Maybe there are two meanings for true. Sometimes true means factual. Sometimes it means believable. As humans, we throw around the word "truth" expecting some kind of correlation where none is warranted. If something is factual, it may or may not be believable. If something is believed, it may or may not be factual.

Is TSCC doctrine true? It's as true as the tooth fairy. If you're six, you have a certain truth. If you're 60, you have a completely different truth. TSCC's version of truth is a problem for several reasons.

1. TSCC makes factual claims based on beliefs. That's dishonest. I'm not saying the blind leading the blind is bad. I'm saying it doesn't work.

2. In the modern world, people think for themselves because facts are instantly available. Huge problem for religions that make false claims.

3. Intellectual dishonesty is actually bad for people. It's as ridiculous as completing a mathematical proof by throwing in a little hokus pokus. You end up with garbage.

truth is fact.

Sure, but that doesn't leave room for feelings. If something feels true, maybe it's true for you. In the world inside your head, "thems is the facts". True and Truth are two words that are so semantically ambiguous that they cause huge problems.

You are lumping objective and subjective truths together.

https://steemit.com/truth/@stevescoins/blind-men-and-the-elephant-objective-truth-versus-subjective-truth

Exactly. End of story.

What kills me is when you hear someone use the phrase, "My truth . . ." like we each have our own and there are various versions or alternate versions. or the phrase, "What's true for me may not be true for you." The stupidity of that is unfathomable.

Kellyanne? You there?

LoL - Alternative truth.


Babylon, IMO, you are describing "Truthiness"
That's Colbert's term for: the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true.

Truth is what is actually true outside your head, whether it matches what we know, speculate, feel or think or not.

It may be true that someone has strong feelings about "something." However that does not make the "something" true. (That's what people try to do with faith.)

Thank you for your very compassionate reply....

Perhaps you should go over and answer on the bullying thread....

Isn't that how our education system is? The truth is what teacher says it is. The facts come from whatever book the teacher likes.

If you put 12 people in a room with the facts, you'll end up with a dozen different interpretations of the facts. We're taught to respect those interpretations more than the facts themselves.

"We're taught to respect those interpretations more than the facts themselves."

Yup.

I'm wondering how many people really understand what a fact is anymore, and how fact and truth are one and the same. It's like the semantic word games Mormons play that do exactly what you say. They are "interpretations" that obfuscate and side track and remove focus from the main event. Works on a lot of people. Kellyanne isn't the only one.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> truth is fact.


Ditto this :)

Subjective truth is mentioned above....excuse me? There is absolutely no way to determine any perceived 'truthfulness of one's subjective feelings/beliefs. That is why they are called 'subjective', as opposed to 'objective'. Subjective is subjective is subjective....truth does not enter the picture!

truth is relative to whatever time period that we are in....

history has clearly shown that....

There seems to be something transcendent about subjective truth. Objective truth just is. So a made up God could be closer to the facts of the matter than no God at all.

My new Catholic girlfriend got me thinking about all this, since she was taking her kids. She sent me a photo of her Church. I sent her a photo of Buddy Christ. Nothing wrong with having church peeps if they respect boundaries.

subjective truth?

We have people cutting off heads, throwing gays out of the house or off the rooftop, forcing their kids to serve mormon missions, rejecting children's opinions simply because they don't fit the parent's religious beliefs . . . .

If you want to get into the transcendence of subjective truth, I think running the subjective truth some filter might help get rid of some destructive subjective (transcendent) truths. Mormonism would clog the filter, in my opinion.

Finding a way to make mormonism into some transcendent truth is like wrestling an orangutang naked. You can do it, but why bother?

Bravo: Well said!!!

Feelings = "Truth" = Fact

That's mormon math.

Really?

I thought that what ever supports their beliefs is the truth, fact or not

Maybe I'm just too nice, coming back around to try and see redeeming value in utter horse shit. I understand the sentiment. Noble ideas resonate with noble people. That's why we were Mormons. But there's nothing noble about a pack of lies. That's really the crux of the matter. When "the truth" is found to be lies, it's got to go. That's what happens in a healthy society. TSCC only persists as an institution because it's not a religion. It's a money making scam. Or rather, it's sustained as such.

But then that's my truth. Some people believe in noble lies. Birds of a feather and all that. They wouldn't put it like that. I got a kick out of Elder Oaks getting all bent out of shape over being accused of a minor lie, when his whole life is about perpetuating a huge lying fraud. But he's trying, so golf clap for that.

And I might be drawing too hard a line. If lying to people is the only way to get them to work together, who am I to say that's bad? In TSCC's case, noble lies are just one problem. Bad psychology is a different kettle of fish. The money grubbing could also be a problem, but now we're getting into glass houses and American culture.

In your opening post you said,"In the modern world, people think for themselves because facts are instantly available."

Really? Just when did all the facts of the universe and psyche become so obvious? Does this mean right now we can be just as factually informed as humans 5000 years from now? Do "facts" exist independent of knowing humans? (So presumably people 5000 years ago could have dealt with the same store of facts as we can...if they weren't blinded by misconceptions?)

Is mere information "facts"? What about knowledge (the arrangement of information into patterns)--is that factual? What about intelligence (the ability to choose the best patterns)? And wisdom (the ability to apply correctly the patterns that one chooses)?

Seems like we're not quite omniscient yet...

Sorry, the step after "intelligence" is "understanding" (the layers of education come from psych. prof. Tobin Hart, "From Information to Transformation: Education for the Evolution of Consciousness," 2001).

The point is that any deviant can latch onto informational "facts" and use them to support skewed theories or to arrive at bizarre or lethal conclusions. Cf. the "mad scientist" meme, but ordinary people do this all the time in their own ways. It seems, then, that "truth" must also operate on many levels which need alignment--deviations are possible at each level.

I do love me some foxe. Yes the deviants will always twist the facts, but let's leave Joseph out of this.

I'm talking generally. Truth is always mediated by wisdom. Thanks to technology, wisdom is more accessible. It's still true you can't fix stupid, but the trend favors the facts.

Truth cannot be undone by feeling. Truth is factual. A person can have their own truth that electricity, though invisible, is harmless. But the fact (truth) is, if you put the black wire in one ear, the white one in the other, wrap the copper one around your left big toe, and then plug it into the wall socket, you find truth. Feelings and belief are no longer 'true.'

The opposite of false, it's binary.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 02:15AM by Cpete.

I have absolutely no idea.