Fleet on CARM: Truth? Anyone?

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator:Metacrock

Post Reply
User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:
Fleet on CARM: Truth? Anyone?

Post by Metacrock » Thu Sep 15, 2011 7:30 am

hope he doesn't mind me bribing it over here but it's a good topic.

In his alter ego on CARM Fleet said:
It seems to be the case that theists have very particular associations with the word "truth". They appear to be using it as though certain propositions were sealed with a special seal by God himself that certifies their soundness. I call this capital T Truth. This is the eternal Truth of Platonism.

Atheists, on the other hand, have a more humble and pragmatic conception of truth - statements about the world are deemed true if they appear to be true to the best of our ability to tell the difference. I call this small t truth. This is the truth of science, where any theory can be overturned by fresh observations.

An extremely common "chess move" in theist-atheist discussions is when the theist sets up a false dichotomy by conflating Truth and truth. He will tell the atheist that any of the atheist's positive statements about the world either presuppose God (by invoking Truth) or else must be utterly flawed and worthless. This doesn't take into account the humbler pragmatic notion of small t truth.

Thoughts?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China

Re: Fleet on CARM: Truth? Anyone?

Post by mdsimpson92 » Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:24 pm

Metacrock wrote:hope he doesn't mind me bribing it over here but it's a good topic.

In his alter ego on CARM Fleet said:
It seems to be the case that theists have very particular associations with the word "truth". They appear to be using it as though certain propositions were sealed with a special seal by God himself that certifies their soundness. I call this capital T Truth. This is the eternal Truth of Platonism.

Atheists, on the other hand, have a more humble and pragmatic conception of truth - statements about the world are deemed true if they appear to be true to the best of our ability to tell the difference. I call this small t truth. This is the truth of science, where any theory can be overturned by fresh observations.

An extremely common "chess move" in theist-atheist discussions is when the theist sets up a false dichotomy by conflating Truth and truth. He will tell the atheist that any of the atheist's positive statements about the world either presuppose God (by invoking Truth) or else must be utterly flawed and worthless. This doesn't take into account the humbler pragmatic notion of small t truth.

Thoughts?
Well, I would note that not all atheists do take that pragmatic version, or at least don't notice a difference. Moreover, some of the larger theories from String theory I don't think presoppose God but may well imply God depending on the variation of deity. Though that brings us to the issue of defining God.

On the Truth of Platonism, would that be synonymous with the ground of being in this case? the Supernature? The Ultimate Reality? Because if that is the case than I guess any statement about reality as a whole would imply that. But I imagine fleet is not talking about that when he means smaller truths.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: Fleet on CARM: Truth? Anyone?

Post by fleetmouse » Fri Sep 16, 2011 8:30 am

Two points that people don't seem to be getting at Carm:

1) a deflationary / pragmatic / anti-realist notion of truth doesn't imply global anti-realism or that "everything is subjective" - all it means is that truth isn't a ghostly thing-in-itself or quality or essence that attaches to some statements but not others.

2) an anti-realist notion of truth is not exclusively atheistic. You can say that truth is merely a label we apply to statements we agree with, and still believe in God. I'm not launching a broad attack on theism through theories of truth, but rather pointing something out about the way concepts of truth are used in debates between theists and atheists online - particularly with respect to presuppositional apologetics.
Last edited by fleetmouse on Fri Sep 16, 2011 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: Fleet on CARM: Truth? Anyone?

Post by fleetmouse » Fri Sep 16, 2011 8:45 am

mdsimpson92 wrote:Well, I would note that not all atheists do take that pragmatic version, or at least don't notice a difference.
For sure. I'm probably making a lot of atheists very uncomfortable, because they have an unexamined / naive realist worldview. Like most people.
On the Truth of Platonism, would that be synonymous with the ground of being in this case? the Supernature? The Ultimate Reality?
I think that's an aspect of Metacrock's big ball of wax. But is this supernature something we have access to or actually use when we assign a truth value to a proposition? What would be the methodology? Is the truth of a statement about a simple observation or simple a priori definition truthier if we invoke God?
Because if that is the case than I guess any statement about reality as a whole would imply that. But I imagine fleet is not talking about that when he means smaller truths.
What I'm saying is that we should look to the human practice of assigning the label "truth" to some propositions if we want to understand what truth is. That's small-t truth. It doesn't necessarily imply anything about the ultimate nature of reality.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: Fleet on CARM: Truth? Anyone?

Post by Metacrock » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:37 am

fleetmouse wrote:Two points that people don't seem to be getting at Carm:

1) a deflationary / pragmatic / anti-realist notion of truth doesn't imply global anti-realism or that "everything is subjective" - all it means is that truth isn't a ghostly thing-in-itself or quality or essence that attaches to some statements but not others.

