The Value of Absolute Truth

[hamilrob]

If Absolute Truth exists independent of the diversity that leads to relativism, then of what value is it (Absolute Truth) if we can't know what it is because of that relativism?

If two people define a Truth in two divergent ways, both of which could be right, How do we determine who is correct? Even if the Bible were to be used as a standard and even if it WAS infallible, the diversity of interpretations still prevent it from determining absolutely what is right and what is wrong.

I am on the side of Relativism, BTW, but would like to hear from all angles.

[Forge]

Remember, we are seeing that there may well be no truth beyond subjectivity and invention when it comes to religion, so the question remains, WHAT is the value of Absolute Truth?

I'll answer a question with another question... which I know is bad form...

What is the value of a flashlight in a pitch-black room?

[QED]

Remember, we are seeing that there may well be no truth beyond subjectivity and invention when it comes to religion, so the question remains, WHAT is the value of Absolute Truth?

I'll answer a question with another question... which I know is bad form...

What is the value of a flashlight in a pitch-black room?

Every side in this debate is bound to think that they posess the flashlight. Of course the light reflects of the contents of the room precisely according to the rules of Quantum Electrodynamics, but the image thus formed on the human retina can be interpreted in a multitude of different ways. So we need to do some checks to see who has the best interpretation. This requires critical thinking and honesty.

[hamilrob]

What is the value of a flashlight in a pitch-black room?

That depends on the condition of the batteries.

[Forge]

That depends on the condition of the batteries.

Ah, touche .

And I guess it makes sense, too. If the supposed flashlight is faulty, the perception is faulty, and objective reality will be misconstrued as something faulty.

However, I think you're quotation in your sig is pretty significant:

Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.

Is this just an opinion, too?

Every side in this debate is bound to think that they posess the flashlight. Of course the light reflects of the contents of the room precisely according to the rules of Quantum Electrodynamics, but the image thus formed on the human retina can be interpreted in a multitude of different ways. So we need to do some checks to see who has the best interpretation. This requires critical thinking and honesty.

However, it still remains that there is an objective reflection of the room (or the light, or whatever.), and the one whose perception is closest is "most true."

[Bro Dave]

The book was authorized while Jesus, was still here, but we were not at a point where we understood enough about the universe and its structure for it to be shared. Not only that, but print medium had not yet been invented, so distribution would have to been verbal. By around 1930, we had sufficient scientific background, and so it was shared with us. As to the authors, there are many who were involved. All were members of the celestial administration at some level. Call them angels if that is more comfortable.

If nothing else, the Urantia Book is the most detailed mythological exposition in existence. As far as absolute truth goes, I absolutely do NOT believe a word of it. Do you have the word "invention" in your vocabulary?

Sure, but as with anything unfamiliar, it is bound to be attacked and rejected just because it stretches what we think is true. If you find it stretches you more than you can manage, leave it go.

I can't see you or anybody spending valuable time digesting this fantasy. It would probably spark interest as a science fiction movie.

LOL, in fact, I usually suggest first time readers just read it as science fiction. That way, the content is not prejudged. If it has something to say, it will become clear. The overview is so HUGE, that you nearly have to read the entire book before all the pieces snap together.
A movie you say, Hmmm… not a bad idea! It could make Star Wars look a little weak!

If the religious mind is this committed to supernatural, unverified reality, then rational people in this world have no clue as to what they are up against. Just what seduces your interest in Urantia? Where is the Truth in this book?

Truth is never in a book. As has been endlessly discussed, we are captive in a relative existence, and have no way of identifying absolutes except for our individual experiences. That is to say, all truth ultimately is discovered within. The reality we so loudly tout, has no verifiable absolutes to support it.

One good link deserves another: Go to www.neo-tech.com and read about Neo-Tech.
What is Neo-Tech?

Neo-Tech is a practical-and-natural dynamic for flourishing conscious life: Neo-Tech is (1) a down-to-earth anti-authority, anti-cult, anti-mystical dynamic, (2) an all-inclusive consolidator of reality, and (3) an accurate predictor of the future. …As one American reader expressed, “Neo-Tech makes the unknown known”.

Neo-Tech is neither a philosophy nor an ideology. It fits no political or social category. Rather, it is a flexible tool for universal application. Neo-Tech operates not through the dictates of politics or religion. Rather, it flows through ever new technologies and new techniques created by business, science, and art.

