Answer185

	Sign In Sign-Up

Answer185

Question185

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 God® 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

Click here to return to master question page.