I am surprised that I have to explain the meaning in the context to you guys; however, it should be apparent that in the mind of a “Person of Faith”, belief in one’s deity is “Truth” and “Peace” is contentment of one’s soul. It is true that the word “Truth” has a very different meaning for Believers and for Atheists – so I thought that it would be a clever play on words. Evidently, I missed the mark.
My objective was to open up a dialogue with believers – not banter on technicalities with atheists.
TT.
The problem is that once you claim that “truth” has more than one meaning, you’ve already lost game, set and match.
I am surprised that I have to explain the meaning in the context to you guys; however, it should be apparent that in the mind of a “Person of Faith”, belief in one’s deity is “Truth” and “Peace” is contentment of one’s soul. It is true that the word “Truth” has a very different meaning for Believers and for Atheists – so I thought that it would be a clever play on words. Evidently, I missed the mark.
My objective was to open up a dialogue with believers – not banter on technicalities with atheists
TT.
Doug,
Many words have two or more meanings - and the specific meaning is determined from context. Note the recent post from Bross. Here it is true that “The Truth” is that which is found in the Koran.
TT.
Many words have two or more meanings - and the specific meaning is determined from context. Note the recent post from Bross. Here it is true that “The Truth” is that which is found in the Koran.
“Truth” has one meaning: being in accord with the facts. Bross thinks he has found the truth but (it would appear from his lack of argument) he has not. This is the point. To say otherwise is to confuse things.
Once one starts monkeying about with language, one just ends up in obscurantism: the sort of post modernist notion that words mean whatever we want them to mean and my truth is my truth and your truth is your truth and we all live in our own little worlds.
Just try stepping out the window on the tenth floor of an apartment building, and you’ll find out which world you really live in. It’s the same one we all do.
For a Christian, The Truth is belief in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - which, of course, has nothing to do with truth. Remember, “The Truth will set you free”.
TT.
I am surprised that I have to explain the meaning in the context to you guys; however, it should be apparent that in the mind of a “Person of Faith”, belief in one’s deity is “Truth” and “Peace” is contentment of one’s soul. It is true that the word “Truth” has a very different meaning for Believers and for Atheists – so I thought that it would be a clever play on words. Evidently, I missed the mark.
My objective was to open up a dialogue with believers – not banter on technicalities with atheists.
TT.
The problem is that once you claim that “truth” has more than one meaning, you’ve already lost game, set and match.
It is a common problem in discussions and arguments, that a word is being used that does not have an agreed upon or operational definition. This leads to a lot of wasted time, IMO.
For a Christian, The Truth is belief in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - which, of course, has nothing to do with truth. Remember, “The Truth will set you free”.
This isn’t correct. For a Christian, the word “truth” has precisely the same definition I am using. They just think that the truth is that Jesus Christ is the son of God, died for our sins, etc.
The Christian would capitalize the word “truth” in this context to reflect the fact that they are talking about what is to them the most important truth. It’s not that the word has a different meaning. It’s like saying there are many stadiums, but there’s also The Stadium, which is the place my team plays.
I am surprised that I have to explain the meaning in the context to you guys; however, it should be apparent that in the mind of a “Person of Faith”, belief in one’s deity is “Truth” and “Peace” is contentment of one’s soul. It is true that the word “Truth” has a very different meaning for Believers and for Atheists – so I thought that it would be a clever play on words. Evidently, I missed the mark.
My objective was to open up a dialogue with believers – not banter on technicalities with atheists.
TT.
Really? You are surprised that you have to explain that “truth” is not to have its true definition but rather one that equates it with myth? Seems that would require constant explaining.
I’m a believer. In real things. You are quite naive to believe that you would not need to “banter on technicalities with atheist” here; especially when the technicality involves the word, truth!
For a Christian, The Truth is belief in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - which, of course, has nothing to do with truth. Remember, “The Truth will set you free”.
This isn’t correct. For a Christian, the word “truth” has precisely the same definition I am using. They just think that the truth is that Jesus Christ is the son of God, died for our sins, etc.
Funny, I was thinking that very thing as I read your rant about post modernism. (I mean “rant” in a good way, BTW )
I heard that same sermon many times. It seems we skeptics have a common enemy with fundy Christians.
The problem with a discussion about truth in belief is that it inevitably becomes a question of which truth carries more weight. The word truth is exclusive as everything else beside truth must be false. Religions would have to learn adapt a “relative truth” to be able to “peacefully”. side by side.
Religions would have to learn adapt a “relative truth” to be able to “peacefully”. side by side.
Yeah, I mean, this is one way that relativism re. truth can be part of a benign social strategy: it’s kind of a rhetorical move, to get one out of a sticky situation. “Well, that’s true for you” is kind of a more polite way of saying, “Well, I think that’s bunk.” And there’s certainly room for that kind of move in a multi-cultural, multi-religious, secular society.
But I still think it’s the wrong strategy to use, because it’s implicitly either obscurantist or a lie. Better just to say something like, “Well, let’s agree to disagree,” or “Well, I guess we see the world differently, then.”
Here is a little note on Religion and Atheism that you might find interesting:
___________________________________________________
In Truth you will find peace
We all seek the Truth, for in the Truth we will find peace.
The Hindu has found the Truth in Brahma – and then has found peace.
The Buddhist has found the Truth in Buddha – and then has found peace.
The Taoist has found the Truth in Laozi – and then has found peace.
The Jew has found the Truth in the Lord – and then has found peace.
The Christian has found the Truth in Jesus – and then has found peace.
The Muslim has found the Truth in Allah – and then has found peace.
But for the Atheist, Truth is a beautiful elusive mistress – to be sought - to be approached – but never obtained. Pity the poor Atheist – who will never find peace.
TT.
Can I just offer this?
It seems to me that “Truth” in the poem is to be read cynically as “certitude”. Thus he is saying, “My Truth is My Truth and My Truth is The (Only) Truth. Of this I am certain and therefore nothing troubles me—hence I am at Peace”.
The inferred conclusion, by linking the poem’s author to the atheist in the poem is, similar to Frost’s famous line “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.”; alluding to the fact that the atheist position = the road less traveled; and, as the more difficult path, the atheist’s is the more rewarding.
Religions would have to learn adapt a “relative truth” to be able to “peacefully”. side by side.
Yeah, I mean, this is one way that relativism re. truth can be part of a benign social strategy: it’s kind of a rhetorical move, to get one out of a sticky situation. “Well, that’s true for you” is kind of a more polite way of saying, “Well, I think that’s bunk.” And there’s certainly room for that kind of move in a multi-cultural, multi-religious, secular society.
But I still think it’s the wrong strategy to use, because it’s implicitly either obscurantist or a lie. Better just to say something like, “Well, let’s agree to disagree,” or “Well, I guess we see the world differently, then.”
I agree. It is wholly impractical, witness the current debate over “religious freedom” vs “preventive healthcare”.
)
