Question regarding absolutism/absolute truth

[Eucharisted]

A friend writes:

My question (I think this is where he goes wrong/he’s weak) does belief in absolutism/absolute truth depend on whether you’re all knowing?

An absolute truth would be “man is man”, “abortion is a sin,” and “the earth is a planet.”

Some would argue that abortion is not a sin, because some people believe it isn’t, and therefore it is not an absolute truth; however, God exists, He has said abortion is a sin, and therefore, abortion is a sin is an universal truth. All truths and realities have their origin in God, and He is the summit of truth - the truth itself.

Some would say this is false, because they do not believe in God, but belief is not the same as truth, nor is truth depedant on man; God, the truth, is self-existent.

 

[jmcrae]

I appreciate your comments, but this is still sticky for me.

I could say going back to the example, that I like pizza. And she could say that she doesn’t like it. OK, those are our opinions. But aren’t they (the opinions) true for us individually? Therefore wouldn’t truth differ between her and I?

No, it’s not “truth” that differs here, since the taste of the pizza doesn’t actually change when she eats it vs. when you eat it. It’s still savoury/acidic/salty.

The phrase “David likes pizza” remains true, even while “Jenna doesn’t like pizza” also remains true. It does not become untrue that David likes pizza, just because Jenna does not like pizza.

 

[Ender]

You sound so hostile.

Not intentionally. I try to be precise and succinct; I guess that comes across as angry.

I said that justified does not necessarily mean proof–that proof is one way of talking about justification but not the only way.

I am unhappy with vague terms. Justified might mean proof … or it might not. How am I to know what it means?

I’m not sure what constitutes proof or proper justification.

I don’t want to sink too deep into the arcane; we have much we disagree on without picking nits (the definition of “proof” may be important but we can surely wait and see).

I think you are leaving out “things that can be proven” from the category of things that can be believed.

I’m only trying to distinguish between things which can be known and things which cannot so we don’t say “I believe the sun will rise tomorrow” when, more precisely, it should be “I know the sun will rise.” Belief here pertains to that which cannot be (or is not) known but is accepted as true.

you seem to disagree that knowledge is justified true belief.

I don’t find it helpful. If I were to say that I have knowledge of God’s laws the non-believer would disagree saying since God does not exist I could not possibly know his laws. Where does that leave us? In this case the argument is about the truth of God’s existence; it is not really a disagreement over knowledge. I don’t want to drift too far from the forum topic: do moral absolutes exist? If there is a God, yes; if there is not, no.

Ender

 

[Leela]

Justified might mean proof … or it might not. How am I to know what it means?

Proof is a type of justification. One standard of justification may be proof which is to say that one hearing this justification would be absolutely compelled to believe it. Another standard of justification may be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a criminal court which allows circumstantial evidence and accepts a preponderance of evidence when proof is not available.

What I think I’m hearing from you is that when we talk about knowledge, one can only really claim to know something if she has proof. Then the question is still, prove to whom? I know what I had for breakfast this morning but I couldn’t prove it to you.

I’m only trying to distinguish between things which can be known and things which cannot so we don’t say “I believe the sun will rise tomorrow” when, more precisely, it should be “I know the sun will rise.” Belief here pertains to that which cannot be (or is not) known but is accepted as true.

Some beliefs are about things that can be known and some about tings that cannot be known. The point of the term “belief” in Plato’s knowledge as justified true belief is that one can’t know that something is true without believing it is true.

I don’t find it helpful. If I were to say that I have knowledge of God’s laws the non-believer would disagree saying since God does not exist I could not possibly know his laws. Where does that leave us? In this case the argument is about the truth of God’s existence; it is not really a disagreement over knowledge. I don’t want to drift too far from the forum topic: do moral absolutes exist? If there is a God, yes; if there is not, no.

What you have concluded here is the same thing pragmatists like myself conclude. The only one of these three terms that is philosophically interesting (as in worth talking about) is justification. Do moral absolutes exist? maybe, maybe not. It’s really not worth talking about. Even if you actually were in possession of a truth about morality, you would still be in the position of needing to justify it to others. If so, how does it help you to claim that it is true now and always instead of just now? How is one who believes in absolutes in any different position with respect to justification than one who does not believe in absolutes? In other words, absolutes do not pass the test of the pragmatic method: What is the difference that makes a difference?

Best,
Leela

 

[Ender]

Proof is a type of justification. One standard of justification may be proof which is to say that one hearing this justification would be absolutely compelled to believe it. …
What I think I’m hearing from you is that when we talk about knowledge, one can only really claim to know something if she has proof. Then the question is still, prove to whom?

