Rephrased: With the fundamental nature of the subjective experience, how do you validate your own truths?

Question

OK, let me restate my question, I think I made it too confusing.
For something to become true in our minds, we take the "newly observed truth" and compare it to our observed phenomena of the world we have experienced up unto that point. If it seems to fit, we add it to the pile, else we toss it. But our understanding of these things we take as true is only perceived truth, the information that we structure, understand, and internalize is not ultimate truth. It is subjective, meaning subject to our own interpretations of events, which are heavily influenced by our biases. Sure we can help validate our beliefs by conferring with 3rd parties, but they also experience all phenomena subjectively, therefore their perceived truth is incomplete as well. This being undeniably true in all people, how do you know your Truth to be true when it irrefutably is based on biased reasonings of yourself and others and not objective truth. This said, how do you know faith to be accurate without constant..

reassessment of all your past Truths and faith?

Answer 1

Analytical meditation on the concept presented. All things that exist are changing and empty of inherent existence, including concepts. All phenomena are illusory and empty.

Read the Heart Sutra... you might get it. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness... Gate gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi svaha...

_()_

Answer 2

All beliefs are subjective, and as such should not be confused with "truth". We can validate our beliefs by subjecting them to scientific inquiry, because the scientific method is the most reliable way to reach objective conclusions. If the beliefs are not validated, they remain beliefs. Those that are found to be valid become facts, or "truth".

"Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempted reproduction of them. This also allows statistical measures of the reliability of the results to be established. The scientific method also may involve attempts, if possible and appropriate, to achieve control over the factors involved in the area of inquiry, which may in turn be manipulated to test new hypotheses in order to gain further knowledge."

Answer 3

Good question, and it goes to the heart of how we do science. On the basis of some set of evidence, you posit a theory, and if you are sensible you then subject the theory to the most rigorous attack that you can muster; only if survives all such attacks can you consider it reliable enough for everyday use. But faith cannot be tested in this way, and it follows that faith can make reliable predictions about nothing. Indeed, faith is the ultimate evil: it is the deliberate rejection of the one thing that distinguishes H. sapiens: the ability to use logic. And what could be worse than giving away your humanity?

Answer 4

Although I sort of get what you're saying, you're throwing the word truth around, though, as if it was Halloween candy.

"Observed phenomena of the world we have experienced up unto that point." What? What is this phenomena you're applying at in regards to "newly observed truth"?

How far do you want to take your notions of truth? This I know as truth: If I don't pay my car insurance, I will be dropped by the insurance company. That's a truth. If I tease badly the angry pit bull in my neighbors yard then jump over the fence, it will maul me. That's a truth. No 3rd parties to validate my wounds. And that's the truth.

I believe you're trying to over-intellectualize the notion of truth and in the process, like many others, get hopelessly convoluted in the attempt. Cheers!

(B.A. Religious Studies, VCU, 1993)

Answer 5

I like you...You are a thinker.. that’s rare...I see where you are going and I agree... We all come into our beliefs based on experiences we have. Its a shame that some people are so close minded in learning anything more once they come to a place that feels right to them at the time. Even as new experiences or knowledge would normally lead them to reevaluate their previous belief. They cant seem to let go of pride and admit that the don’t know all there is and at any given moment, life can unveil another twist or turn that could pull the rug out from under their "truth".

Answer 6

Personally, I start with math. I am willing to allow that 1+1 = 2. From there I am willing to allow math to expand itself by logical proof.

From that point (and here is where it gets complicated) I allow for scientific inquiry through either through direct observation and measurement, mathematical proof (relativity for example) and/or statistical analysis of experimental results to influence my opnion that something is possibly true or most likely true.

EDIT, I am not saying that I have to do an experiment or measurement etc. I am willing to trust the peer review process and the scientific method. If something is of particular interest I will track down what information I can and read up about it. For example, even though I feel that the theory of evolution is highly likely to be accurate and true, I have read the arguments of intelligent design propnents.

Answer 7

i believe there is both purpose and subjective fact, purpose fact and subjective fact. countless the time, purpose fact and fact have a lot less relating our lives than subjective fact and fact. get mutually: purpose fact: there's a cat sitting on the reduce. purpose fact: it is basically sitting there becauuse it were given drained. woman #a million subjective fact: A cat attacked her once. Her subjective fact: That cat is propose. it is watching her like it needs to claw her. She'd better basically close the show door and stay interior till eventually it is lengthy previous. woman #2 subjective fact: Cats have continually been comforting pets that saved her company. Her subjective fact: The cat is lonely and hungry. he's sweet, he needs someone to love. She'd better feed it. Cat's Subjective fact: Ahh... warmth pavement... smooth. Cat's subjective fact: somewhat would not supply a fig about the human beings staring out the window, yet they could be threats so it is going to run away in the journey that they arrive out.

Answer 8

Indeed. It is a question of conditioned learning. Touch the fire, it burns. That is your truth. God exists. That may or may not be your truth, depending on belief. It's all subjective. Syllogistic reasoning does not factor into faith. One cannot prove that which is based entirely on ones' beliefs.

Answer 9

Reality is a matter of perception. I can't say your truth is any more or less valid than mine. We're both right.

And what do we do when we WANT to validate a 'truth'? We ask and ask until we find people that agree with the truth we WANT.

Now, if you want to survive your culture, you go along with the standard set of accepted 'truths'. i.e., Murder is wrong, be kind to animals, etc.

Answer 10

I discovered the truth in 1956. Through years of experience, college, and service, I still find my truth has not changed. God is still today what He was in 1956, even though I have grown to know Him better.