Relativity of the Perception of Truth

[chrisiacovetti]

I've never believed that truth itself is relative or subjective, but I've often wondered if human perception of truth very well can be. Thoughts on this?

Note: the quote below is taken from a Christian sermon. The point I'm trying to get at - that our perception of truth is relative, while truth itself is objective - transcends Christianity. It can be applied to any faith or truth of any sort. This quote just conveyed what I was struggling with philosophically.

"...the God of the Bible is a God who delights in hope, and who does not frown upon it or silence it. I do not mean to suggest that we can hope things and thus make them true, but I do mean to say that often our hearts are far beyond our heads—that our hearts may be correct in believing something that our intellect completely fails to grasp. God sees the hearts of his children, and cares very little for their shallow, mental understanding of him. Any theology or doctrine that elevates the head above the heart—that emphasizes understanding God over trusting in him—has completely missed its purpose and become a powerful tool of the devil.

Imagine two Christians: one of whom believes firmly in the concept of Hell as eternal conscious torment of sinners, and one of whom believes just as firmly that all men should ultimately come to the truth and enter the city of Heaven. Both men see Scripture as evidence in support, primarily, of their own view. The first man likely believes what he does out of a zeal for justice. He longs for justice, and sees eternal conscious torment as the most grounded and sure means of justice being served. The second believes what he does out of a deep longing for mercy. He sees universalism as the most merciful interpretation of his Father, and so clings to it. Both men would, in a sense much deeper than any theology, believe truly. The first man doesn’t so much believe in any doctrine regarding Hell as he does believe that his God is just. The second cares less for theology than he does that his God is merciful. Is God not infinitely just, as well as infinitely merciful? both men believe in the same God, and both men believe truly. The Lord tells us he sees the heart, and yet we would expect him to merely see the mind.

Again, I’m not suggesting that whatever our hopes lead us to must be the truth—I am, however, suggesting that our perceptions of truth and falsity will forever be a matter of the heart, not of any doctrine. The heart that longs for God is the heart that most understands truth, however ridiculous, fallacious, and heretical his theology may be. Likewise, the heart that fails to love and search for God intently has little to no understanding of truth, no matter how accurate his actual beliefs are regarding the Lord.

We have a horribly low view of truth, and consequently of our God. We speak of him and his ways in figures and ideologies that are all imperfect, and all misleading in and of themselves. I do not believe that the Father has ever much cared for belief; he has cared for faith. To represent these two concepts as meaning the same thing would be to miss the message of the Gospels."

Comments? disagreements? agreements? etc.

[cafolini]

We are all perfect creations. I agree that we depreciate God to a large economic extent when we discuss His doings or undoings with the mind, thus trying to enslave God into a ridiculous position that cannot be maintained and still see God. Belief is not what's important, I fully agree. It is the acknowledgment of our ignorance before God that's important and that requires the hope and the faith of the heart that justice is on the make. We love each other with hope and faith, both things of the heart. And that's the beginning of mature thought backed by unexplainable religiosity; not a belief. Thanks so much for this post on the value of theology.

[cacian]

If truth is condemned to falseness then can't be any proof of truth.
Reality seals instead.
The issue about this concept of truth is that it lingers with religion and god. This way it seems to discomand those who do not believe in religion.
Are there truth for them? it is disparate in this sense.

[Adolescent09]

My objection to religion is that it is steeped in the idealogues of charlatans who appear to profess thought-provoking truisms, but in reality are making already abstract terms such as "faith" and "belief" even more ambiguous. Let's look at two small quotes from your one big quote, shall we?

"our hearts are far beyond our heads"

The degree of this statement's veracity is based entirely on an individual's perception of the words that comprise it. The three ambiguous terms here are "hearts", "beyond" and "heads". Anatomically it makes no sense since our heads are above our hearts and physiologically it makes no sense since when a person's brain dies they can no longer make pragmatic or subjective decisions even if the heart still beats. Thus, the whole concept of "a heart being far beyond a head" is subject to endless debate/controversy carried out on a range from verbal disagreements to full-fledged war.

"God sees the hearts of his children, and cares very little for their shallow, mental understanding of him."