What is the difference between “absolutely compelled to believe” and “proof” and how is it that you can use the former and complain at my use of the latter?

The point of the term “belief” in Plato’s knowledge as justified true belief is that one can’t know that something is true without believing it is true.

Belief is necessary to knowing but it is not sufficient; I don’t think we disagree on this. I am really talking about belief without knowing, without proof. That seems like the more useful working definition for this discussion.

Do moral absolutes exist? maybe, maybe not. It’s really not worth talking about.

If you reject the existence of absolute moral truth or claim that it cannot be known then you effectively reject the basis for individual moral behavior. It is good for me if you and the rest of society behaves morally but you can provide no argument for why (from my perspective) I should behave morally. This is the heart of the argument; the basis for the thread.

How is one who believes in absolutes in any different position with respect to justification than one who does not believe in absolutes? In other words, absolutes do not pass the test of the pragmatic method: What is the difference that makes a difference?

It seems like your argument is that, since everyone is not convinced of the existence of moral absolutes, it doesn’t matter whether they exist or not. That is, they may be true, but believing the truth is irrelevant if you can’t proo … if you can’t convince others.

I wonder if the same parallel can be made with regard to scientific disputes - the argument over germs for example. For decades the argument over the existence of virtually invisible, destructive organisms raged in the absence of proof. Would you hold that it didn’t matter which side of the truth one was on in that situation?

Ender

 

[Leela]

What is the difference between “absolutely compelled to believe” and “proof” and how is it that you can use the former and complain at my use of the latter?

Nothing. Who is complaining? And why so argumentative? (Are the same guy as JD?)

I said proof means that one is compelled to believe. I’m just saying that someone may feel justified in believing something without proof–without such a flat out compulsion. All I’m saying is that justification is not a synonym for proof.

If you reject the existence of absolute moral truth or claim that it cannot be known then you effectively reject the basis for individual moral behavior.

I’m not accepting or rejecting such a basis. I’m just saying that claiming to have a basis does not help you win any arguments for your view of morality. Having a “basis” that does not provide you with knockdown arguments is no better than not having “basis.”

It is good for me if you and the rest of society behaves morally but you can provide no argument for why (from my perspective) I should behave morally. This is the heart of the argument; the basis for the thread.

I take as a moral from the history of philosphy that the project of finding the sort of foundation for morally that will solve all moral dilemmas and provide knockdown arguments for its solutions has been tried and has failed and is probably not worth pursuing further.

It seems like your argument is that, since everyone is not convinced of the existence of moral absolutes, it doesn’t matter whether they exist or not. That is, they may be true, but believing the truth is irrelevant if you can’t proo … if you can’t convince others.

Not only that, but if more than one person is convinced of moral absolutes and they don’t believe in the same morals, then what?

In general, I can’t see how it is helpful to any argument to say that it is not just what you believe based on experience and reasoning but is also an absolute truth. What does the claim that it is an absolute truth add to your argument?

I wonder if the same parallel can be made with regard to scientific disputes - the argument over germs for example. For decades the argument over the existence of virtually invisible, destructive organisms raged in the absence of proof. Would you hold that it didn’t matter which side of the truth one was on in that situation?

Of course the truth matters. But what if two sides both feel that they are in possession of the truth and disagree. Then one side says, yes, but our side possesses the ABSOLUTE truth. Has that side gained anything in the argument from making that move? No, of course not. The only way to win is to actually be the side that actually is in possession of the truth AND have that truth born out in experience in such a way as to be able to convince the other side.

Best,
Leela

 

[Dameedna]

Clearly a population of believers in absolute truth who all have faith in their own beliefs but all happen to believe different things could not function. There is no way that everyone could be right and no way for the ones that are wrong to correct their wrong beliefs since beliefs held on faith are not subject to revision in light of new experiences including new evidence and arguments.

Exactly. It leads to behaviour that occurs as a result of a “believed” truth. This behaviour can be grand, such as that of Martin Luther King, or it could be dreadful such as that of the 9/11
bombers.

If there is no verification possible, then what else do we do? Just let everyone support their own truths hoping they do more good than harm?

It’s interesting to me that this faith in one’s own absolute truth sounds a lot like the “nightmare of relativism” that I hear talked about so much. Beliefs based on faith are entirely individualistic since they are not held as subject to external pressures such as other’s demands that our beliefs be justified to them. In this way, faith results in beliefs that are entirely relative to the individual since no other arbiters of truth are admitted.

