"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong." --Richard Dawkins
Perfect.
"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong." --Richard Dawkins
It is also possible for both sides to be wrong. One is arguing blue, one is arguing yellow. It may actually be green.
It is also possible for both sides to be wrong. One is arguing blue, one is arguing yellow. It may actually be green.
or they may both be right in their own terms, but be arguing at cross purposes: I (thinking of tigers) argue orange, you (thinking of cucumbers) argue green.
oy-oy-oy! truth! talk about the wrong tree to be barking up.
Truth is as meaningless as some words in your earleir post, like "omniscient" and "omnipotent"
Surely "meaning" and "integrity" have more to offer (as examples) of what is "true" (as of yet, I haven't found a better term, sorry).
Zach,
Definitely, but with the range of opinions out there on religion and theology, I'll make a leap of faith and argue that one side - particularly regarding God - is probably right.
Resh,
Have you read God's Debris by Scott Adams? Sounds like an argument from that fun book. Anyway, I may be wrong but it sounds like you're just describing miscommunication. That's not really what I was addressing.
SW,
I know, I know. But you're a post-modernist and I'm not. I completely believe that there is only one truth that can describe reality, however unknown or unknowable it may be. To me, the idea of multiple truths smacks of backward thinking in the name of high philosophy. As far as I'm concerned, such thinking is dangerous. There are other ways to be pluralistic.
what set of experiences have led you to be committed to the idea that "there is only one truth that can describe reality" - my conclusion that there are multiple meaningful approaches (note my choice of words) is borne out by the fact that I can observe with my eyes open. What about the world you live in leads you to your position?
Life leads me to the conclusion that "there is only one truth that can describe reality." I don't think "multiple meaningful approaches" contradicts that, it just implies that meaning and truth are different.
"look, why can't we just agree to disagree........." >.
Please be more specific as to which aspects of "life" lead you to that conclusion.
Every experience of my reality leads me to the conclusion that there is only one valid and testable explanation for that reality. Literally, everything.
What doesn't lead to that conclusion?
No, no, no - I asked you for an example. "Everything" is not an example.
If you cannot articulate it, that is perfectly understandable and acceptable - but you must also acknowledge therefore that it has no value beyond the scope of your experience (which I am not demeaning in any way).
Example:
1. My car breaks down. One of my passengers says "It's the fan belt!" and another exclaims "It's "the timing belt!," but I look at the engine and find out that the truth - my alternator belt caused the breakdown.
2. I say that California is 30 miles away from New York City. on land My friend claims that it's more like 3000 miles. I take my ruler and measure. I'm wrong, he's right. Oops.
Good examples - thank you.
Let me give you an example that is a little more abstract:
When science tries to describe "light" it acknowledges that there is a "wave-particle duality." In that, light manifests properties that make it appear to be a wave and a particle.
This is the basis of quantum mechanics which is all about have more than one answer to explain abstract physical phenomena.
So, are question of philosophy and belief more analgous to the concrete examples you gave or the abstractions of quantum mechanics?
Your turn.
I'm no physicist, but as I understand it wave-particle duality does not allow light to be described either as a wave or a particle, but only as both a wave and a particle.
Furthermore, although my lack of scientific knowledge precludes my making blanket statements in this area, the fact that we don't completely understand reality doesn't undermine science or objective truth.
Lastly, one or a few examples that purport to contradict the sum of my life experience (and I don't think any do) should not alter my overall approach to life. The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim.
Right - it has properties of both.
I am just suggesting, minimally, that we might not "completely understand" other things and therefore arrive at the conclusion that certain can have properties of more than one "type" (truth).
The question of whether there is Truth behind the curtain, in these cases, is immaterial as we cannot assess it (just as we cannot assess light fully). As such, I would be better served simply affirming the knowable (i.e. plurality) - whereas you are just affirming Truth based on faith. (do you like how I did that? 
)
It seems clear to me that it would be an extraordniary claim to extrapolate some essential truth about Reality based on how we understand the reason for a car breaking down.
Again, think of quantum mechanics and Newtonian Mechanics. One (Newtonian) describes mechanics at speeds much below the speed of light, and one describes them at speeds close to, or above, the speed of light. (this, too, is accepted as scientifc truth).
Isn't the broken down car an example of Newtonian mechanics?
Wouldn't we have to ask more fundamental questions?
...
My two cents:
There is somewhere out there one absolute truth, but we are going to get there and its kind of irrelevant in most cases.
To go back to the tiger example. One person says its black, the other says is orange. Neither is 100% right or wrong. Then the color blind person comes and says its black and gray. Is he closer or further away from the truth?
A related idea to help understand my theory is the frame of reference. If I am on a moving train and I throw a ball up and down in the air, to me it looks like its just traveling up and down. To the person on the platform its moving in a parabola because the train is speeding by and its going up and down. Now an astronaut up in space sees the earth moving and rotating and the ball doing who knows what weird movement. No one is wrong or right. There is one absolute truth, but each person has a different way of describing it.
Nope.
The existence of multiple opinions implies the existence of multiple PERCEPTIONS of the truth.
Commenting by HaloScan
