The Search for Truth

[Being1]

Isn't it true, that we (Mankind) are looking for the Truth. Not everybody all the time, but collectively as a species. Since the question first arose, 'what is this world I am in', hasn't the search for an answer to this, the search for Truth, been of prime interest to us? And is it not the drive behind both science and religion?

Is it correct to define science as that which studies the world, that which looks into the matter in an effort to understand it? And is it correct to define religion as a looking within to faith and belief in order to make sense of, and feel ok about the world?

[BeHereNow]

harrison: Then there is the simple Truth, which is neither inside or out, its just here now, as your user name would suggest...

“the simple Truth”
Interesting.

I suspect Truth is not simple. Those ideas which are simple are grasp by many persons simultaneously. This seldom happens with Truth.
If one has Truth, it may seem simple. It is sharing this Truth with others that exposes the complexity.
Some of us recognize different types of Truth. There is Truth which is existence, or reality.
Objective or subjective truth is the experience or understanding of Truth by the individual or group.
There are those who believe that objective truth is not knowable, or if knowable, not transferable.
What is the simple truth which you can share with me?

[BeHereNow]

I ran across this and like it for this thread:

In the words of the Talmud: "The fetus in its mother's womb is taught the entire Torah... When its time comes to emerge into the atmosphere of the world, an angel comes and slaps it on its mouth, making it forget everything."4

An obvious question: If we're made to forget it all, why teach it to us in the first place? But herein lies the entire paradox of knowledge and choice: we can't see the truth, we can't even manifestly know it, but at the same time we do know it, deep inside us. Deep enough that we can choose to ignore it, but also deep enough that wherever we are and whatever we become we can always choose to unearth it. This, in the final analysis, is choice: our choice to pursue the knowledge implanted in our soul or to suppress it.

[Being1]

Yes, that's good

harrison: Then there is the simple Truth, which is neither inside or out, its just here now, as your user name would suggest...

“the simple Truth”
Interesting.

I suspect Truth is not simple. Those ideas which are simple are grasp by many persons simultaneously. This seldom happens with Truth.
If one has Truth, it may seem simple. It is sharing this Truth with others that exposes the complexity.
What is the simple truth which you can share with me?

Hmmm. Nicely put.
At the risk of sounding glib, The simple truth I am speaking of is that you are reading this post right now. Of this there can be no argument. It's absolutely simple and obvious... and perhaps empty? But it is not empty. While you are reading you are alive and there is the warmth of your body and the experience of what you are feeling. That's hardly empty. Its a sensation! And it can only ever be felt in the moment of experience, not before, and not after.

This is the simple truth to which I refer. Its not an idea, and its not a creation. Its just the life in your body now, the self evident fact of this moment.

[bernee51]

But herein lies the entire paradox of knowledge and choice: we can't see the truth, we can't even manifestly know it, but at the same time we do know it, deep inside us.

And is this not the source of idea of the Perennial Philosophy - that mankind is aware of 'the sacred within' and has longed, since the evolution of its self awareness, to name the source. Because we look around and see imperfection in the phenomenal world we assume it cannot be us therefore the source is 'god'.

This, in the final analysis, is choice: our choice to pursue the knowledge implanted in our soul or to suppress it.

The 'knowledge' can never be suppressed - we have no choice. The truth most often is.

[CJK]

(Mistaken)

[palmera]

There is empirical truth and there is spiritual truth. Attempts or success in one area have little or no relationship to the other. Historically, they have been at odds with each other.


Thankyou for your comment BeHereNow. I see that empirical truth is akin to the scientific quest, and spiritual truth akin to the religious. And yes historically they have been at odds and still are, which is the problem.

I'm not sure I agree. Einstein once spoke on this topic by stating that neither could exist without the other. This balance, while thought provoking still doesn't get to the heart of it. Science and religion are not inherently at odds; perhaps our perceptions of them as such are, but in and of themselves they are simply inclusive paths of thought which can be woven together. The idea of Science v.s. Religion is one of modernity. Not but a few hundred years ago, science and religion were much the same; all of which changed when stargazers began to question the nature of our reality upon discovering that the earth was in fact not the center of the universe (although ironically that idea was circulating since ancient times). The slipping authority of the church with each new observation that went against its teachings and crippled its authority because answers (and a myriad of new questions) to the mysteries of our world and the universe were being sought somewhere different than The Church- it's not that science... (only differentiated in modernity... not to mention the fact that "religion" is a relatively new world in-so-far as it is used in common parlance today: "religion" was not discussed as though it were somehow an entity all on its own.) again, it's not that science went against the Bible, or against God in any way, but rather it questioned the authority of the church. The early schism was never about God, or Truth (except for those who would go against the holy church fathers) but about POWER! The origins of this perceived conflict arose out of the church's (Roman Catholic to be more precise) need to maintain its power structure throughout western europe.

that's an extremely short version of origin of the "split" between science and religion. The funny thing is, is that neither "science" nor "religion" were considered different until the authority of the church came into question and people began thinking for themselves in a new way. It's not about the church being evil, or christianity being bad and science being noble, true and good; it's about who has the power- it was from the beginning about political, economic and social structures. Making science out to be something going against God, or something in opposition to religion was merely a series of smokescreens used to hide the reality of the power struggle which ensued. It's odd to think that "religion" and "science" were never mentioned in the way we talk about them today- a forum such as ours regarding science and religion in opposition would have been hard to comprehend back then due to the way we now conceive of the two.