Pretty much. Relativism is that which so many individuals seem to be horrified by, not realizing…that their entire world view remains relative to themselves.

No evidence, will influence their own view of what is true.

It is the danger of relativism. Where everyone’s behaviour is determined by what they think is right, regardless of what anyone else shows them or thinks.

 

[Dameedna]

**A funny story about this comes from a lady who was asked why, when it would serve her well in her situation, she didn’t learn a particular foreign language. She replied “God writ the Bible in English, and that makes it good enough for me.”

My mother was almost physically attacked by a women she was on tour with, because my mother suggested Jesus was not blue eyed and blond haired, but dark skinned and dark eyed as were the people of the day.

The only pictures this woman had ever seen, was the rather culturally-centric view, that Jesus was an anglo-saxon white man.

My mother wasn’t even trying to argue, she just made an innoculous comment, and was never spoken to by at least half the bus for the rest of the trip for her blasphemy.

 

[Dameedna]

Semantics. The question was asked about absolutism. Truth isn’t “as I see it” or “IMHO”, “my opinion” etc. People who desire truth but finding the responders presenting a nebulous web of “wiggle words” couched in niceties are in danger of allowing The Father Of Lies just enough room to create doubt and wedge and chip his way in. In that situation those that seek may not see the Truth at all because it is unrecognizable. It is our mission to present the Truth – fully and absolutely – then it can be recognized.

Unfortunately for the world, quite a few other communities agree with you completely…

…and they have a completely different belief system

 

[Dameedna]

To me, truth is the property that all true sentences share, but it doesn’t make much sense to talk about truth without saying what you are claiming to be true.

Can one admit, or accept that truth…exists? And if it does, in what form does it exist?

I think when people are saying, truth IS truth…they aren’t quite saying what is truth(yet). They are making a statment that it exists.

I don’t find the idea that “truth” exists(even in concept) as something contradictory with my views.

It is, however a completely useless concept to use when trying to manage an entire human society, unless you are talking about truth that can be verified.

Verified IE proof, also needs an agreed upon definition.

And it is even more meaningless, unless it can be verified for all humanity. The only thing that can be verified to any degree for all of us, is the nature of the universe(well hopefully)

I guess my point is, they are talking about the concept of truth, not wether their statments ARE true. Wether or not a believer then goes on to claim their beliefs are true, doesn’t detract from the concept of truth itself. I think it’s important at least for us, to recognize the distinction and feel comfortable with it if we are to go down this path with believers.

 

[Kaninchen]

It is the danger of relativism. Where everyone’s behaviour is determined by what they think is right, regardless of what anyone else shows them or thinks.

We don’t live in a kind of ‘state of nature’ with every day a kind of behavioral tabula rasa, though. We live in a set of codes and controls - of law and social practices and cultural norms that could be said to be a kind of mutual compromise between historical individual and group ‘absolutes’. These we inherit and, in turn, pass on somewhat changed.

 

[Dameedna]

Godlovesthespek; great “handle.”

I think when we speak to non-Catholics, we need to be careful of distributing even the accurate definition you gave over anything other than God only. It is fine, however to say that “I believe XYZ to be “True” in my understanding.” This is a simple semantic proposition.

I say this because otherwise you are asking for perhaps unnecessary arguements. That is because while the Church has its own unassailable internal logic, a simple reading of history will immediatley bring challenges from non-believers. It is easy, say, given the nature of the Council of Jerusalem, to posit that the Church as we know it today is primarily a Paulist Church, the early Church being unmistakably founded in, and alligned in practice with, Judaism. I know Jesus did not say how to spread His teachings, but there are a host of questions regarding scholarly veracity in this area that make the word “True” suspect in the eyes of non-Catholics.

As for the Bible, we know that we have none of the original documents, not even first copies. And all those are different from one another in some regard or other. Also, some of their contents may be traced to works that pre-date Jesus in some form or other. And the Bible with its present complement of books wasn’t assembled until the fourth century. Again, there is, from the non-Catholic view, material here to be concerned about in terms of scholastic, or even spiritual, accuracy.