Again, "heart" is ambiguous, and even if we attribute a "good heart" (a variable) to a "pure heart" (another variable), and if God is pure, then a "shallow, mental" (also variables) understanding of God equates to a shallow, mental understanding of purity and therefore makes the heart of the individual(s) in question impure by default.

Can't you see that there is a crippling limit to which you can aim for "truth" when you are preoccupied with variables?

[cafolini]

My objection to religion is that it is steeped in the idealogues of charlatans who appear to profess thought-provoking truisms, but in reality are making already abstract terms such as "faith" and "belief" even more ambiguous. Let's look at two small quotes from your one big quote, shall we?

"our hearts are far beyond our heads"

The degree of this statement's veracity is based entirely on an individual's perception of the words that comprise it. The three ambiguous terms here are "hearts", "beyond" and "heads". Anatomically it makes no sense since our heads are above our hearts and physiologically it makes no sense since when a person's brain dies they can no longer make pragmatic or subjective decisions even if the heart still beats. Thus, the whole concept of "a heart being far beyond a head" is subject to endless debate/controversy carried out on a range from verbal disagreements to full-fledged war.

"God sees the hearts of his children, and cares very little for their shallow, mental understanding of him."

Again, "heart" is ambiguous, and even if we attribute a "good heart" (a variable) to a "pure heart" (another variable), and if God is pure, then a "shallow, mental" (also variables) understanding of God equates to a shallow, mental understanding of purity and therefore makes the heart of the individual(s) in question impure by default.

Can't you see that there is a crippling limit to which you can aim for "truth" when you are preoccupied with variables?

The problem you have to solve before you can get into this is that anything whatsoever can be taken to be a variable. You are using selective reasoning, which, apart from having reason as a fundamental parameter, is useless enough, and views the theme in a totalitarian manner.
Religion is not based on this. It is based on our ignorance regarding this, first and foremost.

[cacian]

My objection to religion is that it is steeped in the idealogues of charlatans who appear to profess thought-provoking truisms, but in reality are making already abstract terms such as "faith" and "belief" even more ambiguous. Let's look at two small quotes from your one big quote, shall we?

"our hearts are far beyond our heads"

The degree of this statement's veracity is based entirely on an individual's perception of the words that comprise it. The three ambiguous terms here are "hearts", "beyond" and "heads". Anatomically it makes no sense since our heads are above our hearts and physiologically it makes no sense since when a person's brain dies they can no longer make pragmatic or subjective decisions even if the heart still beats. Thus, the whole concept of "a heart being far beyond a head" is subject to endless debate/controversy carried out on a range from verbal disagreements to full-fledged war.

"God sees the hearts of his children, and cares very little for their shallow, mental understanding of him."

Again, "heart" is ambiguous, and even if we attribute a "good heart" (a variable) to a "pure heart" (another variable), and if God is pure, then a "shallow, mental" (also variables) understanding of God equates to a shallow, mental understanding of purity and therefore makes the heart of the individual(s) in question impure by default.

Can't you see that there is a crippling limit to which you can aim for "truth" when you are preoccupied with variables?

Interesting read. The heart is usually the symbol of love in modern society. Valentine comes to mind and it is also relevant to the colour red.
I feel rather uncomfortable to think god consider people his children. I thought Jesus was. I am not sure I follow the quote above.
The other issue is that I tend to deviate logic sensibility and goodness from the heart symbol it is more linked to feelings. The heart function is different. Attributes of goodness positivity is more linked the function of brain and the way it sends out perception through feelings. The other thing that comes to mind is the way god made us.
The reason I am guessing we are one type of human and not a variety of different looking humans anatomically is to facilitate the idea of niceness and goodness towards each other. Ie that we should like and tolerate each other because we are the same physically.Assimilation and likeness encourages one to get on with another. We have looks in common and therefore we automatically must click together.
If we take the animal kingdom they are far and wide in between. Each animal is different from another anatomically. This would explain why animals fight each other. The look at others that do not resemble and presumably attack each other on these grounds. But I think mainly with animals it is more of survival and not because they have nastiness in them.
As it goes it turns out humans are nastier towards each other and that is truly an enigma. Animals are better behaved.

