SPLIT: What is Objective Truth?

[One]

…because many persons of indiscriminate philosophy who don’t know much about objective truth…

Al -

With all sincerity, I’d like to know what you’re referring to when you say, “objective truth.”

What is “objective truth” to you? In your view, how does that differ from any other type of “truth?” Is there a “subjective truth?” Is there an “objective untruth?” Etc., etc. And what is the context of “objective truth” in your last post?

Further (and again, with all sincerity), how do you quantify “objective truth” in a manner so that you can discern who knows, and who doesn’t know about, “objective truth?”

Thanks. I look forward to your reply.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[Eucharisted]

Objective truth is the belief that truth is not subject to opinion or belief; it simply is truth

Subjective truth is the belief that truth is subject to opinion or belief; it is true because someone beliefs or thinks it is

Absolute truth is the belief that there are truthes which are universal

Relative truth is the belief that there are no universal truthes

Singular truth is the belief that there is one absolute truth, from which comes all truthes

Plural truth is the belief that there are many truthes and no one truth is the source of them

False truth is an umbrella term for different beliefs: truth dose not exist, truth is in the mind only, truth can only be discovered scientifically, truth can only be discovered religiously, and truth cannot be known

 

[quiltmaker]

Fr John Corapi said it well. The question is not “what is truth?”, be it objective or subjective or otherwise…the question is “Who is Truth” and the answer is, Jesus Christ is truth!

 

[Drawmack]

Al -

With all sincerity, I’d like to know what you’re referring to when you say, “objective truth.”

What is “objective truth” to you? In your view, how does that differ from any other type of “truth?” Is there a “subjective truth?” Is there an “objective untruth?” Etc., etc. And what is the context of “objective truth” in your last post?

Further (and again, with all sincerity), how do you quantify “objective truth” in a manner so that you can discern who knows, and who doesn’t know about, “objective truth?”

Thanks. I look forward to your reply.

An objective truth is a truth which is always true. No external forces can make this statement untrue. For example, a living human being needs oxygen. That is an objective truth, deny it all you like, change anything you like, the human body will always need oxygen to exist.

A subjective truth is a truth with is subject to change based on external forces. For example it is proper to drive on the right hand side of the road. This is true in many parts of the world, but if I were in England this would be false.

 

[Dameedna]

Fr John Corapi said it well. The question is not “what is truth?”, be it objective or subjective or otherwise…the question is “Who is Truth” and the answer is, Jesus Christ is truth!

I find it interesting that people can look at definitions of “truth” and then apply their own beliefs to it then call it objective.

Most athiests cannot get past this one, and I think for good reason. What’s the “catholic” counter argument to this? I’d love to hear an argument for “objective” truth within catholicism(or even christianity) where the same argument cannot be applied to any other religion.

 

[elts1956]

Objective truth is the belief that truth is not subject to opinion or belief; it simply is truth

Subjective truth is the belief that truth is subject to opinion or belief; it is true because someone beliefs or thinks it is

Absolute truth is the belief that there are truthes which are universal

Relative truth is the belief that there are no universal truthes

Singular truth is the belief that there is one absolute truth, from which comes all truthes

Plural truth is the belief that there are many truthes and no one truth is the source of them

False truth is an umbrella term for different beliefs: truth dose not exist, truth is in the mind only, truth can only be discovered scientifically, truth can only be discovered religiously, and truth cannot be known

Thanks Eucharisted. Now, can you tell me a bit more in depth the difference between Objective Truth and Absolute Truth? Maybe and example would help me clarify them.

 

[Areopagite]

I find it interesting that people can look at definitions of “truth” and then apply their own beliefs to it then call it objective.

Most athiests cannot get past this one, and I think for good reason. What’s the “catholic” counter argument to this? I’d love to hear an argument for “objective” truth within catholicism(or even christianity) where the same argument cannot be applied to any other religion.

I have no idea what you’re talking about here.

 

[Dameedna]

I have no idea what you’re talking about here.

There is the concept of objective truth.(and absolute truth). I can agree with this conceptually because it seems reasonable and logical.(requiring an element of faith in human reasoning of course).

Then there are those that claim to have an objective truth.

If a “truth” can be verified, IE humans require oxygen to breath, then we can probably say yes, this is an objective truth. Of course it only applies to humans(and any other life form we can verify this for).