2) an anti-realist notion of truth is not exclusively atheistic. You can say that truth is merely a label we apply to statements we agree with, and still believe in God. I'm not launching a broad attack on theism through theories of truth, but rather pointing something out about the way concepts of truth are used in debates between theists and atheists online - particularly with respect to presuppositional apologetics.
those were my assumptions when I read the deal. I think.

My view of truth is the correspondence theory. Truth is that which is, and that is also mediated by the relationship between the mind and what is.

truth = what is

thus the closer the correspondence between our conception of "what is" and what is actually is, the closer to truth we come. That is not a matter of some "turthness" or ideal or Platonic thing or a "ghostly thing-in-itself. " It's just what is.

I don't see that as realistic or as pragmatic. It's not reductionist and it's not Materialist. "what is" could very well be supernatural.


In my argument about transcendent truth as a God argument I spoke of the category of "transcendent truth."I didn't mean by that some hoaky spiritual kind of truth that's only true in spritial ways. I just meant things that are beyond our current understanding but are going to be "they way it is" universally in all times and places.

my rubber duck beyond the knowledge of anyone on CARM, but it's not transcendent becasue it wont always be so that I have a rubber ducy (O man I hate to say that).
Discrimination against people for the sni color may not always be the way things are but it will always be unjust. In any time and any place it's unjust. That's transcendent of time and place, although not unknown so it's not transcendent of our knowledge.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: Fleet on CARM: Truth? Anyone?

Post by Metacrock » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:47 am

On the Truth of Platonism, would that be synonymous with the ground of being in this case? the Supernature?
I don't think of them as synonymous. I think there is a connection at some point. They would both be the basis of all that is. Yet the GOB is in everything, whereas the particulars are "in" the forms to so speak.

The Ultimate Reality? Because if that is the case than I guess any statement about reality as a whole would imply that. But I imagine fleet is not talking about that when he means smaller truths.
that's true it is hard to keep Tillich idea distinct from everything else that underpins all that is. There is definetley the idea in Dionysus of a universal mind. For him the ground of being is universal mind. With st. Augie's view of the forms in the mind of God that would link the forms to universal mind.

there is a distinction between Tillich's notion and other ideas of some underpinning of reality. I's not pantheism for example. Tillich specifically denies that it is.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China

Re: Fleet on CARM: Truth? Anyone?

Post by mdsimpson92 » Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:10 pm

fleetmouse wrote:For sure. I'm probably making a lot of atheists very uncomfortable, because they have an unexamined / naive realist worldview. Like most people.
Fair enough.


fleetmouse wrote:What I'm saying is that we should look to the human practice of assigning the label "truth" to some propositions if we want to understand what truth is. That's small-t truth. It doesn't necessarily imply anything about the ultimate nature of reality.


I don't know why, but I am getting a huge Rorty vibe off of this.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: Fleet on CARM: Truth? Anyone?

Post by fleetmouse » Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:53 am

Metacrock wrote:"what is" could very well be supernatural.
Very well, let us take a simple example of truth by correspondence. You tell me there are two trees in the backyard, and I observe that there are indeed two trees in the backyard, so I say your statement is true. I agree that it corresponds with the state of affairs in the backyard.

Now how does the supernatural figure into that?

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: Fleet on CARM: Truth? Anyone?

Post by fleetmouse » Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:56 am

mdsimpson92 wrote:I don't know why, but I am getting a huge Rorty vibe off of this.
Ha ha! I probably deserve that. I've picked up some of his turns of phrase I guess.

Actually I learned about theories of truth from Grayling's "introduction to philosophical logic", some of which I remember, though parts of it went wildly over my head and made me wish I had access to a professor. The capital T and small t thing is my own interpretation though so don't blame it on him.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: Fleet on CARM: Truth? Anyone?

Post by Metacrock » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:13 am

fleetmouse wrote:
Metacrock wrote:"what is" could very well be supernatural.
Very well, let us take a simple example of truth by correspondence. You tell me there are two trees in the backyard, and I observe that there are indeed two trees in the backyard, so I say your statement is true. I agree that it corresponds with the state of affairs in the backyard.

Now how does the supernatural figure into that?
into what? the trees? the statement about the trees? I don't really see your point. If your point is to defend your stament that truth is our agreement that doesn't prove the truth is in the agreement. the truth is in the correspondence bewteen the statement "there are two trees in the back yard" and their actual being there.

I don't really follow how the supernatural comes into this.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply