9 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

DOES PLURALISM MEAN NOTHING IS TRUE?

Pluralism is used, often in different ways; across a wide range of topics to denote a diversity of views, and stands in opposition to a single approach or method of interpretation: I use this question in its general sense as a question relating to everything.

More specifically here, it is used to mean there is no such thing as religious truth because religious perspectives differ on some things. However this question equally applies to Science, world views, philosophies and viewpoint. Is there such a thing as truth given this fact?

Edited by caliban, 04 June 2013 - 12:54 AM.
caps

[daouda]

This is kind of an interesting question and should not be limited to the religion forum.
Anyway my math years are far away now but I'd say that besides mathemathics (at least, algebra), there is NO absolute "truth" in this world. Isnt it undeniable that 2+2=4 in all circumstances? In my extremely limited knowledge of them, mathematics are mostly free of complex epistemological issues that render EVERY other "science" ("hard" or not) and knowledge out there unable to produce absolute, definitive "truths" (no matter how hard they try).
I've studied anthropology (got a masters in it) and the acknowledgement of "plurality", "alterity" and "cultural diversity" is fundamental to this human "science" : an anthropologist can, ideally, NEVER judge any aspect of different cultures. As much as it positively opens one's mind to different world views etc, this "cultural relativism", that is axiomatic in anthropological research, is however problematic when naturally,as human beings, we establish moral values for ourselves (or get them ingrained by our "education"). For example, should I passively accept and observe the excision of little girls in West Africa or should I strive to change this custom by "educating" the people that it is "barbaric" and contrary to the "human rights" that I beleive in? The neverending conflict between the universalism of human rights and cultural relativism really has no easy resolution.
Also, since this is the religion forum, I find that, even more so than my "scientific" and atheist education, this has prevented me to ever adhere to any single religion. At some point in my life I have been willing to adhere to some kind of religious faith, for various reasons, and indeed have been seduced by many aspects of both Islam and Christianity... But (besides all the irrational religious stuff) I simply never can accept than one faith is "right" and holds the only "truth", while the others are "wrong" (...and their beleivers bound to hell). As a "born atheist" looking for the comfort of faith and religion in an extremely hard part of his life, and willing to cast aside his deeply ingrained rationalism to be able to receive it, I have found that the moral absolutism of religions is what really prevented me to ever embrace any of them.

Edited by daouda, 23 April 2013 - 12:55 AM.

[daouda]

This is kind of an interesting question and should not be limited to the religion forum.

Actually, there REALLY should be an "epistemology" forum here! To any mod reading this, don't you think this would be a REALLY good idea?

[shadowhawk]

daouda: This is kind of an interesting question and should not be limited to the religion forum.
Anyway my math years are far away now but I'd say that besides mathemathics (at least, algebra), there is NO absolute "truth" in this world.

Are you telling me the truth?

daouda: Isn’t it undeniable that 2+2=4 in all circumstances? In my extremely limited knowledge of them, mathematics are mostly free of complex epistemological issues that render EVERY other "science" ("hard" or not) and knowledge out there unable to produce absolute, definitive "truths" (no matter how hard they try).

By “undeniable,” do you mean true? There are epistemological issues with math and other abstract objects. For example is the number 2 real or not? The realists and anti-realists have had a pluralistic war going since Plato. The Theist can take either position and hence Math can be true regardless of whether it is real or not. By contrast, the theistic anti-realist has a ready explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world: God has created it according to a certain blueprint He had in mind. There are any number of blueprints He might have chosen, perhaps 2. If the bluepoint consisted of 2 pages, 2+2=4. However 2+2 can equal 2. depending on what we are talking about.

Read more: http://www.reasonabl...s#ixzz2RK3SYoTD

daouda: I've studied anthropology (got a masters in it) and the acknowledgement of "plurality", "alterity" and "cultural diversity" is fundamental to this human "science" : an anthropologist can, ideally, NEVER judge any aspect of different cultures.