[Sender]

But herein lies the entire paradox of knowledge and choice: we can't see the truth, we can't even manifestly know it, but at the same time we do know it, deep inside us.

And is this not the source of idea of the Perennial Philosophy - that mankind is aware of 'the sacred within' and has longed, since the evolution of its self awareness, to name the source. Because we look around and see imperfection in the phenomenal world we assume it cannot be us therefore the source is 'god'.

This, in the final analysis, is choice: our choice to pursue the knowledge implanted in our soul or to suppress it.

The 'knowledge' can never be suppressed - we have no choice. The truth most often is.

I swear bernee, you haven't said anything with depth since you joined. Re-read your post, there is no substance, none.

[BeHereNow]

BHN: There is empirical truth and there is spiritual truth. Attempts or success in one area have little or no relationship to the other. Historically, they have been at odds with each other.
Harrison: Thankyou for your comment BeHereNow. I see that empirical truth is akin to the scientific quest, and spiritual truth akin to the religious. And yes historically they have been at odds and still are, which is the problem.

palmera: I'm not sure I agree. Einstein once spoke on this topic by stating that neither could exist without the other. This balance, while thought provoking still doesn't get to the heart of it. Science and religion are not inherently at odds; perhaps our perceptions of them as such are, but in and of themselves they are simply inclusive paths of thought which can be woven together.

To say they are simply two paths, capable of being woven together, would be like weaving wool and silk. Certainly it can be done, but not as simply as cotton and flax, which have more in common.

In and of themselves they are nothing, for they are an invention of man, and must be used by man, thus will carry the characteristics of the men who use them. Those who follow the path or religion are quite different than the those who follow science. One “knows with his heart”, the other knows from observation.
Science and religion are methods of seeing the world. These methods are based on exactly opposing mechanisms for understanding. Each will attempt to define truth by their own mechanisms.

Religion is by nature dictatorial.
Science by its nature is democratic.

The idea of Science v.s. Religion is one of modernity. Not but a few hundred years ago, science and religion were much the same; all of which changed when stargazers began to question the nature of our reality upon discovering that the earth was in fact not the center of the universe (although ironically that idea was circulating since ancient times). The slipping authority of the church with each new observation that went against its teachings and crippled its authority because answers (and a myriad of new questions) to the mysteries of our world and the universe were being sought somewhere different than The Church- it's not that science... (only differentiated in modernity... not to mention the fact that "religion" is a relatively new world in-so-far as it is used in common parlance today: "religion" was not discussed as though it were somehow an entity all on its own.) again, it's not that science went against the Bible, or against God in any way, but rather it questioned the authority of the church. The early schism was never about God, or Truth (except for those who would go against the holy church fathers) but about POWER! The origins of this perceived conflict arose out of the church's (Roman Catholic to be more precise) need to maintain its power structure throughout western europe.

that's an extremely short version of origin of the "split" between science and religion. The funny thing is, is that neither "science" nor "religion" were considered different until the authority of the church came into question and people began thinking for themselves in a new way.

By religion you seem to mean Christianity.
Christianity and science weren’t considered different because they weren’t different. The only expression science had was through religion. Science was the servant of religion. It does of course depend on how you define science.
Modern science began with the enlightenment.

The way I see it, church and science have been at odds since modern science began.

The church has feared science since it first identified science.
I agree that it is about power. It is about the church wanting the power that went to science. It is about the church losing power to science.
Science has never wanted the power that belongs to the church.
Science attained power without effort.
Each attempted to describe the world, and science was more successful.

What can you tell me about this symbiotic relationship science and religion had before the enlightenment? It may help me see your position.

[bernee51]

I swear bernee, you haven't said anything with depth since you joined. Re-read your post, there is no substance, none.

Interesting - you must have read all of my 954 posts over the last 12 months to arrive at that.

Your opinion, FWIW, is noted. Care to point out detail rather than make a personal attack.

BTW ad hominems are not within the spirit of this forum and put the perpertrator ar risk of being excluded.

Please keep it up.

[Sender]

I swear bernee, you haven't said anything with depth since you joined. Re-read your post, there is no substance, none.

Interesting - you must have read all of my 954 posts over the last 12 months to arrive at that.

Your opinion, FWIW, is noted. Care to point out detail rather than make a personal attack.

BTW ad hominems are not within the spirit of this forum and put the perpertrator ar risk of being excluded.

Please keep it up.

You are right. I only know of your last fifty or so posts, and they are of the "troll" variety. There is no knowledge, spirit or relevance to your replys. Maybe your others were better, but the recent ones are useless.