But as SOON as a truth is ‘revealed’ and is beyond verification it is no longer necessarily objective. People apply the “concept” of an objective truth to their faith. If something cannot be verified, it cannot be objectively true on any universal scale. It can only be claimed.

MAKING the claim that somethings that are objectivly true AND are outside of verification procedures, does not get around the problem of showing it is actually an objective truth and not a belief.

In other words, claiming your unverifiable truth is absolute, is simply a claim you make. Objective and absolute claims are meaningless beyond any procedure that can verify them. Why? Because any human being can make the same claim. ANYONE can claim revealed truths, and use “objective” moral arguments to support their claim.

Example.

Masturbation is wrong.

Circumcision of a female is correct.

It has been revealed. Since morality is “objective” not relative, and God has revealed this to be true, it is therefore objective morality.

It’s a strawman argument. To call any human and unverifiable claim as absolute or objective is to lie.

imo.

Cheers

 

[Drawmack]

There is the concept of objective truth.(and absolute truth). I can agree with this conceptually because it seems reasonable and logical.(requiring an element of faith in human reasoning of course).

Then there are those that claim to have an objective truth.

If a “truth” can be verified, IE humans require oxygen to breath, then we can probably say yes, this is an objective truth. Of course it only applies to humans(and any other life form we can verify this for).

But as SOON as a truth is ‘revealed’ and is beyond verification it is no longer necessarily objective. People apply the “concept” of an objective truth to their faith. If something cannot be verified, it cannot be objectively true on any universal scale. It can only be claimed.

MAKING the claim that somethings that are objectivly true AND are outside of verification procedures, does not get around the problem of showing it is actually an objective truth and not a belief.

In other words, claiming your unverifiable truth is absolute, is simply a claim you make. Objective and absolute claims are meaningless beyond any procedure that can verify them. Why? Because any human being can make the same claim. ANYONE can claim revealed truths, and use “objective” moral arguments to support their claim.

Example.

Masturbation is wrong.

Circumcision of a female is correct.

It has been revealed. Since morality is “objective” not relative, and God has revealed this to be true, it is therefore objective morality.

It’s a strawman argument. To call any human and unverifiable claim as absolute or objective is to lie.

imo.

Cheers

First, I think if you have heard people using the term objective truth in an discussion with someone who is not a Christian then you have heard some exceedingly bad apologists. If I were discussing with an atheist or agnostic I would only be using objective truths so ridiculously obvious that I needn’t call them anything I can simply state them. For example: matter is simply energy obeying a set of mathematical law to create the illusion of matter. Anyone who has an even basic concept of how atoms works knows that this is true. I have no need to label it anything.

However, if I were talking to a fellow Christian then I would begin to use the term objective truth. In this context I would define objective truths as the set of things we must agree on to call ourselves Christians. While the truths are not objective in the broadest sense of the term they are objective within the community of all Christians because we must believe certain things to call ourselves Christians. So, yes it is a slight misuse of the term, but among people who share a world-view it works.

Does that make sense?

 

[One]

Hi –

I wasn’t going to post here as my original question was part of a much larger thread and was directed at one member. I didn’t have a question about objective truth; I wanted to hear that member’s interpretation of the term ‘objective truth.’ So, in splitting the thread here, the moderators removed the context of the question.

That said, the discussion has become interesting for me. Particularly this:

However, if I were talking to a fellow Christian then I would begin to use the term objective truth. In this context I would define objective truths as the set of things we must agree on to call ourselves Christians.

Then those would be called ‘inter-subjective truths.’ You and your fellow Christian discuss beliefs, and agree that they’re true for you. An atheist listening in on the conversation would likely not agree that they’re true.

While the truths are not objective in the broadest sense of the term…

Then you agree that they are not ‘objective truths’, right?

they are objective within the community of all Christians because we must believe certain things to call ourselves Christians.

Inter-subjective “truths” are called “beliefs”, and do not constitute objective truth.

So, yes it is a slight misuse of the term, but among people who share a world-view it works.

Since religion is perhaps one of the least agreed upon topics in the world today, wouldn’t it be best to strive for accuracy?

 

[Drawmack]

Then those would be called ‘inter-subjective truths.’ You and your fellow Christian discuss beliefs, and agree that they’re true for you. An atheist listening in on the conversation would likely not agree that they’re true.