[Adolescent09]

The problem you have to solve before you can get into this is that anything whatsoever can be taken to be a variable. You are using selective reasoning, which, apart from having reason as a fundamental parameter, is useless enough, and views the theme in a totalitarian manner.
Religion is not based on this. It is based on our ignorance regarding this, first and foremost.

I intend to disregard the core transcendentalist views of pedants that are mostly inspired by metaphysical concepts. Ageless observations result in people devising hypotheses and conducting experiments that have unanimous results. These conclusions furthermore cement said observations as being "widely agreed upon" or if we want to be politically correct jerks as the undergraduate schools in America teach us: "we are unable to reject the hypotheses". I agree with you that anything can be categorized as a variable but this holds weight only so far as conditions/definitions are not imposed.

Hypothesis: The sun generates solar power by fusing two hydrogen atoms to make a helium atom. The remaining mass is transferred to heat energy and dissipated through space.

As far as a non-scientist is concerned, these two statements are replete with variables that could drive a philosophically prone theoretician to madness. But, if we specify certain conditions or definitions that are held constant, we may invite clarity to chaos.

Condition/Definition 1) Let Hydrogen not exist as an isolated element, but as hydrogen gas (this may also be seen as a law, but I am not going to delve into that). Let hydrogen exist as its original isotope, a proton a.k.a "the nucleus of protium" in the sun.

Condition/Definition 2) Let the solar Helium's nucleus equate to the Earth's Helium nucleus in size, but not in charge or mass.

Condition/Definition 3) Let the Hydrogen and Helium elements combine (I won't go into the quantum mechanics of elemental rearrangement/gymnastics as this is a Literature forum, not a Science forum, but I think I have stressed my point enough already)

Condition/Definition 4,5,6 etc.

As far as reason goes, I personally believe that that overused word can only be demystified in light of scientific evidence. All other reason is debatable.
---

I will do further battle with you later. Right now I have to get drunk and listen to Immortal Technique. Good day to you, sir.

[cafolini]

I intend to disregard the core transcendentalist views of pedants that are mostly inspired by metaphysical concepts. Ageless observations result in people devising hypotheses and conducting experiments that have unanimous results. These conclusions furthermore cement said observations as being "widely agreed upon" or if we want to be politically correct jerks as the undergraduate schools in America teach us: "we are unable to reject the hypotheses". I agree with you that anything can be categorized as a variable but this holds weight only so far as conditions/definitions are not imposed.

Hypothesis: The sun generates solar power by fusing two hydrogen atoms to make a helium atom. The remaining mass is transferred to heat energy and dissipated through space.

As far as a non-scientist is concerned, these two statements are replete with variables that could drive a philosophically prone theoretician to madness. But, if we specify certain conditions or definitions that are held constant, we may invite clarity to chaos.

Condition/Definition 1) Let Hydrogen not exist as an isolated element, but as hydrogen gas (this may also be seen as a law, but I am not going to delve into that). Let hydrogen exist as its original isotope, a proton a.k.a "the nucleus of protium" in the sun.

Condition/Definition 2) Let the solar Helium's nucleus equate to the Earth's Helium nucleus in size, but not in charge or mass.

Condition/Definition 3) Let the Hydrogen and Helium elements combine (I won't go into the quantum mechanics of elemental rearrangement/gymnastics as this is a Literature forum, not a Science forum, but I think I have stressed my point enough already)

Condition/Definition 4,5,6 etc.

As far as reason goes, I personally believe that that overused word can only be demystified in light of scientific evidence. All other reason is debatable.
---

I will do further battle with you later. Right now I have to get drunk and listen to Immortal Technique. Good day to you, sir.

Firstly, I wouldn't battle with you because you are posing as a young person. You wouldn't stand a chance with this old man. I sympathise with you because it is transparent to me that you are a kind person.
Secondly, you will not fare too well as a drunkard. What for? You could enjoy drinking in moderation.
Thirdly, it is obvious to me that your quarrel is with idiotic metaphysical tenets having little to do with religion. You are not yet completely aware of that. My hope is you'll eventually be. Meantime, as I many times said, "may your cons stay away from you fusions."
"Get off the horse and drink your milk." ~ John Wayne
"Your daddy is rich and your mama's good looking. So hush little baby don't you cry..."
Love and hope are my wishes for the extinguishing of your unresolved arrogance before God.

