How do you choose what to accept as truth?

[Zzyzx]

.
People who refuse to believe anything they do not personally witness are fanatical / extremist. The opposite extreme are those who accept / believe whatever they are told and are gullible / naïve. All of us here probably accept or believe things we have not personally witnessed. Some are more selective than others in what to accept from what sources.

For instance, when considering buying a new car there may be several different approaches:

1) Just pick one that is the right color and one that the salesman says is a great car and a good deal – don't bother checking facts or prices.

2) Check with friends who own something similar, talk to a mechanic about maintenance reputation, consult KBB or NADA for price information

3) Research extensively through reputable organizations and publications regarding safety record, recalls, value retention, maintenance history, buyer reviews, fuel mileage, etc – and search for the best price offered by dealers and/or on-line.

I personally favor and apply number three for any major purchases (and other important decisions). Does this absolutely guarantee getting the best vehicle (or product) for the best price (or invariably making correct decisions)?

No. But, it certainly increases the odds of making sound decisions and buying appropriate vehicles.

In broader perspective, regarding most matters we can increase our chance of making a sound decision about what to accept or believe by doing adequate research. A claim by an individual or organization may or may not be truthful and accurate. However, if the claim is examined by many independent / disconnected credible organizations, tested repeatedly, and found to be truthful and accurate, its credibility is greatly increased.

If, for instance, an automaker claims 100 miles per gallon for its vehicle and provides only in-house data that has not been verified by others, are we wise to accept that claim? If ten different testing organizations worldwide report that the vehicle actually gets more like 50 mpg, aren't we more likely to be correct accepting the latter rather than the former?

Funny related story: A VW Diesel Beetle owner constantly bragged to neighbors about getting 50 mpg. One fellow tired of hearing about it over and over started ADDING a little fuel to the guy's tank. Soon he was bragging about 60 mpg, then 70, then 80. He was in heaven (and insufferable). The neighbor kept it up a while then quit adding – and the VW guy nearly went nuts trying to figure out why he was getting only 50 mpg.

How does this relate to religion (not the VW guy)? Or does it relate?

Do most people use #2 or somewhere between #1 and 2 for their important decisions?

[Divine Insight]

How do you choose what to accept as truth?

For me there are three types of truths: (I'll actually list four, but I'm personally not convinced of the forth one)

1. Logical Truths:

These are truths that are defined by reason based on seed premises. However, in logic it is extremely important to understand that the seed premises can never really be know to be true. So logical truths are entirely dependent upon unprovable premises and if you change the premises then you change the corresponding logical truths that you conclude.

2. Mathematical Truths:

These are basically the same as logical truths with the exception that the Mathematical Community has defined specific unprovable premises upon which they build their mathematical logic. Thus mathematical truths are entirely dependent upon these foundational axioms of mathematics.

3. Scientific Truths:

These are truths that are arrived at using the Scientific Method of Investigation. There are two main divisions of Scientific Investigation. Direct Experimental Investigation. And Observational Investigation. These truths are dependent upon how well experiments and observations can be made. And once again they are well-defined.

4. Pure Philosophical "Truths".

For me these are highly questionable. Philosophers claim to be using #1 above (i.e. Logical Truths) upon which they claim to build elaborate reasoning to arrive at higher "Truths". However, it's been my experience that philosophers are very quick to either loose tract of their foundational unprovable premises, or simply be in denial that they are even relying on unprovable premises.

So for me, this fourth category of "truth" is highly questionable.

Some people may claim that there also exist "Religious, Spiritual, or Theological Truths". I personally find these claims so be unsupportable. Either that, or like the philosophers, they are basing them on premises that simply have no foundational merit. This is especially true in theology when much of what they claim to be "truth" is based upon ancient scriptures that cannot be shown to be true.

For me, the only truths worth considering are the first three. And even those must be taken with a grain of salt being careful to understand that there are unprovable premises, axioms, or assumptions being made in all of them at the very foundation.

The only thing I feel that I can know as absolute truth is "I AM". And of course, this includes that I am having an experience.

Beyond that anything more is just a guess.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I'm still figuring this 'how' thing out. I don't think I've yet to find anything that IS true, but many things that pass muster and are worth the time and effort. For instance, I know I exist, but just what this *I* is, is not some solid state, central operator. It may not even exist as anything but a provisional or relative thing. But, it's a useful concept and within reason, I am

I don't have the proper language for a lot of philosophical terms to describe how I go about determining truth. I haven't studied philosophy and dropped out of Symbolic Logic in college in pure self defense. But I am very philosophical, so maybe it's like a kid who learns to play the piano by ear but struggled to learn to read the music.