I think you misunderstand me. When I say they are objective truths for Christians these are the truths one must objectively believe in to be called a Christian. Disbelief in any one, or combination, of these truths causes one to not be Christian. The objective truth that I am expounding upon is that Christians believe X, Y, and Z. While X, Y, and Z themselves may not be objective truths, the fact that to be a Christian one must accept them is an objective truth. Therefore, I relate to these statements as Objective Truths (within the Christian community) because they are a part of the set of items we must objectively accept in order to call ourselves Christian.

Does that make sense?

 

[Biggie]

The existence of objective truth is inherently bound to the existence of God. God : objective truth. Conversely, no God: no objective truth.

That the body needs oxygen is no more an objective truth metaphysically than that it is correct to drive on the right side of the road, since both are conditional.

The question is objective or subjective to what? The answer is to human reason. That which is objectively true is true regardless of its appeal to human reason. That which is subjectively true is true because it appeals to human reason.

 

[One]

I think you misunderstand me.

Thanks for the clarification you’ve provided, Drawmack. I may have misunderstood you, but I think there are still some errors in usage of the term “truth.”

Here’s what you’ve said, edited a bit to juxtapose your statements:

Drawmack:

When I say they are objective truths for Christians these are the truths one must objectively believe in to be called a Christian. While X, Y, and Z themselves may not be objective truths, the fact that to be a Christian one must accept them is an objective truth.

If X, Y, and Z are not objective truths, then they are not objective truths. That’s pretty much cut & dried.

If Christians believe – or are compelled to believe – that X, Y, and Z are truth, even if they are not objective truths, then X, Y, and Z are beliefs.

I am in perfect agreement with you that if Christians are required to believe in certain statements, notions, or ideas in order to be called Christian, then that is an objective truth. Otherwise stated, “It is True that Christians must believe in X, Y, and Z – even if they are not empirical truths – in order to be called Christian.”

Feel free to reflect back any misunderstanding you think I may still have.

Does that make sense?

Well, I think so. I’m just highlighting the difference between “objective truth” and “belief.”

And once again, I remind that there was context around my original question. Still haven’t heard from the person it was directed toward.

 

[Drawmack]

If X, Y, and Z are not objective truths, then they are not objective truths. That’s pretty much cut & dried.

If Christians believe – or are compelled to believe – that X, Y, and Z are truth, even if they are not objective truths, then X, Y, and Z are beliefs.

I am in perfect agreement with you that if Christians are required to believe in certain statements, notions, or ideas in order to be called Christian, then that is an objective truth. Otherwise stated, “It is True that Christians must believe in X, Y, and Z – even if they are not empirical truths – in order to be called Christian.”

I already said that it is a bit of a misuse of the term. I just don’t think it’s a big deal when talking to other Christians to use the term objective truth as a short hand for saying beliefs which make up the objective truth of being a Christian so long as all parties concerned (i.e. the Christians involved in the conversation) know and agree to this.

Additionally, you completely ignored the first part of my original posting where I said that noone should be using these terms with you.

 

[elts1956]

I already said that it is a bit of a misuse of the term. I just don’t think it’s a big deal when talking to other Christians to use the term objective truth as a short hand for saying beliefs which make up the objective truth of being a Christian so long as all parties concerned (i.e. the Christians involved in the conversation) know and agree to this.

Additionally, you completely ignored the first part of my original posting where I said that noone should be using these terms with you.

And then there is this example of what I consider an example of objective truth.

Centuries ago, the Druids, Celts believed there was a chance the sun would not rise on the day of the Solstice?,thus the bonfires to encourage the sunrise. This was a belief. Subjective truth. Now it is proven the Earth rotates in such a way the sun will be seen every day because of physical laws. Objective truth. Now most humans believe this unless they are tucked away in a primitive society. Then they may believe something else.

I think when one gets into the territory of faith, it would be very hard to know something as an objective truth, ie. Our Lady’s Assumption into Heaven, Our Lord’s Resurection. I think these are beliefs.

 

[Nino]

gravity is one…if it did not exist we would all float up up and away…anothe is 2+2=4…that also is objective truth! interesting items like…all good deeds have dire conseguences…and the Bambino curse…no thats gone! water will find its own level is another one…of course Murphys law has a whole listing of such stuff…Jesus gave us human alternatives tho! Love thy neighbor and be done with it…dont expect love in return from him or her…only from God…etc…

 

[SteveGC]

The existence of objective truth is inherently bound to the existence of God. God : objective truth. Conversely, no God: no objective truth.

