Truthful truth and its truthiness

Faith & Science Conversation
21

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Mervin,

Truth is Relational, because God is Relational (Love, Trinity.) It is not that I dislike the word “Absolute,” but I do dislike the fact that people misuse and misunderstand the word, absolute, which means perfect and complete within itself. The book which is 425 pages long is not an absolute truth, it is a relational fact. 425 is one more than 424 and one less than 426. All measurements are relational.

The book on the shelf to the left is a relational fact, not a relative truth, because truths are eternal, not temporal. Relative truths are true in a given situation, so they are not true eternally.

The fact is that traditional philosophy believed in absolutes, but science through Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has demonstrated that Absolutes of Time and Space do not exist. They are not independent, that is absolute, but relational. Therefore we do not have any absolute scientific facts or truths, only relational scientific facts or truths.

Sadly many people, believers and non-believers, think that something that is relational is relative. They think that Truth must be Absolute, so that the Ten Commandments must be Absolute. Those commandments which are relational, such as 1 are universal, but those which are not such as the Sabbath day and not kill are not absolute in that they do not apply everywhere all the time. Also of course Jesus His new covenant law which makes it clear that all good is relational, based on love of God as Trinity and others.

So we have a new understanding of how to define truth. Many people have accepted this change, although they have understood it to endorse the concept that Truth is Relative, which it is not. We have others, primarily conservative Christians who have maintained that Truth is Absolute, that the Bible is Absolute Truth, and God is Absolute, when none of these concepts are Biblical. The New Testament is a Hebrew book written for Greeks. Absolute is a Greek philosophical concept foreign the Jesus, Paul, and the Bible.

We must rescue theology and philosophy by the correct understanding of Truth as relational, so we don’t have the alt-right making fools of Christians by portraying God as Absolute and themselves as defenders of absolute values.

22

This sounds like an attempt to wrench all these words: “relative, relational, absolute” out of their simpler practical contexts. There well may be an ivory-tower context where these notions can be challenged far above my pay-grade. I think you are there, and given that you have written a book about it and I haven’t, I’ll admit I probably haven’t wrapped my mind entirely around the whole of your thesis. But at the level I am at, I still don’t feel compelled by your case. To bring these terms down from the ivory tower, we see every day practical uses, such as in spreadsheet software. Absolute addressing carries information about exactly where an item is in the spreadsheet, and relative addressing only carries information about where it is relative to any given cell in the sheet. Sure, one can insist that the “absolute address” is really still relative to the entire sheet itself. But in that context, the entire sheet is taken to be a “universal” --equivalent to the entirety of all relevant existence. And when we refer to things in that context, relative assertions are now absolute. One can quibble and make the whole concept of absolute go away entirely by always insisting there is no absolute universal (as you do insist, if I understand you correctly – and I simply just disagree with you about that). But doing so renders a formerly useful concept (the “absolute”) as now uselessly defined out of existence.

Yes, all space and time are relative as Einstein’s theory lays out for us. There is no absolute “rest” in our universe as far as motion goes. I understand that well as a physics teacher. But I’m not convinced that lesson extrapolates beyond physical science into the rest of all reality as theologically discerned - much less God.

It isn’t that you might not be on to some interesting things and have good and needed critiques of western philosophy as it now stands. It still seems to me though as if you are imagining that you alone are advancing Trinitarian concepts while everyone else is allegedly rejecting those in favor of “dualisms” that you would love to see done away with. I just don’t see that competition, or that the Trinity can be a universally applied panacea the universal panacea you want it to be to eradicate these dualisms. But I do agree that out dualistic mind-body understandings may well be problematic.

One last question (which I’ll admit is just a cheaper, but still half-serious attempt at a ‘gotcha’ question). You claim: [quote=“Relates, post:21, topic:36476”]
All measurements are relational.
[/quote]

or that …

So tell me … are these claims absolute truths? Or are they only relative truths? i.e. only true for Roger or other specific contexts?

23

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Thank you for the response, but I do not like the tone.

