On 09 Sep 2012, at 13:50, Roger Clough wrote:

Why we debate religion: two completely different and frequently
confused types of truth.

There are two completely different types of truth.

The first is rational or objective or public truth, discussed
in philosophies of "truth" and logic.

The second is truth known only privately or subjectively
This is the kind of truth that police must rely on when a
dead body needs identifying. There is an immediate
certainty of identity that the surviving relative knows inside,
but only he can be sure of that.

This is also a part of the show-and-tell aspect of courtroom trials.
The jury must decide on the guilt of the defendant v partly
logiocally, but to a great extent from the show and tell of evidence.

Objective truth is shareable but not determined personally,
    and may  be debsatable by philsophers.

Subjective truth is not shareable because it is private and personal.
    But to many (including me) it is the most certain form of truth,
A mother will always be certain that it is or is not her son lying on
    the table in the morgue.  And in another context, one cannot argue
    on matters of taste.

This difference in forms of truth is where all of our religious debates
come from.  Religious truth is only certain to a an individual
and cannot be shared.

I mainly agree. But then why coming with factual assertion, about a Jesus guy. I can accept the parabolas, but I can't take a witnessing of 500 persons, in the writing of a quite biased guy (Paul), from a reasonable perspective, as an argument, and it all make dubious any assertion you can add.

Your theory above is better, though, and close to the universal machine's own theory, actually.

Science is only a modest and interrogative inquiry. It is rooted in the doubt, and ask only question. Theories have all interrogation mark. It is the separation between science and theology that makes people believing that science = truth, when the truth is that science = doubt, but with a willingness to make the assumptions as clear as it is needed to be sharable, and questioned.

You say "Religious truth is only certain too an individual and cannot be shared", but note that is the case also for consciousness, and all hallucinated states. If you cannot share, don't try, perhaps.

As a computer scientist, and logician, I study what ideally correct machine can discover about themselves and that they cannot share, or even express, from different person points of view. Very small machines already provide quite non trivial observations on that. Books exists on the subject (Boolos, Smorynski, Smullyan, ...).



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to