Is this rule true? Do all anthropologists agree or is there a pluralistic number of viewpoints? Like religions, there are various views I think. Does this mean there is no truth in anthropology? Some do this with religion your later point..

daouda: As much as it positively opens one's mind to different world views etc, this "cultural relativism", that is axiomatic in anthropological research, is however problematic when naturally,as human beings, we establish moral values for ourselves (or get them ingrained by our "education"). For example, should I passively accept and observe the excision of little girls in West Africa or should I strive to change this custom by "educating" the people that it is "barbaric" and contrary to the "human rights" that I believe in? The neverending conflict between the universalism of human rights and cultural relativism really has no easy resolution.

Great point, but that means some cultures are closer to the truth and we should do something about it.

daouda: Also, since this is the religion forum, I find that, even more so than my "scientific" and atheist education, this has prevented me to ever adhere to any single religion. At some point in my life I have been willing to adhere to some kind of religious faith, for various reasons, and indeed have been seduced by many aspects of both Islam and Christianity... But (besides all the irrational religious stuff) I simply never can accept than one faith is "right" and holds the only "truth", while the others are "wrong" (...and their beleivers bound to hell). As a "born atheist" looking for the comfort of faith and religion in an extremely hard part of his life, and willing to cast aside his deeply ingrained rationalism to be able to receive it, I have found that the moral absolutism of religions is what really prevented me to ever embrace any of them.

I also grew up an atheist. We have had the same struggles. You do seem to believe in truth and I would encourage you to continue to look for it. If pluralism makes everything wrong, you will never find it, but if there is a truth to be known, despite disagreements, maybe you will find it.

[N.T.M.]

To OP:

But it's not a fact. Saying that A, B, and C are all correct despite conflicting tenets is just ridiculous. For example, if A demands that C is incorrect, and C demands that A is incorrect, they can't both be correct, ergo the premise that they are is wrong. Moreover, the premise that this would apply to science is also wrong. It seems like you realized this, but instead of corrected your argument, you advanced it.

I always make an effort to be respectful online as a general social courtesy, but that is a very foolish post.

Edited by N.T.M., 30 April 2013 - 05:41 AM.

[shadowhawk]

To OP:

But it's not a fact. Saying that A, B, and C are all correct despite conflicting tenets is just ridiculous. For example, if A demands that C is incorrect, and C demands that A is incorrect, they can't both be correct, ergo the premise that they are is wrong. Moreover, the premise that this would apply to science is also wrong. It seems like you realized this, but instead of corrected your argument, you advanced it.

I always make an effort to be respectful online as a general social courtesy, but that is a very foolish post.

What amazes me is you missed the purpose and point of this thread. You aren’t foolish however.

Within fields of knowledge there are many disagreements, some of them severe. So, no field of knowledge is without pluralism. Yet, this is not a reason to use such disagreements, as you have done, for denying truth.

N.T.M. “If religions were founded on the idea of objective truth, there'd be only one. “

http://www.longecity..._90#entry583307

Is it objective truth, that there would only be one religion? How did you learn the truth of that?

I agree with you here, because there is disagreement, does not mean there is no truth the point of the thread topic, which you missed.. But you don’t seem to really believe this, when speaking out of both sides of your mouth, you claim religion is different. This thread applies to Science as well as all fields of knowledge.

[N.T.M.]

I was being more satirical than anything else in that second quote. That being said, it does convey a valid point. And yes, I realize that it doesn't prove that all religions are false--that seems to be taking what I said a bit out of context. It does, however, provide an interesting point of reference when examining views held about things that are more objective, like the effects of gravity, for example. Billions of people from all around the world independently concluded that objects fall when they're dropped. It seems very odd then that religions, which allegedly stem from the same thing, objective truth, should contradict each other.

