Do you arbitrarily pick an choose which truths are relative and which are absolute.?

Question

Is truth intolerant and so we are call the messenger of it intolerant to assuage guilt? Can we align our beliefs with truths with out having to be 100% sure. Do we make conclusions even if we are a pitiful 70 or less percent sure of what we believe? Do you arbitrarily pick an choose which truths are relative and which are absolute. Or, perhaps you claim that all truth is relative yet hold that statement as absolute?
What if the belief that truth is relative was born out of the natural human inclination to want to excuse oneself from intolerant truth? And so, ones conscience, that used to give an indication that one is spiritually not in the right place, has been overridden by the desperate will to escape it.
Changing gears: This may sound judgmental to some. Yet, if a doctor scolded me because I was neglecting my physical health wouldn’t I be appreciative of his judgmental and fundamental approach? W/ if the preacher is the doctor (or even the undergrad intern) to spiritual health?

Answer 1

the truth is you are not a relative and i am absolutely sure about it

Answer 2

Nope, not arbitrarily. Statements of fact about the physical world that can be objectively observed and tested- empirical facts- have an objective reality. Questions of values are different, they appear to be relative. While there might be some absolute standard for them somewhere, I've seen no compelling evidence for it.

For example, the statement that a baseball bat swung at high velocity at your head will, if it connects solidly, cause you extreme discomfort is a statement of empirical fact. It can be tested, observed, and, by objective standards, be determined to be more likely true or false. It need not be 100% certainty. Just because everyone known to have been hit in the head by a baseball bat has been known to suffer some detriment from it doesn't mean that the bat won't pass right through the next guy's head without causing any harm. but it's likely that the next guy's gonna have a headache.

That's an example of absolute, or objective, fact.

Next take the statement that baseball is better than football. Now I can muster arguments for both sides based on a number of different values. But ultimately this is a subjective matter of opinion and no evidence would change opinions about which you think is better into a statement of absolute fact.

Moral values work, to all appearances, like other value judgments- they aren't absolute, they are subjective and relative. Can I prove this absolutely? No. Have I seen any evidence to lead me to believe otherwise? No.

It might sound judgmental to some to say that a baseball bat is hard enough to cause a skull problems. But the judgment's based on empirical facts. It might sound judgmental to say that someone who thinks football is better than baseball is deluded or lying. It is so and without good reason. Absolutist statements about subjective things don't strike me as being very rational.

Answer 3

Dear You,

I think almost all "truths" are relative.

From my experience, something that may be a great revelation for me, has no meaning to someone else. What may be painful to me is not for another. A person who can not feel, like a leper will not feel a splinter. ....

And absolute truth has to be true for everyone, at anytime.

Here is one that seems like an absolute. A story: A Sultan commanded his wise men, on the pain of death, to come up with a statement that would be true, for any person at anytime, in any situation. The statement they came up with was; "This too shall pass." This statement is true as long as one is in the dimension of time. But when time is no longer a factor ... is it an absolute truth?

Truth can only be absolute for oneself. And if we have similar understandings, we think, Bingo, this is TRUTH.

Truth is relative, almost always.

Answer 4

One of the main problem with humans is that they believe in "absolute truths". If there are any, we can't know what they are.

That's why Science as a belief system is superior to most others, since there can be no "absolute truth". Everything is open to questioning and falsification, although there again is the human inclination to take theories for truths, even though they are only the best explanations so far.

Everybody's conscience has been formed by our common biological heritage, by the voices of our parents, and our cultural heritage. That's why it's dangerous to think that it is any measure of truth.

Answer 5

I don't understand all of what you ask, but for what it's worth, I don't think that anything human beings do is necessarily arbitrary. Things seem so, but I think there is always some particular underlying reason. I don't believe it's possible for anything to be completely random. The exact process by which humans adopt our beliefs of truth is unknown to me, but I think it is the heart of why we grow to believe things that we know nothing about. Why does a prisoner of war endure years of agony in the belief they will be rescued? Human behavior is not arbitrary, it's simply illogical at times. Of course, to bring up the subject of logic also begs the same question. Is logic absolute or relative? Maybe all things are a little bit of both. How else could one explain our existence?

Answer 6

The statement that 1 + 1 = 2 is taken by some people as absolute truth. Others take it as a relative truth. It depends on whether you're doing decimal or binary arithmetic.

Truth is relative or absolute depending on your frame of reference and your stock of knowledge about the reference frame.

Answer 7

Ear - your question is not too clear to me, but your desire for an answer to these questions is.

The term "truth" is bandied about like it is a candy. What is a "truth" if you cannot understand or use it. It is meaningless.

I would, therefore, let go what others deem to be truth and seek what is truth for you, starting on a very basic level. In other words, you pinch yourself, it hurts: that is truth. You are hungry, you need to eat, you will feel better: that is truth. You understand some things and not other things: that is truth. Etc. etc. Master these simple truths for a few years then go after the "big" truths.

Answer 8

A common dictionary definition of truth is "agreement with fact or reality".[1]

There is no single definition of truth about which the majority of philosophers agree. Various theories of truth, commonly involving different definitions of "truth", continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; what roles do revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.

Answer 9

I, for one, do not. The tools I use to determine truth of my existence is this:

1. Observable patterns.

2. Logic.

3. Consistency. The more different spiritual paths say the same thing, the more likely this is to me to be true.

The idea of "you will reap what you sow" and "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "though shalt not lie, steal or kill" and "don't cast your stones before swine" are tidbits of wisdom that have been told, and retold, in many ways and in many spiritual paths throughout the dawn of time. Thus, observable patterns can be seen in religions, psychology and the physical world; they appear logical; and these truths remain consistent through many spiritual paths and among peoples who would ordinarily disagree.

Answer 10

Yes, this is a tendency we possess. But regardless of what we believe, we get by with morality that has been sufficient to allow civil societies to function throughout history. I think religious based morality is the same, albeit under a certain name. Christianity offers a distinctly radical moral challenge for living, but can't we live the message once we understand the messenger well enough?

does that make sense?

Answer 11

You are making it more convoluted than is necessary. Truth is simply reality.

Moral absolutism means you accept that there is a higher authority than man, God, who decides what is good and what is evil.

Moral relativism means there is no God to decide what is good or evil. Therefore I decide what is good and what is evil.

Moral relativism got it's start with the rise of socialism. An all powerful central government cannot abide a God passing judgment on or limiting what they want to do. That is why all religions and all reference to God must be eliminated for socialism to take over.

It is as simple as that.

.