I believe that truth is absolute. I naturally believed this because of my religion, but i got interested, researched, and any other choice seems unreasonable. If you believe truth is relative, do you believe that absolutely or relatively? In other words, if you think you can debate for your relativist views you are implying that there is some absolute truth to it; in which case, you contradict yourself and become wrong. If you believe relative truth relatively, than truth does not exist whatsoever but in your own mind. "It does not rise to the level of deserving our attention or refutation. Its claim is like 'I itch,' not 'I know.'"
source: Josh McDowell. the new evidence that demands a verdict. page 593
2006-12-08 20:03:05 · 9 answers · asked by itsjeremy6 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
to d_chino_m and everyone else: i hope you won't just tell me 'truth is relative" and be done with me. expound. e-mail if you must. i want to know why i'm wrong.
2006-12-08 20:09:52 · update #1
When I went to a Fundie Christian school many years ago, we used Mr McDowells "Evidence that demands a verdict". At that time I found it to be of *very* questionable usefulness. It was full of questionable logic, and very sketchy and vague "evidence" and proof.
Reading your little bit from his new book, I can see that it hasn't improved over *many* years. I found there were far better sources, and more intelligent works than McDowell, his main claim to fame (in my opinion) was that he was attacking evolution over 20 years ago, before it became the latest religious debate.
Truth always will be a relative concept, no matter how Josh tries to argue for absolutism. What people consider to be truth, is always filtered through the perceptions and prejudices of the person performing the arguement, or attempting to define truth. What is truth to a "regular joe" is not the same as truth to a scientist, which isn't the same as truth to a theologan, which is not the same as truth to a native american shaman, which is not the same as truth to a philosopher.
As Josh puts it, "Any other choice seems unreasonable", which doesn't mean wrong, but just means, "is not reasonable to me" or "I can't understand it". So here, the basis of his truth is he just doesn't find anything else to be conceivable, or doesn't fit in with his way of thinking.
Needless to say, when the semester was done, and our Bible studies teacher assured me we no longer needed Mr McDowell's book, I cut it into pieces, and placed it in a proper recepticle for permanent storage (the trash can).
It would be better to do more research, and find something with more utility than Josh McDowell...
2006-12-08 20:20:11 · answer #1 · answered by Hatir Ba Loon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very good. You can also expand that line of thought into the realm of morals. Is there an intrinsic morality that encompasses all people, at all times, places and situations? If no, then we are saying that each culture or people group can pretty much make up their own moral code based on tradition or as simply as how they feel at the moment. This line of thought leads to slavery, the holocaust, abortion, etc.. And, if this being true, what right does any other culture or civilization have telling another culture what is right or wrong? So, if there are atrocities being committed in another country, we would have no right to tell them it is wrong or try to stop it.
But, if there is a moral code that cuts through all cultures, civilizations, times, and circumstances, that would mean there had to be an ultimate moral source who decided this. Hence, God.
Fun trapping atheists in their own muck, isn't it?
2006-12-08 20:11:41 · answer #2 · answered by BrotherMichael 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As I have said many a time on here, the only thing that keeps me from saying that there are no absolute truths is that by saying that, I'd be supposing an absolute truth.
I prefer a sort of amorphous-blob world. Kind of like fingerpainting.
2006-12-08 20:07:26 · answer #3 · answered by angk 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd agree that truth is objective, but each of us only gets a small piece of the whole in their lifetime. None of us ever knows absolute truth.
2006-12-08 20:11:16 · answer #4 · answered by Let Me Think 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the truth is subjective to points of view, just ask any cop who has had to take statements from a dozen people who all witnessed the same crime, but no two of them saw the same thing--all of them are telling the truth, as they see it, and yet none of their personal truths are exactly the same--your opinion is your version of the truth, but it is not a fact
2006-12-08 20:31:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
truths are very simple, life and death, math and science, until proved to be incorrect by a new truth........its the same in religions...truth is truly transitory, and yes it is shaped and twisted, by those in power, or as easily as by a fine oritor...don,t play with truth, and don,t use someone elses words .... seek it as if its the air you breathe, and understand your truth may not match mine, and try to live peacefully knowing that; that in itself is what makes us human....and so beautiful unique and wonderful
2006-12-08 20:22:20 · answer #6 · answered by vanshusband 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very nice. Sounds like a theory I had awhile ago...
" True is not as important as one's perception of it. People don't react to Truth. They react to perception."
2006-12-08 20:05:27 · answer #7 · answered by Odindmar 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You shall fall down into the Pit called "Because" and there you shall perish with the dogs of Reason.
2006-12-08 20:18:38 · answer #8 · answered by enslavementality 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only facts are absolute.
Truth is realtive.
2006-12-08 20:06:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