Do you believe that there is (and that there is only one)
ultimate, absolute truth or do you think that this belief doesn't
make sense from an atheist viewpoint?
I believe in absolute truths, but only in pure logic or math. In the world
there is always some margin of error of the premises.
But in every day life - no. In science you get pretty darn close to objective
truth, but it is not ultimate or absolute. There is always the possibility
that later repetitions shows a flaw in your model, or theory or your
hypothesis might not hold when investigated. (ichimusai #769)
Absolute truth and one? Not into belief but when it
comes to absolute truth, you're speaking of ultimate
and absolute knowledge of all, and to describe that
as one seems quite one-dimensional, for who can
say what that absolute knowledge of all consists of?
Certainly, the human-created god thingies (and their
associated buddies, as in angels, christs, demons,
spirits, holy whatevers, etc.) can be described as
human fantasies, but as for what is absolute ... that
conveys a desire to know all and all we can do is
strive towards that end, as we've already given up
the "make believe" manner in which the religionists
pretend they know what they, in fact, know not of ... (Dan Fake)
I don't think there is an absolute truth. I have doubts whether grand
unified field theory or whatever it is called will ever be found. As
for absolute truth as far as theism or philosophy is concerned about
the nature of existence, I think pure chance and haphazaar chemical
and physical and energy interaction is all there is. Of course thats a
personal opinion. (Rob Coats #1856)
I think objective knowledge of fact is a valid concept, but that's the only
place you're likely to find any "ultimate, absolute" truth. Much of our
experience in life is subjective in nature - such as what constitutes "good
music" or where do you draw the line between art and porn?
I guess my take on this is it's another "yes and no" sort of thing. (Nemo - #1331)
I think that it is true that humans should not kill other humans over
sectarian religious issues, but unfortunately most religions disagree with
me and, in some cases, actively promote the opposite. So my truth, as well
as their truth, seems to be only an opinion. Their unverified claim that
their truth came from GodŽ makes it no more absolute than mine.
There may be one absolute truth, but it won't be detected nor promoted by
religion. The one absolute truth might be the mathematical formula
representing the Grand Unified Theory . . . or maybe not. In any event,
truth can not be changed by the beliefs of the observer. (Liz Huth #658)
The only "absolute" truth I can come up with is the axiom that reality
exists - that there is a real universe of matter, energy, space and time
which exists independently of my senses. But I'm not at all sure I would
label even that fundamental assumption an "absolute truth." All truth
exists in some sort of context.
What, for example, would constitute an "absolute truth" in a universe in
which there was no conscious intelligence able to articulate it?
Ultimately, I suspect questions about "absolute truth" are, like questions
about the ultimate meaning of it all, meaningless. (George Ricker #146)
No I don't believe in an ultimate, absolute truth and I think the
notion of there being one such has done more damage than any other
notions ever. I don't see what it has to do with atheism though. When
asked about a truth, I can't however help but ask "truth about what?". (Nikitta - #1759)
An absolute truth about *what*? If we are talking about the laws of
physics, there are certainly plenty of values that appear to be constant:
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, absolute zero demarks the
theoretical limit of heat dissipation, the charge of an electron is
constant, etc. These are absolute truths of a sort (or as near as we can
approach them with the tools at our disposal).
But *one* absolute truth? I suppose that if there is, in fact, a Unified
Field Theory (aka, a Theory of Everything), this would represent a single
physical truth from which the operations of all physical systems could be,
in principle (although NOT in practice) derived, but that wouldn't have
any bearing, for instance, on the turth or falsity of the Goldbach
conjecture.
Indeed, if you allow mathematical statements into the realm of things that
can be true or false (which only seems fair, given that it's one of the
few realms where we can discuss absolutes with precision), it's a flat
guarantee that there is no absolute truth since there are an infinity of
possible axioms that one can postulate and an infinity of truths that can
be, thereby, derived -- no mathematician stays up late worrying that
their discipline is going to be exhausted.
I will say that I do suspect that most people who are inclined to ask this
sort of question aren't even talking about such tidy concepts as physical
concepts and mathematical entities. I suspect that, in fact, they are
looking for absolute moral truths. Given that I don't see any evidence
that the universe has *any* moral truths ingrained into its deep
structure, I really think that such a question tends to lead to its own
wild goose chase. (Andrew Lias)
It depends on how one defines "truth" and how the term is used. In science, for
example, two theories can be different but both "true" as long as their
predictions both agree with experimental evidence -- for instance, the several
different interpretations of quantum mechanics. On the other hand, in
mathematics a statement can always be unambiguously proven to be either true,
false, or undecidable. (Xaonon #1821)
I *can* construct an absolute truth from an atheist viewpoint. For
example, I could base "absolute truth" on objective reality. The speed of
light in a vacuum could be absolutely true, and therefore all physics
derived from that fact is absolutely true, et cetera. Some people (e.g.
Objectivists) carry this much further, e.g. that absolutly true morality
can be derived from sociobiology, and sociobiology is absolutely true
because it's based on the absolutely true physical reality, etc.
However, I do not "believe in one ultimate absolute truth" in any
practical sense because, to my thinking, this would presume absolute
knowledge on my part. If I take "objective reality = Truth," then I can
only know Truth insofar as I know objective reality, and I have no models
so detailed as to cover all facets of objective reality. I therefore
acknowledge that my knowledge is limited, and therefore I posess only a
portion of this Truth that I've so defined. Further, my knowledge is
subject to revision based on new data, therefore my partial-Truth is
subject to revision... and therefore my partial-Truth is never
"absolute".
Besides, there's always solipsism if one wants to take a vacation from
objective reality. Just because it's a *useless* viewpoint (in practical
terms) doesn't mean it couldn't be true, in some abstract sense. (Rosa "April" Williams - #1723