Even today, as we gain greater understanding of language and translation,,** we find that some interpretations are changing. For example, we know that in the time and place of Jesus the teaching language (parables) had at least three tiers of meaning, and therefore of interpretation. (See Mark 4:33-34)** Also, in Latin it says “Idem non idem.” They meant, I believe, that the “same” thing in one language is* not *the same in another. Yet we have Aramaic going into Greek and Latin during radically different cultures than our own, and then being translated into English–about whose verb “to be” Heinlein said “only the first person singular is true to fact.” There is also the factor of the about two thousand year time factor, not to mention that there is good reason to believe that authors of that time did not write expository prose in the same sense that we now understand it. Again, red flags for non-believers.

Further, the Catechism may in our eyes be “True,” but in fact it was developed over time and includes exegetical material that can easily be targeted as valid, but not necessarioly “True” in the sense you defined. And again, from a non-Catholic stance, ex-cathedra, etc, etc, are all dependent on the previous factors and are therfore subject to scholastic scrutiny, therefore not “True” in that sense through those eyes.

So I think it is wonderful that you have the strength of your faith. I’m just saying that if it is represented as a faith, however valid and “True” *to you *, claiming it as “Truth” without qualification may be asking for unnecessary arguments based on demonstrable doubt regarding changelessness. Of course, “Truth” still stands as applied to God, in any case. I’m just cautioning against putting forth even the strongest faith in the place of scholarly argument in a forum where it might draw unwarranted critique when put in such a way as your post.

*In this regard it is fascinating to read the Lamsa translation done recently by Dr. George Lamsa, a speker of Aramaic. See www.lamsabible.com

**A funny story about this comes from a lady who was asked why, when it would serve her well in her situation, she didn’t learn a particular foreign language. She replied “God writ the Bible in English, and that makes it good enough for me.”

***A fine work on this account is Maurice Nicoll’s The New Man: an interpretation fo sme of the parables and miracles of Christ.

And you my friend, are not quite like any catholic I’ve ever known

I’m rather curious as to how you gained your faith, when you can understand where a non-believer comes from. This is quite rare.

 

[Dameedna]

We don’t live in a kind of ‘state of nature’ with every day a kind of behavioral tabula rasa, though. We live in a set of codes and controls - of law and social practices and cultural norms that could be said to be a kind of mutual compromise between historical individual and group ‘absolutes’. These we inherit and, in turn, pass on somewhat changed.

I agree.

As we grow, so does our understanding and we change. Our feelings Relative to ourselves will never be absolutes in any way.

The danger in relativism, is in not recognizing it I guess is more to the point of what I was saying. It exists for all of us. We can only percieve the world, in accordance with ourselves and all our very faulty and wonderful human capacity.

Hmm…I think I’ve come to a realization here. It isnt’ relativism that is the problem, it’s the inability to recognize it. If we can recognize it as being part of our identity, we can learn to let it go.

We can find another system that can work toward human growth.

 

[Leela]

Pretty much. Relativism is that which so many individuals seem to be horrified by, not realizing…that their entire world view remains relative to themselves.

No evidence, will influence their own view of what is true.
QUOTE]

Exactly. What prevents truth being relative to individuals is lived experience. What individuals hold to be true is either born out in experience or not. When people hold their truths to be subject to revision as new information and arguments become available, they avoid relativism. When people hold their truths with dogmatic faith, these truths are only relative to the culture or religion that propogates such dogma.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Hi Dameedna,

I said:
To me, truth is the property that all true sentences share, but it doesn’t make much sense to talk about truth without saying what you are claiming to be true.

Can one admit, or accept that truth…exists? And if it does, in what form does it exist?

I think when people are saying, truth IS truth…they aren’t quite saying what is truth(yet). They are making a statment that it exists.

My comments above were not meant to say that truth does not exist. It was just to say that I’m seeing people treat truth as a (big-T) essence of Truth which doesn’t make sense to me as in “the saints have apprehended Truth.” To such statements I only ask, what is this truth that they have understood. I would also like to know what sentences we can say are true. Truth as an essence (like Reason) as opposed to a property of sentences as far as I can tell is an Enlightenment replacement for God that we don’t need anymore than we need God.

It is, however a completely useless concept to use when trying to manage an entire human society, unless you are talking about truth that can be verified.

Verified IE proof, also needs an agreed upon definition.

I’ve suggested in another thread that when talking about knowledge it can be helpful to keep in mind Plato’s definition of knowledge as justified true belief and to keep those three terms of knowledge clear in you mind.

Proof is generally understood to mean justification that compels belief.

