Truth = Belief

What you believe and “the truth” are the same thing.

Unless you are willing to say “I believe things that are not the truth,” I feel this is irrefutable.

When one believes in something, that makes it “the truth.”

When one disbelieves something, that makes it “false.”

Unless you are willing to say “I believe things that are not the truth,” I feel this is irrefutable.

Subjective truth makes those assertions, but the real world disagrees. For many years, people believed that it was not possible to break the speed of sound, or perform surgery without pain.

(emphasis mine)
Remember, the world doesn’t care about your feelings. Frankly, I don’t either.

I believe in things that may or may not be true. When I was younger I believed many things that weren’t true, and when I learnt the truth, I altered my beliefs to fit. I think it vanishingly unlikely that I am correct about everything, and that every single one of my beliefs corresponds to reality or the most accurate opinion. I’m constantly revising my beliefs in line with something outside.

I’m quite sure that some of the things I believe aren’t true (though obviously I don’t know which ones). What’s the problem with that?

If I believe the Earth is flat, is that the truth?

All you have to do is look. Looks flat, doesn’t it?

There ya go. It’s flat.

The horizon line looks pretty straight, doesn’t it? Another indication of flat.

You can do a rolling test too and it will show you that it’s flat.

So, it looks flat and round objects don’t roll off of it. If there’s a definition of flat, this has got to be it. So it’s flat. On all sides. And you can’t fall off of it.

The earth is like a magical cube.

Hehheh. I remember a professor who joking said, “I’ll believe in anything I can’t see.”

Well, of course, if you could “see” it and it was true, then what would be the point of faith? You would just know it.

HTH :wink:

Unless you weren’t justified in believing that you were seeing it.

???

Dear Daybreak,

The significance of your insight will never be appreciated as long as the omnipresently implied notion of “the believer”, as an independently-acting agent, is still a confusing grammatical necessity. Let us finally invent ways to forego it, even temporarily. So that there would be no “us”, and then in stepwise fashion, no “there” where it all supposedly “is”.

So, if among friends, should people not begin to say: “trust” and “faithfulness” (as duty!), wherever ordinarily they would say “belief”?

It is when this trust is placed outside, that the inside becomes conditioned by the outside and cannot any longer be trusted. MOTTAINAI !

-WL

Only subjectively.

I don’t know if such a statement can possibly be justified. The person making this assertion realizes that what he believes is not true, therefore he does not believe in those ‘things’ (he does not believe them to be true). He may believe that he believes things which are not true, how ever that essentially adds up to suspicion (which we all have).

If someone said to me “I believe things that are not the truth”, I’d think that refutable to some extent. The most obvious reply I can think of is “No, you don’t. But you certainly act like you do.”

A paranoid schizophrenic would be a good example. Such a person would have nearly everyone in his life telling him he believes/experiences things that are not real or true. However, he would not believe this as his experiences are very real to him. He may, however, be convinced into believing that what he believes is not true – but underneath, his initial beliefs are still held as if true. The belief in the belief is entirely superficial.

What’s interesting these days are all those people who claim that scientific facts or truths are matters of “belief.” That’s an interesting twist on things, I must say.

You should check out Karl Popper - the guy is brilliant.

It isn’t so much claiming that facts are matters of belief, but that scientific statements do not necessarily communicate fact, but, rather, theory or speculation. The role of science is to find the falsity in a theory, and, if it cannot, that theory is accepted until a better one is discovered. It’s a kind of evolution of knowledge. We naturally select that which seems most accurate and precise until conditions allow for something more accurate.

The one thing I don’t like about this board is how pompous some of the members are.

“Truth” actually derives from the same place as “faith”. In German, and probably other languages too, there is only one word for faith and belief: “glaube”.

The distinctions that have subsequently arisen are the result of certain forms of thought trying to usurp old ones. Mainly, obviously, science separating truth from faith due to a profound faith in its methods. The start and end point are the same as religions where “truth” is openly still “faith”, but science is still very young and often doesn’t fully understand itself.

This is something that jonquil and countless others are obviously uncomfortable with…

I thought I was just taking a poke at people who think that certain pesky little problems like dinosaurs get in the way of, say, the young earth of the bible… stuff like that. I often feel as though I live in upsidedownworld or lookingglass world. But really, if I just put on my spinning target glasses and move to the antipodes where people really do walk upsidedown, then I should be fine as long as I remember the suction cups for my feet. :wink:

No problem then with blurry non-distinctions between faith and truth. Let’s just put them on that growing bonfire of the ambiguities and toast our good fortune in the warmth.

Cheers.

The point of the “flat world” is that nobody lives on the edges or on the underside. Appearance is actually believed in this case. It’s one of the biggest triumphs of science, to get so many people to believe what is so contrary to ocular evidence: that the world is round. I have to say, I’ve never seen a round world except in pictures - who here can claim otherwise? This doesn’t mean I have to believe that the world is flat or round - all that’s useful to me is to know it looks flat. The only people who actually need be concerned with what shape the world is, are those who study extra terrestrial matters or large-scale things like the weather/climate - in which case they are going to adopt the models that most simplify their investigations. In this case, the world as round is chosen purely because it’s easier to do calculations when thinking this way.

Why the hell would “actual truth” be useful in any other way?

I’m sure there’s only a tiny minority, if any, who believe people walk upside down on the other side of the world, or need suction cups for their feet. You’d have to be really confused between old and new understandings to think that, and probably have a pretty low IQ and little education too. Nobody who posts here, at least. With regards to dinosaurs, I bring the exact same argument: who here has seen a dinosaur or thought that their former existence/non-existence was useful in any way?

These things are utterly irrelevant to anyone, except those who enjoy learning for learning’s sake, and only examinable using humanly created flawed methods. I’m not about to put my faith in these to the extent that faith and truth are clearly separated, and truth is actually known for sure. Maybe if it actually mattered, I’d put my faith firmly on one side or another.

The distinction between scientific truth, and faith as truth, is to do with use value. There has simply been a change over time in what has been deemed more useful. Anyone who’s under the impression that truth is actually certain is a victim of ignorance - even science is just as ambiguous as anything else, but it’s often more useful to treat it otherwise.

But let’s not make a religion out of utility and current common taste.

I’ll give you an example. Some people hold that while ghosts are logically possible, the evidence for their existence is weak, since it’s possible to give purely psychological explanations of spooky phenomena. It follows from this view that even if people occasionally see ghosts, they’re not justified in believing that they’re seeing ghosts, and hence they don’t know that they’re seeing ghosts.

When I read this, the first thing that came to mind was Lyotard’s Postmodern Condition. Specifically, the parts early in the essay about science legitimizing itself, as opposed to faiths and other beliefs that only assert themselves as truth. I may be misremembering, I lost my copy and haven’t purchased a new one to refresh myself on this point.

== Obfuscation semantics.

“Truth” refers to the language model or mental construct of what is real. “Belief” refers to what you accept to be real, also known as “your truth” or “subjective truth”. “Belief” refers to a person’s accepted model whereas “Truth” refers to a model that represents what is actually there regardless of anyone’s belief.

The effort to confuse and obfuscate belief with truth and reality is a political ploy to engineer a change in society and cause alternate beliefs so as to control belief and thus control people. Man cannot tolerate real Truth being his dictator.