First of all, these words are basically philosophical as I said. Second, I was responding initially not to you, but @RLBailey who was clearly using them in a philosophical context. Therefore you are the one wrenching these words out of context.

Thank you for the information about the spreadsheets, but I really do not think that most people, including myself, are that familiar with spreadsheet software to be aware of that usage. Must be my “ivory tower” blindness. I do not reside in a ivory tower and have never resided in an ivory tower.

Philosophy has been relegated to the ivory tower, which is one of our main problems, and we must reclaim it and bring it down to earth. But that means we must understand it and reformulate it.

Let us talk about Einstein. What he demonstrated was not that there is no absolute rest, but that there was no absolute time and absolute space. The evidence for this is time and space are related in the equation E = mc squared. The speed of light is based on the speed of light/years. Motion changes time and space, because they are related. The equation also refuted Newton’s dictum that matter cannot be created or destroyed since matter can be turned into energy and vice versa. So his equation demonstrates that matter and energy are relational (interdependent,) as are time and space. These discoveries are basic to our understanding the beginning of the universe by God through the Big Bang.

New let us look at the spreadsheet. The absolute address is as you say relative to the entire sheet or universe, but since the spreadsheet, unlike the real universe, does not change, then its position can be said to be absolute or independent, because of this artificial context.

It still seems to me though as if you are imagining that you alone are advancing Trinitarian concepts while everyone else is allegedly rejecting those in favor of “dualisms” that you would love to see done away with. I just don’t see that competition, or that the Trinity can be a universally applied panacea the universal panacea you want it to be to eradicate these dualisms. But I do agree that out dualistic mind-body understandings may well be problematic.

I do not imagine that I alone am arguing that the Trinity that others are rejecting. My experience is that no one else is arguing this position and no one else seems to want to explore and give some good reasons why this cannot work. Nothing is a panacea, not even Jesus, but that does not mean that Jesus the Logos is not the Source of Love, Truth, and Life.

What is frustrating is when people say they agree with my analysis of the problem of dualism, but not the solution without giving a reason. I agree that this is a very difficult problem and appreciate you humility an solving it, but if we have faith in Jesus we need to try. Our faith is Based on Jesus and not on ourselves.

So tell me … are these claims absolute truths? Or are they only relative truths? i.e. only true for Roger or other specific contexts?

One cannot discuss facts out of context. An important truth claim for me is “God is Love.” I hope that you will agree that this is an eternal or universal objective truth, which is objectively true for me and everyone else, even if they are not believers. It is not absolute because it is relational. Absolute does not change. God’s Love changes to meet the real needs of God’s People. Our faith changes because humans change or evolve.

24

I’ll try to do better on my tone. And sorry that I can’t give all responses here the in-depth treatment they might warrant. I’m pretty busy here as school starts.

25

@jpm

Phil, itsd sb

The subject is Truth, but maybe this is a different discussion.

A most serious issue today is the politicization of Truth. I would think that the Church would be the one to stand up against this, but it has not happened. Part of this I would say is because the church thinks that the Truth is absolute, when it is not, and the church believes that the President supports its absolute truths, which he does not.

The Truth is relational, which means it is how we relate to God and others, not intellectual as to whether we assent to some doctrine or creed.

It seems to me that the consequences of the last election should open some eyes to this issue, but not as clearly as I hoped. The politicization of Truth cheapens Truth by saying that truth is based on politics, by saying conservatives have their own “real” news, while liberals have the “fake” news.

But this is not a political question. As you point out this is a spiritual problem that must be addressed spiritually by Christians individually and collectively of lose our saltiness.

1 Like
26

Agreed.

I don’t think you’re going to score any points for truth among today’s nationalistic-minded Christians by banging on the “truth is not absolute” drum. I think I can hear and at least partially appreciate some of the nuances of where you are coming from by insisting that truth is relational – I get that. But there is still truth. You can pack cushions around a solid iron surface, but it is still just as solid underneath that inviting squishiness. Whether spoken gently, or harshly, or even left unsaid entirely to avoid offense: 2+2 will still be 4. Use a different word than ‘absolute’ if you must, but my main concern is that truth is not denied.

27

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.