Best,
Leela

 

[eichenb2]

This is a very interesting and entertaining thread. I think that we need to have a working definition for Truth before we approach its absoluteness. There have been centuries of discussion about what Truth but, in my opinion, we can take a pages from the existentialists and kant to help clarify it. All discussion of truth, and consequently its’ absoluteness is subjective. The only thing that is objectively true for homo sapiens is that we die. Death is the truth. That is were it gets interesting though. In order that we not get bogged down in existentialist swamp, we need to get beyond Death. Is there something that transcends death? If there were, that would, indeed, corner the market on Truth. From a Christian perspective, Christ rose from the dead. There not too many like claims in religious history. There are, though, similar claims in some of the pre-Christian “mystery religions”. The counter claim could be made that proponents of these religions did view religion differently and did not expect that their resurrections were corporal or historical.
So, if Christ was raised from the dead, then, He is Absolute Truth and the Church He started is Absolute Truth. Consequently, the morality proposed by this Church would be Absolutely True.
If Death really is the only objective Truth, then we are simply let to wrangle rhetorical with a faulty intellect.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Dameedna]

My comments above were not meant to say that truth does not exist. It was just to say that I’m seeing people treat truth as a (big-T) essence of Truth which doesn’t make sense to me as in “the saints have apprehended Truth.” To such statements I only ask, what is this truth that they have understood. I would also like to know what sentences we can say are true. Truth as an essence (like Reason) as opposed to a property of sentences as far as I can tell is an Enlightenment replacement for God that we don’t need anymore than we need God.

I think to get to a point where you can discuss truth, most religious people will reject any conversation until you can accept truth and absolutes exist.

My point was it’s not hard to do this. It allows us to move forward in the argument.

I Guess I think you are moving too quickly. You expect believers to realize their is a difference between truth and their own feelings. For most of them, there is no difference. They know “intellectually” that truth exists. They just don’t realize that as a concept, it belongs outside of them.

In other words, you can’t even remotely begin to discuss the concept of justification, until you have found a way to teach people that their thoughts and beliefs belong to them…and that their thoughts are unique and are seperate to the world of man.

It’s an undertaking. Its like beating away at a brick wall.

 

[Leela]

Hi Dameedna,

I think to get to a point where you can discuss truth, most religious people will reject any conversation until you can accept truth and absolutes exist.

I’m not saying at all that truth does not exist. I’m just saying that I can’t see what is gained by adding the word abosolute to truth, and I can’t make sense of the use of big-t Truth as in eichenb2’s

“…if Christ was raised from the dead, then, He is Absolute Truth and the Church He started is Absolute Truth.”

How can a person be true or false? Or a Church literally be Truth. It is one thing to say that particular teachings of the Church are true statements, but it is the sentences that are either true or false, not the Church itself. Even if one believes that the Church is a set of beliefs that are all true, that is completely different from saying that he Church is Truth. Rather than talking about what truths we know, people keep talking about knowing Truth itself as if it were an essence, iow, an entity instead of as the property of sentences that are true. This Truth as an essence goes back to Plato who thought that by meditating on Truth we somehow become capable of saying more true things. What nonbelievers need to understand is that playing this language game where big-t Truth is treated as an essence, they are buying into what amounts to a god-like nonrelational supernatural existant that can be apprehended in some mysterious way.

I Guess I think you are moving too quickly. You expect believers to realize their is a difference between truth and their own feelings. For most of them, there is no difference. They know “intellectually” that truth exists. They just don’t realize that as a concept, it belongs outside of them.

I think everyone understands the difference between believing something is true and it actually being true. No one thinks the act of believing makes something true. But I could be wrong.

Best,
Leela

 

[Detales]

While I postulate God as an absolute, I have to agree with Dameedna about the question of relativism. It is a proceedural error to accept a relative as a premise and then argue that it, and in particular one’s belief of it, is an absolute. Although I can see a way that Catholicism is founded on a now obscured, occluded, and misrepresented Truth, and can even see, on the original grounds, that one could conceivalbly be a Catholic in full knowledge, (that might be me-or not) I cannot agree that those who base their arguments on the ordinary understanding of the faith are anything but relativistic themselves. I assure you that there are other systems *far *simpler and more absolute (lol, yeah, I know) than standard level Catholicism. Lay Catholicism, in my experience, doesn’t even address questions that are at the forefront of consideration in terms of morality and salvation for other systems. In general, Catholics don’t even know, and if they do, don’t understand these ways, as they are viewing them through Catholic filters. Of course they don’t make sense in that case, as they require thought and change. “It is great luck for leaders that men don’t think!”~ A. Hitler.