[Adolescent09]

Firstly, I wouldn't battle with you because you are posing as a young person. You wouldn't stand a chance with this old man. I sympathise with you because it is transparent to me that you are a kind person.
Secondly, you will not fare too well as a drunkard. What for? You could enjoy drinking in moderation.
Thirdly, it is obvious to me that your quarrel is with idiotic metaphysical tenets having little to do with religion. You are not yet completely aware of that. My hope is you'll eventually be. Meantime, as I many times said, "may your cons stay away from you fusions."
"Get off the horse and drink your milk." ~ John Wayne
"Your daddy is rich and your mama's good looking. So hush little baby don't you cry..."
Love and hope are my wishes for the extinguishing of your unresolved arrogance before God.

The last part was a joke, albeit an unfunny one. I have never been drunk once in my life. :p

[cafolini]

Science has no answers for the problems you are trying to deal with. Not much of a joke. And chaos is a stupidity generated by many prejudices as to how things should be.
Science cannot be concerned with the metaphysical idiots at all. And science can only be concerned with religion in a purely descriptive way.

[chrisiacovetti]

If truth is condemned to falseness then can't be any proof of truth.
Reality seals instead.
The issue about this concept of truth is that it lingers with religion and god. This way it seems to discomand those who do not believe in religion.
Are there truth for them? it is disparate in this sense.

Thank you all for replying - very interesting stuff for me to read.

I'm not sure I entirely understand the quote above that I'm replying to, so I'm sorry if I reply sloppily or kinda misguidedly.

First, I don't think the quote is condemning truth to falsity like you say it is. It's saying there is a religious, subjective kind of "truth" that is completely different in kind than scientific, objective truth. It's saying that it is humanly perhaps impossible to completely, rationally, and objectively grasp that first kind of truth - the subjective/religious truth. I would agree that there can be no way to prove religious/spiritual/subjective truth, that's why I call it subjective. There are no rationally objective answers to some questions ("What is the meaning of life? Does God exist? etc.) Because there are no rational answers in this sphere of questions, all that is left for us to do is to come up with subjective answers to them. In this subjectivity, the argument of the quote is that people with different understandings mentally can find the same core answers emotionally and spiritually. A Christian and a Muslim may both alike truly see the meaning of life as to love others, despite all sorts of rational differences as to why.

And as far as the non-religious people go, they answer those same sort of questions in their own ways as well. Everyone has some answer for "What is the meaning of life?," whether they're conscious of it or not. In fact, I would say that atheists and Christians could very well be sometimes be more in agreement in these sorts of things than they assume.

The "heart" stuff isn't supposed to be literal. Heart is being used in its commonly used poetic sense to mean something like "feelings/soul/spirit/etc."

[Adolescent09]

In this subjectivity, the argument of the quote is that people with different understandings mentally can find the same core answers emotionally and spiritually. A Christian and a Muslim may both alike truly see the meaning of life as to love others, despite all sorts of rational differences as to why.

I agree with this part 100%. Thanks for the interesting topic thread. (I also like your Dostoevsky quote)

[Adolescent09]

And chaos is a stupidity generated by many prejudices as to how things should be.

I imagine you are talking about the chaos suggested in the second law of thermodynamics. Chaos theory on the other hand is a topic in mathematics that has inspired and has been inspired by many theologians and philosophers. It is one of the more precise areas of a subject that is notorious for its abstract concepts, and imo is far from stupid. As far as "prejudices" go, that word is as common as rainwater. Prejudice is the canvas on which human thoughts and actions are conceived.

[cacian]

Thank you all for replying - very interesting stuff for me to read.

I'm not sure I entirely understand the quote above that I'm replying to, so I'm sorry if I reply sloppily or kinda misguidedly.