[Breezey]

There is no such thing as nothing. Nothing can be defined as the absence of something. That some thing can be anything or everything. In the absence of everything, if nothing is all that there is, then nothing will be everything and everything will be nothing. Is nothing true? Is everything false? Anyway you answer that, everything and nothing becomes true and false. I guess Malaclypse the Younger will make it clearer.


Greater Poop: Is Eris true?

Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.

GP: Even false things?

M2: Even false things are true.

GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.

[shadowhawk]

I was being more satirical than anything else in that second quote. That being said, it does convey a valid point. And yes, I realize that it doesn't prove that all religions are false--that seems to be taking what I said a bit out of context. It does, however, provide an interesting point of reference when examining views held about things that are more objective, like the effects of gravity, for example. Billions of people from all around the world independently concluded that objects fall when they're dropped. It seems very odd then that religions, which allegedly stem from the same thing, objective truth, should contradict each other.

It is true that more than one view of anything does not make all views false. It is true that more than one view of anything makes all views false. Which is true and which false?

Often and I have heard it here on this blog, you hear religious skeptics point out there are various religious views. So what there are various views about everything which if we answered pluralism made everything false, “nothing,” would be true.

Apply your logic to everything, it seems odd that humans looking at the same thing come up with so many answers. Why just pick out religion? Take science for example, what is it? There are many views as any student of the philosophy of science will soon learn. Science has its unproven assumptions and limitations. It can’t answer all questions. So it is with everything I can think of. Tell me what “Objective,” truth is and are you objective in your statements?

There is no such thing as nothing. Nothing can be defined as the absence of something. That some thing can be anything or everything. In the absence of everything, if nothing is all that there is, then nothing will be everything and everything will be nothing. Is nothing true? Is everything false? Anyway you answer that, everything and nothing becomes true and false. I guess Malaclypse the Younger will make it clearer.


Greater Poop: Is Eris true?

Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.

GP: Even false things?

M2: Even false things are true.

GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.

I have "nothing," to say.

[shadowhawk]

Often you hear Atheists and Agnostics acknowledge there are various viewpoints in most subject areas and the fact of pluralism does not keep anything from being seen as true. Arguing that because there is more than one opinion, nothing is true is a logical fallacy. Then they turn around and still apply it to Christians without the slightest pause. There is more than one religion you know and they can’t all be right.

Remember the old illustration of the three blind men and the elephant?. It serves the purpose of saying it is arrogant to say that Jesus is the only way. How could Christians possibly be so arrogant as to say that all the other religions are wrong and Jesus is the only path to God? Often the parable of the elephant is used to illustrate the sheer arrogance of Christianity. It goes something like this: “Three blind scribes are touching different parts of an elephant. The one who is holding the tail says, “This is a rope.” Another holding the elephant’s leg says, “This is not a rope; you are wrong. It is a tree.” Still another who is holding the trunk of the elephant says, “You are both wrong. It is a snake!” The moral of the story is that all religions are like these men. They each touch a different part of ultimate reality and therefore any one of them is arrogant to say they have the whole truth.

But take a step back and think about what is being said here. Do you see the breathtaking claim that is being made? Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Moses, and Muhammad are all blind, but in fact, I can see! These leaders all had a small perspective, but I am the one who sees the full picture. Now who is being arrogant? It is just as arrogant to say that Buddha, Muhammad, and Jesus were all wrong in their exclusive claims as it is to say that Jesus is the only way. The issue is not about who is arrogant, but what is actually true and real. They are all wrong and hence there is no truth. The Atheists and Agnostics say because of this, they can see, there is no elephant.

Christians are often accused of arbitrary exclusion. How can you exclude all of these religions? Jesus may have said he was the way to the Father, but how can I follow him and become an intolerant person who excludes others? Again, we need to think carefully about this view because the reality is that whatever position we hold will exclude something. Even the person who believes that all ways lead to God excludes the view that only some ways lead to God or that only one way leads to God or that there is no God (gods). Every view excludes something. Again, the issue is not about who is excluding people, but what is actually true and real. Only they can see all theiusts