By “thought and change” I mean abandonment of the emotional charge implicit in most cases of simple faith, as illustrated by such examples as provided both my Dameedna and myself. This emotional charge is highly understandable, as most of us get our religion in circumstances such that we equate our faith with ourselves. Who would give up themsleves?! But until you look at yourself in the mirror without the fog from your shower in faith clouding it, you have NO idea how pervasive this emotionalism is. Neither are we provided with complete information as to the metaphysical options available for consideration.

It usually takes a shock of significant proportions to knock one into actual self observation. Or it takes the red pill. MBE said “(Divine) Science or Suffering.” Indeed, self observaion is the greatest of human gifts, is the source of the story of Adam and Eve, and is the least used of analytical tools when it comes to religion. It was what Catholicism was originally founded on, in a deep and profound way that has unfortunatly been lost in the petifoggery of dogma.

I look around and see that people who believe are constantly at odds with each other and they all claimed to have the one and only truth. I, noticing that I am a person, had to admit to myself, that given all the posssibilities and arguments of kind and degree, I was, despite my great belief, wrong. At least, I had to accept that as a premise if I was to conduct a sane examination of myself and my condition. I kept as a foundation the Allness and Goodness of God. (“You have to assume something” ~ A. Einstien) Beyond that, I had to assume that what is True is Universally true. That means that if something is universally true, such as gravity (at least in our experience) and that is yet in the physical realm, then anything pertinent to God must even more so be universally true. I wanted, therefore, to be a Catholic in the original sense of the word.

So, after exhausting the resouces available to me through Catholicism, I conducted a search for a philosophy of Universals. Fortunatly for me, I found it. It works for me. I have no expectation that it would for anyone else. In fact I don’t think it will, as it is not a belief system. But I have been a staunch believer in and knowledgeable of Catholicism, and now I am a Catholic, LOL! Joke is on me. Always was, but at least I had a great laugh at myself and am getting on with business.

Part of that is encountering brick walls. Of course, from the other side, they are experienced as tissue paper. This is similar to the popular “Magic Pictures” which are complete as they seem, but pop into another dimention of reality when you change your focus. Bricks are for believers, and they make the most astonishingly intruiging structures from them, their walls defining what allows the bricks to exist at all: Space, which to the religious mind appears as nothing, yet is constituted of Meaning. Look there and find your Sacraments, your Tabranacle, and your Life. You may find that there is nothing but Church.

No one is trying to take away or even challenge your Catholic faith. I have no power to effect the Catholic Church or its practitioners. In fact, there is no doubt that the faith has resulted for some in great accomplishment. And I owe my own great debt of gratitude to it. I can only say that I encourage those who wish to, to think. You may find yourself and your faith embraced in in an understanding far greater than you might possibly imagine, or can imagine. There is only one caveat: “The search for Reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings, for it destroys the world in which you live.” This is true. Mine was destroyed first, and I had to catch up. Best thing that ever happened to me. You might be lucky enough to do it for yourself.

Bindar Doondat

 

[eichenb2]

Hi Dameedna,

I’m not saying at all that truth does not exist. I’m just saying that I can’t see what is gained by adding the word abosolute to truth, and I can’t make sense of the use of big-t Truth as in eichenb2’s

“…if Christ was raised from the dead, then, He is Absolute Truth and the Church He started is Absolute Truth.”

How can a person be true or false? Or a Church literally be Truth. It is one thing to say that particular teachings of the Church are true statements, but it is the sentences that are either true or false, not the Church itself. Even if one believes that the Church is a set of beliefs that are all true, that is completely different from saying that he Church is Truth. Rather than talking about what truths we know, people keep talking about knowing Truth itself as if it were an essence, iow, an entity instead of as the property of sentences that are true. This Truth as an essence goes back to Plato who thought that by meditating on Truth we somehow become capable of saying more true things. What nonbelievers need to understand is that playing this language game where big-t Truth is treated as an essence, they are buying into what amounts to a god-like nonrelational supernatural existant that can be apprehended in some mysterious way.

I think everyone understands the difference between believing something is true and it actually being true. No one thinks the act of believing makes something true. But I could be wrong.

Best,
Leela

A person can be Truth (Absolutely) if he is the supernatural incarnation of the Eternal Truth (God). The Church can be Truth if all of Her dogmas are founded upon the revelation known through this Incarnation. It is exactly the linguistic squadmire that I was trying to avoid. By the way, Truth is an essence or intangible that will forever be trapped in intellects and words, unless…there is an Incarnation.