First, I don't think the quote is condemning truth to falsity like you say it is. It's saying there is a religious, subjective kind of "truth" that is completely different in kind than scientific, objective truth. It's saying that it is humanly perhaps impossible to completely, rationally, and objectively grasp that first kind of truth - the subjective/religious truth. I would agree that there can be no way to prove religious/spiritual/subjective truth, that's why I call it subjective. There are no rationally objective answers to some questions ("What is the meaning of life? Does God exist? etc.) Because there are no rational answers in this sphere of questions, all that is left for us to do is to come up with subjective answers to them. In this subjectivity, the argument of the quote is that people with different understandings mentally can find the same core answers emotionally and spiritually. A Christian and a Muslim may both alike truly see the meaning of life as to love others, despite all sorts of rational differences as to why.

And as far as the non-religious people go, they answer those same sort of questions in their own ways as well. Everyone has some answer for "What is the meaning of life?," whether they're conscious of it or not. In fact, I would say that atheists and Christians could very well be sometimes be more in agreement in these sorts of things than they assume.

The "heart" stuff isn't supposed to be literal. Heart is being used in its commonly used poetic sense to mean something like "feelings/soul/spirit/etc."

I am not so sure about love having anything to do truth or belief. Love is a contained feelings that has specifics and tolerances of its own. Just because we love does not mean we do not despise at the same time. I could not possibly comment about a christian and a muslim because their faith is so diverge that there is not one common ground to stand and therefore to say that they both come to like each other is rather subjective. I am more likely to suggest that two people of different cultures may likely to get on better because religion does not account to it to form barrier between the two. Disagreements between people tend to generally be about faith and nothing else. One never argues with another because one is French and the other is Japanese.
I feel that love is singular and must be treated as a personal thing. One cannot love everything and everybody it is not possible. What is possible however is to get on and consider others and the world as a together place.
There are no prequisite requirements when it comes to getting on with someone. There is just considerations and thoughts love is for something else.

[YesNo]

It's saying there is a religious, subjective kind of "truth" that is completely different in kind than scientific, objective truth. It's saying that it is humanly perhaps impossible to completely, rationally, and objectively grasp that first kind of truth - the subjective/religious truth. I would agree that there can be no way to prove religious/spiritual/subjective truth, that's why I call it subjective. There are no rationally objective answers to some questions ("What is the meaning of life? Does God exist? etc.) Because there are no rational answers in this sphere of questions, all that is left for us to do is to come up with subjective answers to them. In this subjectivity, the argument of the quote is that people with different understandings mentally can find the same core answers emotionally and spiritually. A Christian and a Muslim may both alike truly see the meaning of life as to love others, despite all sorts of rational differences as to why.


If I understand Galileo's and Einstein's relativity, we live in relative, "subjective" frames of reference and yet we come up with the "same core answers", that is, the same laws of physics. You expressed this same concept of relativity well when it comes to different religious frames of reference as well as many non-religious perspectives. They as well lead to the same core answers.

This doesn't mean that everyone's right. We are probably all wrong to some extent, but (1) we should be able to reach the same core answers using our particular frames of reference without having to convert to some other religion and (2) we can trust that there is some objectivity underlying our subjective frames of reference.

[chrisiacovetti]

If I understand Galileo's and Einstein's relativity, we live in relative, "subjective" frames of reference and yet we come up with the "same core answers", that is, the same laws of physics. You expressed this same concept of relativity well when it comes to different religious frames of reference as well as many non-religious perspectives. They as well lead to the same core answers.

This doesn't mean that everyone's right. We are probably all wrong to some extent, but (1) we should be able to reach the same core answers using our particular frames of reference without having to convert to some other religion and (2) we can trust that there is some objectivity underlying our subjective frames of reference.

Interesting idea there with the theory of relativity; I hadn't thought of that.

I absolutely agree with that last bit - I'm definitely not saying that everyone is right, or even that everyone agrees on those 'core truths.' I'm only suggesting, like you seem to be, that people can agree on those core truths without agreeing on the rational details surrounding them. Kierkegaard distinguished between the subjective and objective truth, but he placed a higher importance on the subjective. I think he may have been right there. The subjective is what we live our lives by; the objective can generally provide little more than explanations after the fact. All of this is, of course, speculation.