon? "

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Similarly when we investigate God, there needs to be estimates of error bounds. Very often these error bounds are going to completely dominate the measurement.

[David Koot]

" what is the potential for the erroneous inclusion or exclusion of a book from the canon? "

Interesting question. Thinking through it, I would say that if God was watching over the giving and recording of the message, the words themselves, then one would think that God would also be watching over the compilation of the books of the Bible.

Dave

[LifeHiscost]

For a number of obscure reasons we've been discussing the nature of truth and the ways in which we might individually and corporately pursue truth. There are a wide variety of approaches, both explicit and implicit, exhibited here, and it might be useful to explore those so that we can understand one another (and one another's posts) better.

It's a complex set of questions

"For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.

"It is not in heaven, that you should say, '(A)Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?'

"Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?'

"But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it." Deuteronomy 30:11-15 NASB

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the....truth,... no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

John 14:6 KJV

"Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" John 14:9 NKJV

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak..." John 16:13 KJV

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." 2 Peter 1:20

KJV

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God..." John 7:17 KJV

Regards!!

[Bravus]

Perhaps an example of the 'error bounds' approach would be looking at the Sabbath and at the doctrine of the Sanctuary and 1844.

The Sabbath is a pretty clear, direct command, given a couple of times in the Old Testament and enhanced and expanded by Jesus in the new Testament. Being something directly written in the Bible there is only one set of potential error measures involved, arising from our translations, because there's only the one step. (Leaving aside the question of inclusion in the canon for a minute, since if anything is in the Pentateuch is.)

1844 has a large number of steps involved in constructing the doctrine. Just the 2300 days text in itself is not enough, and there are sources inside and outside the Bible that are required to construct the doctrine.

SO does it make sense to hold some doctrines as 'more true' or 'true at a higher level of probability' than others? This takes into account David's contention that there exists an objective truth. Jesus either did or did not stand up and take a walk in 1844. But a doctrine represents our understanding of that truth, and is necessarily partial.

(PS I do *not* want to derail this thread into a discussion of the sanctuary doctrine!)

[bevin]

Quote:

Thinking through it, I would say that if God was watching over the giving and recording of the message, the words themselves, then one would think that God would also be watching over the compilation of the books of the Bible.

Some people decide that they think God will make the error bounds very narrow, by limiting the mistakes that the authors of the books and the selectors of the books will make. Some people think that God will allow a wide range of human error in the writing and the selecting. Both are personal opinions - very subjective.

How does one go about getting an objective measure of the error bounds?

/Bevin

[Woody]

Can we measure Faith?

[bevin]

Yes - but I don't think it tells us a lot about objective truth...

[Woody]

Which do you prefer ... Faith or Objective truth? I for one will decide for Faith. I would rather have Faith than your objective truth or even MY objective truth.

[Bravus]

But see, Redwood, that response includes the assumption that there is no such thing as real objectiv truth (i.e. objectively true for everyone, everywhere, from all perspectives and in all reference frames, true irrespective of human agreement). You're entitled to that assumption, but part of the purpose of this thread is to bring such assumptions out into the open. David Koot is arguing the opposite perspective on that question: that objective truth - not his, yours, or mine, but The - exists, and that we can work toward discovering it. Although bevin would disagree with David on many things, I think they agree on that point.

[Woody]

Oh MY. That is too much for my brain. I accept my objective truth as mine and do not expect anyone else to have to accept it. But ... I would be happy to throw it away in the favor of Faith.

I guess it points out what is important to you ... Faith or Works.

[David Koot]

my objective truth

[Bravus]

Yeah, and they often stay implicit and unexamined, leading to confusion and cross purposes. Excellent thread idea.

[Woody]

Quote:

That is a contradiction in terms.

I disagree. But then you can believe your truth about it if you want. I respect it as your way.

[Bravus]

Just to clarify a bit (and keep it theoretical for a moment).

David understands what I listed above as being the characteristics of 'objective truth'. For him, anything that doesn't meet that standard is 'subjective truth' - that is, pertains to the individual person ('subject'). So when you say 'my' you are basically labelling the truth as subjective, personal, yours, true for you. That doesn't fit with the label 'objective' which means external, universal, true for everyone.

Incidentally, some have a value hierarchy where objective truth is always superior to subjective. I tend to be more pragmatic about it, in terms of ascertaining the purposes of the discussion before deciding which form is appropriate.

And, of course, some believe objective truth simply does not exist. (And, implicitly, that anyone who claims to have objective truth is actually making a power play to control them.)

[David Koot]

How does one go about getting an objective measure of the error bounds?

/Bevin

Now THAT is an interesting question! Theories of the nature and operation of inspiration would be involved. Hmmmm. Where does one start? Each theory has its advocates. How might a person determine which is the more accurate explanation of how inspiration works, both in terms of the actual recording of the message by the Bible writer, and of the compilation of the 'books' that constitute the Bible as we know it?

[David Koot]

ascertaining the purposes of the discussion before deciding which form is appropriate.