Neo-Tech works not by promoting positives that chain one to the past, but by nullifying negatives that release one into the future. Neo-Tech works not by solving old problems, but by creating new opportunities.

I went to the Pax Neo Tech site, and was pleasantly surprised. Although I doubt you will agree this is really an important parallel effort necessary to shake the foundations of our inherited understandings. I was especially amused by the negative responses on the site. They obviously have hit the “target” directly between their philosophical eyeballs. It will take many such challenges before those most deeply entrenched are willing honestly to look beyond their dogma.
I know you are probably thinking, “yeah, right… what about your Urantia Book dogma. Well, there really isn’t any of the “holy rote” approach, so there really isn’t any dogma. It’s a take it or leave it kind of offering. Actually, the authors have said it will take a millennia before the UB is really accepted. Change takes place very slowly, especially those that bring into question root beliefs

I will bookmark your site and get back to you on it, but believe me, this is more than I can handle. I have heard of brainwash, but this is brain removal and re-installation of someone else's brain. You can't be serious about urantia. I thought Neo-Tech was far out, but you check it and see a different take on an old issue.

Your first impression not withstanding, I seriously doubt you will find another book that will impact your thinking as much as this one. For those with the curiosity fully to explore it, the rewards are simply beyond my ability to express.

Remember, we are seeing that there may well be no truth beyond subjectivity and invention when it comes to religion, so the question remains, WHAT is the value of Absolute Truth?

The value is only realized by the individual, since it is only experience individually. Collectively, it has no meaning, and therefore can have no collective value.

Bro Dave

[Bro Dave]

... the problem you have understanding how natural selection could bring about the apparent beauty in the female form strongly suggests that you have never picked up one of the myriad of books explaining natural selection. Either that or you have closed-down certain areas of critical thinking in order to protect other fixed notions.

Actually, I was not thinking only of the obvious physical attraction of the female body externally. I simply am overwhelmed at the packaging within the form factor! As an engineer, I really appreciate the intensive, dare I say creative use of the tiny space! Nothing was wasted, and everything works amazingly consistantly. Is it "perfect"? Well, no, but then who said it was suposed to be "perfect". All of life is filled with challenges, and our bodies certainly are a part of those challenges.

If god was the arbiter of the female form, it would not exhibit the variations that we see, rather it ought to be made to a "universal" standard which it, most thankfully, is not.

Diversity, individuality and free will are the fundamental rules by which mortals were created! If God had wanted mindless robots, He could easily have stuffed a universe with them. Instead, he created us with the potential of perfection, but imperfect as a necessary starting point.

While the discussion is still in the general area, I sincerely hope that you never have to suffer the indignities of prostrate problems but here is a chronically poor piece of design work that frequently lets down the male in later life. If you view this with a truly open mind you will notice that the timing and nature of this flaw is such that it does nothing to impede the procreative process which would otherwise have naturally steered the design away from such a dopey topology. Thus I will never be surprised by the condition should it strike, while I hope that you never find yourself having to ask god why he was so careless.

The problems with our bodies are, to a large extent less with design, and more with lifestyle choices. Different cultures experiences different physical problems. Treat your body poorly, and it reacts accordingly.

Bro Dave
.

[QED]

Diversity, individuality and free will are the fundamental rules by which mortals were created! If God had wanted mindless robots, He could easily have stuffed a universe with them. Instead, he created us with the potential of perfection, but imperfect as a necessary starting point.
...
The problems with our bodies are, to a large extent less with design, and more with lifestyle choices. Different cultures experiences different physical problems. Treat your body poorly, and it reacts accordingly.

These are your preferred interpretations of what we see, but you'll have to concede that they are rationalizations -- as, of course, are my interpretations. The only grounds for debate are due to the ambiguities. To eliminate ambiguity requires that we find fault in one interpretation or the other. Regrettably much of the theistic interpretation is beyond such fault analysis (not because it is intrinsically correct but because its logical construct is such that it is inaccessable to enquiry).

Thus we really ought to be focussing more on the scientific interpretations because it is here that we can conduct an effective enquiry, rather than discussing the number of angels that can be assembled on a pin-head. If these enquiries draw a blank then you can argue that we default to theistic interpretations, but I contend that wherever we look we find no shortage of detailed answers. For you to state that we are of perfect design that only becomes defective through misuse requires a considerable suspension of detailed knowledge that isn't the least bit justified.