Ron, are you kidding? You are the one with the insights. No worries about that. I agree completely with you , truth is absolute and is the water of life.

It's the leap of faith , that synaptic juncture between fact and faith that drives religion that i am concerned with.

Great posts!

There's action/reaction stuff. Stuff that under our "laws of physics" and certain conditions are going to perform or react in a certain way. But even scientific evaluation and interpretation can change. I don't think that everything there is to know about something that can ever be a possibility. More data is found and it affects conclusions. Just look at how the stuffs we consume are evaluated. Coffee's bad for you ....drink decaf ....decaf causes cancer .... coffee's good for you .... lowers odds of getting prostate cancer. Butter's bad ... eat margarine .... margarine's bad for you ... eat butter. Eggs are bad .... etc. I am not disagreeing with you, Ron. Perfection is something to aspire to but never to attained. What's the sense then? It can make us better, move us forward.
But you're the guy who put the word "truth" in the subject of spirituality. Personally, I don't think it belongs with spirituality. We have faith in some people that is based more on feeling than anything else. Does that make it wrong? Does that make it right? With some things there is no right or wrong. With some things it depends on what you feel. But just because something feels right or wrong for an individual doesn't make it right or wrong for somebody (or everybody) else. Unfortunately, with religions, a lot of folks just don't see it that way. Just my opinion and you know what they say about those!

I like the Sanskrit saying that is paraphrased, "One truth. Many paths."

ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti” (Rig Veda 1.164.46)

Usually followed by "Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata."

Be tolerant. Be compassionate. Be self-restrained.

It matters that given many paths, how we interact is as important as knowing the meaning of the one truth. Our acts create karma. If we are dutiful and follow a path marked by tolerance, compassion, and discipline, our duty to the one truth is as satisfied as can be by our humanity.

Yes, but the truth can have many faces, which is why we've had holy wars. What is truth to one is not necessarily truth to another.

This sometimes works:
"We always did feel the same,
We just saw it from a different point of view,
Tangled up in blue." Bob Dylan

as i have said around here somewhere before, i am not fond of religious dogma and am often distrustful of it's insertions.

however, occasionally i will find something tucked away in the world of religious writings that will in some way comfort and inspire me.

of all the saints i have ever heard of (not many, and i had never heard of any of them when i was growing up) but eventually i stumbled upon the stories of this saint and fell for him instantly.

brother juniper:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ugolino/flowers.vi.viii.html

Trying to remember all the stuff I just read...

The earth being regarded as flat was never the truth. To me it goes back to "belief does not create truth". Many folks believed the earth was flat - many folks were wrong as that wasn't the truth. (That sound kind of harsh and I don't mean it to be.)

Indeed as we find out more things we are getting closer to realizing the truth about those specific things. We are finding out or verifying truth - or in some cases nullifying so called truth.

I understand what you're saying about faith being based on a feeling Capt. For me that makes it a guess. I wouldn't be comfortable putting my faith in a guess - that's just me obviously. I guess why I brought it up here was I think truth permeates everything; is applicable to everything on a certain level. Again, for me it goes back to the belief not creating truth; unbelief not destroying truth thought.

I also think there are certain things that are preference or opinion and may or may not be based on Truth. Example: Larry regards vegemite as noxious while others like it. That kind of thing has nothing to do with truth, but has everything to do with preference or feeling. One could not make a case that Larry is wrong in his regard for vegemite. Another example: I think sitting by the edge of the lower falls in the canyon area of Yellowstone is awesome, remarkable and quite wonderful. Perhaps 80% of folks would feel the same, but is it a reflection of truth? That one is a bit stickier as I am tempted to say yes knowing that it isn't any more a reflection of truth than Larry's regard for vegemite.

Since it was mentioned a couple of times - is faith always based on something other than fact in your folks' opinion? Is faith never based on truth? And, again, thanks for what you all have offered on this subject.

I beg to differ. Many of the things we hold true now were someone's beliefs not that long ago...

Just my dumb ass opinion follows: Much faith is based in fact. I may believe (faith) that a person may or may not do something based on their past behavior (fact). But knowledge is not absolute, so we have conjecture to bridge the gap. But conjecture doesn't always turn out the way we expect it to (The afore mentioned person doesn't do what I thought they would.). Conjecture can also be used to explain the inexplicable.

And now, to completely confound the issue I give you the late, great Arthur C. Clarke's three laws of prediction:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. (Nobody can know everything.)

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. (Sounds like it's headin' towards conjecture to me!)

3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Fact based faith?)

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this. You simply cannot know all there is to know (get over that one!) and the Universe keeps doing what it's doing regardless of "faith" or "fact" or "truth".

One other thing that I totally spaced on is that a lot of spiritual mythology is meant to be allegory, stories to teach life's lessons through symbolism. Many followers of spiritual paths realize this but there are a lot who take things literally. Most of the so called Pagan paths use symbolism to explain things like the seasons, etc. But I don't think a lot of Wiccans believe that the Oak and Holly Kings actually duke it out at the summer and winter solstices. It's symbolic of the changing seasons, a yin-yang, light and dark thingy. Symbolism!!! Not Real!!! It's the religions that start taking the mythology as literal that become dangerous and intolerant.

Read some Joseph Campbell. Heck, even George Lucas consulted him on the first Star Wars movie to utilize myth as allegory.