That the body needs oxygen is no more an objective truth metaphysically than that it is correct to drive on the right side of the road, since both are conditional.

The question is objective or subjective to what? The answer is to human reason. That which is objectively true is true regardless of its appeal to human reason. That which is subjectively true is true because it appeals to human reason.

Biggie here has provided the answer to the question of this thread. I would concentrate all future posts around his post. This is the essence of it all.

As he stated, ‘Objective truth is bound to the existence of God’. There are many definitions of the word “truth”. When it is used with the descriptor “objective”, it means when the dust settles and we all die, Truth is finally revealed to us all. It will not be subjective. And it will be the same as it was when we were alive - and we either aligned our beliefs with it, or aligned our beliefs away from it. It always was, presently is, and forever will be the singular, invariable truth about everything. Catholics and other Christians believe that Truth to be God, revealed through the person of Jesus, and everything God teaches is objective truth. Hence, we align our beliefs around that. It isn’t true because we claim it to be. We simply believe it is the singular objective truth. We believe that when the dust settles at the end of the age, others who denied this belief will see the error of their alternative beliefs, and will see that the Church was right all along.

 

[Areopagite]

“Quid est Veritas?” said Pilate. (“What is truth?”)

“Truth” is the correct correspondence of the mind’s conception of a perceived thing to the actual reality of the perceived thing. In other words, truth is when an idea accurately reflects the reality of a thing which that idea is representing.

Thus, truth only comes into play when there is a mind perceiving reality. If there were no minds, there would be no truth, even if there were still things in reality. Truth is in the intellect, as Aristotle said.

For this reason, some people think that radical subjectivism and relativism can be held. This is because we each perceive reality to differing degrees. Some people, for example, do not know that fornication is wrong, and thus, for them, fornication is not wrong. All things are relative, therefore, says them, because truth depends on the particular mind’s amount of knowledge of reality.

However, there is one mind that happens to know and perceive reality fully and completely. I am, of course, speaking of God. When we talk of “Objective Truth” it is the truth that God knows, and not just us (for we only perceive parts of this objective truth). Perhaps Objective Truth can be defined differently, but I cannot figure how. And for this reason, it would seem that atheists would be hard pressed to defend the existence of objective truth.

So when we speak of subjective truth, we mean that small part of objective truth that a particular person is perceiving. Sure, you could say that it’s not true that the “world is round” for certain ignorant people. But that is speaking subjectively, because subjective truth pertains to what is known by the limited knowledge of the given person. But objectively, it is true that the world is round, because, despite some people’s ignorance, the reality is that the world is round, a reality known by God. But if God theoretically didn’t exist, and no one knew the world was round, then it would not be true that the world is round, because no one would know it. For*, truth is the correct relation between an idea and a thing in reality*. There would be no relation, and thus no truth, because ideas can’t exist without a mind (well, actually, Plato would disagree … so if idealism is true, then there could be objective truth without God … but no Catholic theologians really would ever believe that … thanks to Aquinas and Aristotle).

Given that, there are still truths that are entirely subjective. For example, “Chocolate tastes good” is not objectively true. This is because, believe it or not, some people don’t like the taste of chocolate. Taste is a subjective experience. Different things are pleasurable to different people. It depends on the subject (i.e. the person perceiving the object). Relativists take this to an extreme and make the taste of chocolate apply to religion and morality, saying that worship and behavior is good if it suits your taste. That of course, is not objectively true.

So, in conclusion …

Objective truth pertains to the reality of how things really are despite anyone’s opinions, ideas, feelings to the contrary. We nonetheless can call this “truth” and not just “the way things are” because God’s mind fully perceives how “the way things are” and, since his mind does that, and a mind is necessary for truth, then we can call this “Objective Truth.”

Subjective truth only pertains to the reality perceived by a particular person. Subjective truth still exists (don’t get me wrong) but this does not mean that objective truth does not exist. They both exist. Objective truth, of course, is superior to any subjective truth, for it includes the entirely of reality and is relevant to all things that exist.

Does this help anyone? I hope this clarifies some issues.

 

[w_stewart]

Subjective truth is the belief that truth is subject to opinion or belief; it is true because someone beliefs or thinks it is

Does it mean that the truth of God’s existence belong to this category? Why or why not?