If I hang out here long enough, I'll pick up the language and the structure of debate and be able to give a more cogent description. Part of the reason I joined up was to let my freak flag fly. I'm two other forums and I have to heavily edit myself for the sake of other forum members who really don't care about my deep ponderings Seems like that's the whole point around here! Woohoo!

I admit I heavily rely on that intuitive 'hit', that felt like a bell rang in my chest. Intuition is really SOMETHING. But it is hit and miss, just like anything else. The premise of the intuition must be true or provisionally true for the 'hit' to be worth much.

That intuitive hit gets my attention, and then I follow it as far as I can or as far as my attention lasts. Basically, it either will or it will not boil down to being supported by some kind of evidence. The evidence isn't purely materialistic, how can it be when I rely on intuition to catch my attention? But over the years the drab and mundane 'real world' has become a lot more fascinating than any metaphysical system.

I can be emotionally attached to an idea, and when that happens, I'm frequently wrong . Some personal need is interfering with my perceptions, usually one of those basic ones, like in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs; the need to belong, to be utterly safe and sheltered. I've learned to not wholly trust ideas I fall in love with. I don't throw them out the window, but I proceed with caution and insight.

As far as things like scientific discoveries, I can't do the math that the cosmologists do but when they explain what they do in layman's terms, and it is coherent and reasonable with what else I know to be 'true', I will get onboard. That goes for evolution, quantum physics, abiogenesis, panspermia, the Big Bang, the Multiverse. But over all, as it evens out, I can't deny that my cell phone and lap top works just like quantum mechanics designed them to; that people behave in predictable ways from individuals to groups, as psychology and sociology say they do. At least I'll believe it as much as the scientists do themselves . . . which is a lot less than laypersons might realize.

Scientists can 'show their work', like our teachers asked us to do on math tests. I understand why they asked, now.

What is 'true' is so important to operate from. If one's beginning premise (in whatever issue) is wrong, everything that is thought, said or done in response is going to be wrong, too. That's a lot of wasted time and unnecessary suffering, and not just for me. The sheer importance of knowing what is 'true' overrides emotional preferences, at least that's my intention. Like everyone else, I have the bitter experiences of acting from the wrong assumption. These are useful experiences, not to be ashamed of.

Finally, 'truth' can't be found or determined without intellectual honesty. This kind of honesty is often painful and disappointing, especially after indulging in emotionalism. Ask me how I know. If I seek to be as honest as I can possibly be with myself, and I am ready to accept something as true, I can trust that I'm not just buying into a preference or reacting to some deep existential fear. Being afraid is no reason to believe anything, except for green mambas. Even the assurance of being loved and accepted is no reason to choose to believe.

[Genevieve]

.

How does this relate to religion (not the VW guy)? Or does it relate?

Do most people use #2 or somewhere between #1 and 2 for their important decisions?

I'm probably somewhere between #2 and #3 for important decisions. But I have to cut myself off sometimes because I can get to the point where I'm obsessing over details. Just based on people I know, I think most people are about a #2.
But I think it really depends on how important the decision is to a particular person, and maybe a particular circumstance.
For instance, to continue your car analogy, if I just need a beater car to get me from point A to point B I'll probably pick up something off craigslist without doing a ton of research. Sure, I'll have a mechanic look at it and do some checking on price to make sure I'm not getting ripped off, but I'm not going to extensively research anything.
If I were buying a brand new car that I expected to keep for a while then I would put more effort into it.

So how does this relate to religion? Some people may just be looking for a cheap beater car. They just want a nice place to fellowship and spend about an hour on Sunday morning singing songs. They're probably not going to do a lot of research, they're just going to find the first pretty church they see where they feel comfortable.
Some people are looking for something more, and they will spend more time on research. Some people get to the point of obsessing over details that may not even have an answer.
I became a Christian in my mid-twenties. I didn't really know how to "research" Christianity but I did know I wasn't just going to jump into something based on emotion or peer pressure. I read articles on cults and brain washing techniques. I read the bible (not the whole thing at that time, just checking stuff out). I asked questions. I spent time just meditating on the things I read in the bible and heard at church. I spent time with Christians to see if they were for real, not just putting on a shiny happy face on Sunday mornings.
I wasn't trying to research the existence of God, I was pretty sure even back then that was an impossible thing to prove. And I wasn't doing extensive research into the history and authorship of the bible, I wouldn't have known how to do that.