Capt. - you thoughts are not "dumb ass" thoughts. I sincerely appreciate what you have felt free to express on this topic (highjacked as it may be). I would agree with you in your assertion of some knowledge not being absolute. I do think truth is absolute though. I consider truth to be different from knowledge (as a thing/concept/whatever is the appropriate term for it). As you point out knowledge is a changing thing. Indeed, as things are studied further new things are brought into knowledge. Truth cannot and does not change. If it can, could or does it is no longer truth. Where we differ on this is I think that truth can be known while you would fall on the side that truth cannot be fully known. No worries. (And if my assumption is wrong I apologize - I don't mean to "put words in your mouth".)

For me what the universe "is doing" is based solidly on truth. The precision in the math that predicts and governs the movements of the bodies in the universe is truly remarkable and wondrous. It's just an awesome thing for me. And as you mention it will indeed keep doing what it is doing.

Goofus, I would suspect that you hold to the idea that belief is not truth. To restate, I think belief can be based on truth or untruth (a "guess" if you'd prefer that term which carries it's own problems as a guess can be proven to be truth also). The dictionary definition says that belief is "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists" and that's the definition I lean towards when I use the word "belief". I don't use belief as meaning a guess.

MG mentioned that his trouble was with the leap of faith - the juncture between faith and fact that drives religion. As I thought about that I realize for me I make that leap every day as concerning everyday things. Here's what I mean: It's an accepted "fact/truth" that everything is made up of atoms which have a nucleus and some orbiting electrons. What I've always been taught is there is space between those electrons and the nucleus; small though it may be - they could not orbit otherwise I 'spect. When I sit down on a chair in the morning to eat my Cheerios I am making that leap trusting that "solid" chair will hold me. In a sense it is not solid by any means, but it does not collapse nor do atoms fly apart when the weight of my body rests on the chair. I make that same leap when I start my car - that the physical truths of combustion are just that - and drive away to wherever.

Hopefully I'm getting across what's in my mind as I feel I fall short on that often. I was talking to a friend today about the subject of truth and felt clumsy in my expressions (he was gracious enough to listen and understand and offer his own thoughts). Thanks for listening/reading and your "gracious" attitude towards me in this discussion.

I think we may be having a difference of definitions. I believe that if truth is a concept then, by definition, it cannot be a tangible thing (concept: something conceived in the mind : thought, notion: an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances). Ergo, something to strive for but never totally attainable.

A long time ago, I read a book titled "Seven Arrows". One part of it dealt with differing views. Assemble a group of people in a circle and, in its center, place a drum and a feather. Some may only see the drum if the feather is on the side facing away from them. Those on the other side will see the drum but the feather may obscure part of the drum. Some may have something blocking their view, some may be looking away, some may have poor vision. All will see something different from one another but for each it will be the "truth" ....for them. Sort of like the fable of the three blind men describing an elephant or the afore mentioned Bob Dylan line.

Quotes from Mr. Smarty Pants himself, Albert Einstein:

"Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts."

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Confusing? You bet! But, hey! That's life.

One of my favorites: "I never commit to memory anything that can easily be looked up in a book." (or Googled?)

zap. i was reading this (once again, i am reading something i have not read before...learning something new) and i am wondering...what does that mean....what does it mean? and so i look around and find this concept:
astrology -> astronomy, alchemy -> chemistry, magic -> physics, religion -> science

i cannot take credit for that concise measure of words, and i do not know who to give credit to.

perhaps it is a concept reduced to it's essence in a "folk process" kind of thing ?

does it fit?

I beg to differ. Truth is fluid and ever evolving. What was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow. Things that were not true when I was a child are true now.

Goofus, I think the good Capt. pinpointed the basic "what's going on in this discussion" in that it is a difference in definitions. I am referring to truth as a concept for lack of a better word. But in my mind it is more than a concept - I just can't express in words adequately what I am thinking.

If truth can change it is no longer truth. If truth is fluid it is not truth. Truth, by it's very nature, is inflexible, solid, precise and unchanging. What your knowledge may consider to be true is always up for grabs - knowledge is not truth in every instance. Again, as the good Capt. pointed out, researchers are always adding to our knowledge which brings us closer to the truth. I take it that is what you are referring to when you mention for you truth is fluid.

I believe we can arrive at truth that is Truth - ie: does not change. The earth is a sphere will remain pretty much unchanged for me. The sky appears blue will remain constant - unless of course you live in LA where the sky is more brown than blue - everywhere you might travel on this planet.

I forgot to mention this also - Capt. one of the things that prompted me to place this here was I view truth as not being inclusive nor tolerant. For truth to be inclusive would be for it to allow untruth in also. Truth cannot tolerate untruth. Truth, by it's nature and definition, is extremely exclusive. You may arrive there on a different "street" but truth cannot be inconsistent with itself. If it is then it is not truth.

And thanks for the quote from Albert. They are indeed intertwined implicitly - without question. In what you shared from the book, would you say that a person, if they really wanted to "see", would not move to get a closer, more accurate look at what was in the middle of the circle? I think we are naturally curious - some to greater or lesser extent. I would have gotten up and looked more closely. Indeed, if the folks stayed where they were each would have a distorted version of the truth. Even though, in that scenario, they would have a differing "truth" from others in the circle; they would all believe a falsehood as they would not truly "see" the truth.

Thanks again everyone for sharing your thoughts.