To respond to the truth/lie article, I'd like to first point out that, Daniel, you're too focused on the results and end locations of these two entities. What I believe is more worthy of debate is the motive behind these two. What if one tells a lie, but does so because he believes it is the truth. This is ignorance, and it presents itself as a third dimension and a gray area for truth and lies. So, there is NOT in fact a fine line between truth and lies; we must consider all facets before we can confirm an absolute.
In response to your argument regarding the power of lies and truths, I must say that you have overestimated their influence. Yes, their potential power is great, but it is dependent not on the truth, lie, or teller, but on the recipient. He who chooses to believe a lie to its very end gives it power, and he who decides to disregard the truth turns down that same influence. Hence, the result of truths and lies are dependent on this very important factor that Daniel had not addressed.
Understanding the conventional concept of truth being good and lies being bad, we must consider that there is no absolute representation of both. Should lies told in good nature be clumped together with deceitful lies? Should truths told out of spite be categorized with the near angelic ideal we hold of the truth? No, and here is where the gray area shows itself. Since an absolute definition of a truth or lie is impossible, we must reconsider the power that they hold and their importance in general.
To tie this argument in with Christianity, I'd like to draw attention to the blind faith that many attribute to the religion. The world was created in 7 days. Evolution is a lie. Again, in considering the fact that evolution is a lie, we must begin by questioning the motive. Why would Charles Darwin try to revolutionize a powerfully held belief? Why did Copernicus and Galileo try to prove that the world was not in fact flat? The answer is very simple: they had proofs from sources that simply cannot lie. Numbers do not lie. They may mislead and be misinterpreted, but a 1 will not say it is a 78. Darwin discovered solid rock hard proof, no pun intended, which strongly suggested an evolutionary source for all life. Granted, his theory is not completely seamless, through which several religious heretics decided to bring up. Here lies the main conflict between religion and science. Whereas science bases its decisions and findings off objects that cannot lie, such as a fossil, religion has its foundation in a faith that a greater being is all TRUTH. The reason many religious zealots try to refute an ideal that has so strongly supported and suggested is that if they do accept it, the entire foundation they have built their culture on will crumble and fall. Why does one choose to believe an entity that does cannot be seen, heard, smelt, or tasted? We can even take this further by mentioning that this entity cannot even be comprehended, since he is all "truth" and his "justice" is the same as his "mercy." Christians will simply say, "That's God; he can't be understood." Okay, so you've based your entire theory of life and living on someone that you can't understand, have no proof that he loves you, and pretty much living in fear?
And don't come to me and say, "How would you feel if God refused to believe in YOU?" Does that even makes sense? One, how does something that doesn't exist believe? And secondly, go ahead and don't believe in me; I'm not going to convince other people that I'm going to rain down a hail of meteors on you.
Granted I cannot address all things concerning the topic of truth and fallacy, I would like to address that I was in fact looking only toward the hindsight and generally unseen future. So in other words, yes I was focused on the end products per say, but to address the belief in them I have no problem, it was not an act of ignorance.
ReplyDeleteIt is as you say, the belief is significant, if not the key to the idea. However, consider the unorthodoxy in what you suggest in truth: "A lie told in truth." Would that not suggest that it is both synthesized by man, and told as a belief of validity? In such an understanding, would it not be as I have suggested: Lies becoming seemingly analogous to the truth?
As for the power of the impact, I do not deny it, I did in fact use rhetoric which suggested the overestimation of its power. However, in a personal aspect, such is not so as one lie, or misunderstanding for the matter, can change things significantly and in retrospect, seem like the person's "world is over." I fully meant for the phrase in mention to suggest an idea of its power in a personal significance and nothing more.
Now as for the religious rebuddle which took up nearly half the blog, I must address to what you consider to be "blind faith." People are people and believe many things, thus as you may say it, it is completely blinded faith. Let me ask one thing though, the belief in the scientific evidence that is proven to be true, is that really not blind faith as well? We as men have never seen man transformed or transfigured from other animals or species. It is impossible to see for evolution takes far too long for one man to witness. Copernicus and Galileo suggested the world to spherical due to the nature of scientific evidence, that which I will not deny. Yet how is it they achieved such truth from the world, when it in fact did not exist? From my standpoint I believe it is the enlightening contribution of the world in itself perceived by the revolutionary minds that had the tenacity and gall to expedite into such ideas into the world. Indeed, your view into the matter is valid. Yet in that very aspect could it not be understood that there are ideas and that which has not been seen or fully comprehended? In that sense, could it be known that there is still so much to be understood or done to prove the very validity of what science has proved wrong? In the past it may have been a truth to say that man cannot rip phone books with just hands, and in past it may have been perceived that sending messages half way around the world in an instant is heresy. Yet today we constantly prove new ideas which debunk previously understood "truths" as lies. Personally, I believe this very process in itself is what a "miracle" truly is in the world today. Understanding that who you deem to be religious heretics are those who believe without proof, I say unto you, with miracles happening everyday in our own generation, is there not a hope to believe in at least a higher power? As for me I believe there is and that power is almighty and understanding of all said concepts and beyond, that as he understands it, he can comprehend what our minds can only perceive as do little children in their infancy.
Belief in God is not a fear, but an understanding of what he can do and what he has done. That is why as a Christian, I personally believe and look toward greater things knowing of all the things revealed to me as proof in itself.
-Daniel