Hovering between lies and delusional thinking

@divegeester said
The best mass example of this for me are Trump supporters believing the lie that the election was rigged and deluding themselves into thinking that Trump is still President and that he had nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol which was just a peaceful freedom protest.

Good example of the point I've been trying to make to KJ, who continues to conflate falsehoods with lies. When Trump says the election was stolen, he is telling a truth -- someone did try to steal the election -- but he tells it in a way calculated to deceive people into thinking it was someone other than himself who tried to steal it.

Take home lesson: a truth can be a lie, if told in a way calculated to deceive. A falsehood is not a lie, if no one is trying to deceive anyone with it.

Moreover, people believe all manner of falsehoods all the time. Half of what medical science tells us is probably going to turn out to be quackery in ten or even five years. Just think of the treatments which have been tried within my own lifetime on people with mental disorders (electro-shock therapy, for example -- one shudders at the thought that this was once considered solid evidence-based science). That does not mean doctors were lying to us; they were acting in good faith on evidence available to them at the time. That's why it matters that people continue to challenge what seems to be truth, all the time, and not accept that everything is settled, once and for all time.

Also within my own lifetime, miscegenation was considered by many people in America to be immoral, against nature, and against God's law -- this was an eternal truth for them. Nowadays, a lot of people don't even know what the word means, would have to look it up in the dictionary, and would be shocked to learn that it was once illegal in many states of the USA. So much for eternal truth!

@divegeester said
The best mass example of this for me are Trump supporters believing the lie that the election was rigged and deluding themselves into thinking that Trump is still President and that he had nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol which was just a peaceful freedom protest.

Someone believes lies in both of those, which are not worth arguing over.

@moonbus said
@Indonesia-Phil

Interesting reply. Much food for thought.

There is a fundamental difference between scientific truths and religious 'truth'. Scientific truths are inherently revisable, pending evidence which we may discover later. Religious 'truths' are commonly held to come from the past and to be inherently nonrevisable. Yet we do revise them, time and again, in ligh ...[text shortened]... the Earth and the rest of the stars and galaxies were not created within a few hours of each other.

There is zero difference between scientific truth and religious truth. If something is true, it doesn't matter if a three-year-old in overhauls barefoot is saying it or a professor with five degrees; if it is true, it is true.

@kellyjay said
Someone believes lies in both of those, which are not worth arguing over.

It might well be worth going over briefly seeing as you want to talk about truth, lies and delusion.

@kellyjay said
There is zero difference between scientific truth and religious truth.

So, between the "scientific truth" that 100 degrees Celsius is water's normal boiling point and the "religious truth" that Gabriel spoke to Muhammed in a cave, is there really "zero difference"?

@fmf said
It might well be worth going over briefly seeing as you want to talk about truth, lies and delusion.

As far as I'm concerned, if there was cheating, there was cheating, and it worked; if there wasn't there, there wasn't. Either way, Biden was sworn in and is now President; God will sort it out; I'm called to pray for our leaders, not judge them. The hate that is displayed going both directions is more of a concern for me as far as I'm concerned than how corrupt our system was. Start another one if you want to turn this into a political thread.

@fmf said
So, between the "scientific truth" that 100 degrees Celsius is water's normal boiling point and the "religious truth" that Gabriel spoke to Muhammed in a cave, is there really "zero difference"?

If something is true, it doesn't matter who is saying it, when, how, or why.

@kellyjay said
As far as I'm concerned, if there was cheating, there was cheating, and it worked; if there wasn't there, there wasn't. Either way, Biden was sworn in and is now President; God will sort it out; I'm called to pray for our leaders, not judge them. The hate that is displayed going both directions is more of a concern for me as far as I'm concerned than how corrupt our system was.

But you believe that Trump's claim that he won by a landslide is a lie, right?

@kellyjay said
If something is true, it doesn't matter who is saying it, when, how, or why.

So there really is "zero difference" between those two "truths", that's what you are saying?

Or, when you said: "there is zero difference between scientific truth and "religious truth", the "religious truth" you were referring to was the "religious truth" you subscribe to?

@kellyjay said
There is zero difference between scientific truth and religious truth. If something is true, it doesn't matter if a three-year-old in overhauls barefoot is saying it or a professor with five degrees; if it is true, it is true.

You have an underdeveloped notion of truth. Truths of mathematics are quite different to empirical or religious truths. Some truths are analytic, other truths are synthetic. Conflating them leads to nonsense or vacuous claims such as "if it is true, it is true." As "analytic" and "synthetic" are technical terms in logic, I suggest you not venture into deep waters until you learn to swim.

@fmf said
So, between the "scientific truth" that 100 degrees Celsius is water's normal boiling point and the "religious truth" that Gabriel spoke to Muhammed in a cave, is there really "zero difference"?

Each truth claim stands or falls on it simply being if the very claim made is valid or not. You have given two examples that do not reflect every claim in science or religion both could be true, both could be false, or one or the other is since neither has to do with the other. Also, one science or religious claim does not void or validate every other claim made in science or religion either.

@moonbus said
You have an underdeveloped notion of truth. Truths of mathematics are quite different to empirical or religious truths. Some truths are analytic, other truths are synthetic. Conflating them leads to nonsense or vacuous claims such as "if it is true, it is true." As "analytic" and "synthetic" are technical terms in logic, I suggest you not venture into deep waters until you learn to swim.

Mathematics is the only place you will find 'proofs' for each claim; no matter where it comes from, all truth claims stand or falls on their truthfulness, and you alter the claim, the possibility of truth being there changes with the changing of the claim. If something is true and came from religion, it by no means validates all religious claims, and neither would a false claim invalidate any either; the same is true about science.

The difference in science is unless is it is a scientific dogma that isn't supposed to be questioned, everything is supposed to be questioned, everything is supposed to be continually validated because new pieces of information can change what was once thought actual shows it isn't, science is shifting sand, it doesn't mean you cannot get to the truth through science, we get a lot of truth about things in it, but not everything we believe truth can be tested in a lab and observed.

@moonbus said
You have an underdeveloped notion of truth. Truths of mathematics are quite different to empirical or religious truths. Some truths are analytic, other truths are synthetic. Conflating them leads to nonsense or vacuous claims such as "if it is true, it is true." As "analytic" and "synthetic" are technical terms in logic, I suggest you not venture into deep waters until you learn to swim.

Yeah, make it about me.

@kellyjay said
Each truth claim stands or falls on it simply being if the very claim made is valid or not.

Is the claim that Gabriel spoke to Muhammed in a cave valid or not? Is it a "truth"? Is the claim that the writer of Revelation was contacted by Jesus in a vision valid or not? Is it a "truth"?

@kellyjay said
Someone believes lies in both of those, which are not worth arguing over.

Are you trying to shut down this debating point by saying “it’s not worth arguing over”?

Because clearly it is worth arguing over as many millions of people do everyday.