Truth http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

It would be impossible to survey all there is to say about truth in any coherent way. Instead, this essay will concentrate on the main themes in the study of truth in the contemporary philosophical literature. It will attempt to survey the key problems and theories of current interest, and show how they relate to one-another. A number of other entries investigate many of these topics in greater depth. Generally, discussion of the principal arguments is left to them. The goal of this essay is only to provide an overview of the current theories.

The problem of truth is in a way easy to state: what truths are, and what (if anything) makes them true. But this simple statement masks a great deal of controversy. Whether there is a metaphysical problem of truth at all, and if there is, what kind of theory might address it, are all standing issues in the theory of truth. We will see a number of distinct ways of answering these questions.

• 1. The neo-classical theories of truth
  • 1.1 The correspondence theory
  • 1.1.1 The origins of the correspondence theory
  • 1.1.2 The neo-classical correspondence theory
  • 1.2 The coherence theory
  • 1.3 Pragmatist theories
• 2. Tarski's theory of truth
  • 2.1 Sentences as truth-bearers
  • 2.2 Convention T
  • 2.3 Recursive definition of truth
  • 2.4 Reference and satisfaction
• 3. Correspondence revisited
  • 3.1 Correspondence without facts
  • 3.2 Facts again
  • 3.3. Truthmakers
• 4. Realism and anti-realism
  • 4.1 Realism and truth
  • 4.2 Anti-realism and truth
  • 4.3 Anti-realism and pragmatism
• 5. Deflationism
  • 5.1 The redundancy theory
  • 5.2 Minimalist theories
  • 5.3 Other aspects of deflationism
• 6. Truth and language
  • 6.1 Truth-bearers
  • 6.2 Truth and truth conditions
  • 6.3 Truth conditions and deflationism
  • 6.4 Truth and the theory of meaning
  • 6.5 The coherence theory and meaning
  • 6.6 Truth and assertion
• Bibliography
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries

But I guess the bible believes the truth is flat as well. Your giving me a truth ache. 

What is truth?

What is truth? Truth is in possession.

If by my "circle of knowledge" you mean Catholic theology then I take it that "The Truth" you're describing here is supernatural (Divine) Truth or Absolute Truth which is God.

There is only one truth, however there are distinctions to be made. We start with the most foundational meaning of truth---actual existence. Ontological truth is the truth of the actual existence of things. To be ontologically true means to be an indisputable matter of fact.

But something can be ontologically true without anyone being the least bit aware of its existence. Thus another distinction...logical truth. When a human mind becomes aware of the existence of something (X), and when it knows X as it really is as opposed to having a distorted idea of the reality of X, then it can be said that the mind is in possession of the truth with regard to X. 

Logical truth corresponds between ideas in the mind and things in the world.  The truth which is in the mind is made public through language either written or oral..it's also called a proposition. True propositions correspond with facts and faithfully reflect what is actually the case in the world. It's false if it fails in that respect.

Ontological truth is related to logical truth is related to moral truth.

Yes ma'am and that's what I was getting at when I first responded to Myfist) saying I've been told, "Your truth is not my truth". 

Relativism.

Yes and yes. The truth is under seige and the dictatorship of relativism proclaims that there are many as truths as there are individuals who want to invent it. This is becasue people aren't concerned with what is true but rather with what will work for them..you think?

Truth for the relativist loses its critical objective status and becomes entirely subjective. I think it true that abortion is wrong, but the person next to me thinks it true that abortion is right.

Pluralism.

In a pluralistic society, everyone can be right and nobody has to be wrong for it is up to each individual to decide for himself his own truth and his own false...his own right and his own wrong..his own good and his own evil. We are living under the dictatorship of relativism and in a pluralistic society. And I've got to ask...how's that working out for us?

I'd say, disaster?  

Which takes me back to what the priest said:

Lula posts:

If we go back in this discussion, we'll find we were discussing history and the Bible. If we look at the Bible as a collection of Books about religious history, we find in existence today the Dead Sea Scrolls, thousands of manuscripts, going back 2,000 plus years. A comparison of those manuscripts with the writings of Roman and Jewish historians, and with archeological findings in the Middle east, shows that they give an accurate account of many persons. places and things in the Bible.

I am not at all familiar with American Education but I was raised in a Catholic school where I was taught both sides. The Adam and Eve and, to quote my teacher, "The theory of evolution". I also had a great high school history teacher that showed the inconsistencies of what we were previously taught for which he came under some fire from the school board and actually made local news.

"Schools need to be a place of learning and not be centers of indoctrination". Quoting my history teacher.

I understand. I remember reading somewhere you are Canadian living near the border. My parents were born in Canada and emigrated to the states in the late 1920s.  I have lots of wonderful Canadian relatives.

My father was Catholic and my mother converted from the Episcopal religion. I'm the 9th of 10 children, some of us were educated in the Catholic school, but I was not. During the 50s, I attended public schools and received a first rate education...graduated in 1966. Back then the science books represented Stellar and Darwinian Evolution strictly as theory. At the same time, I received catechesis from the nuns in full habit where I was taught the Faith, including Adam and Eve, their Fall into Original Sin, etc.

During the late 80s, my children went to Catholic school and their science textbooks had Evolution as fact. I was at war with those teachers who refused to teach both sides of the Origin debate. I've written about my experience in some of the JU blogs about evolution.

Yes we both believe in nature and its wonders.

Yes, I believe Genesis that teaches Creator God spoke and the things of nature were created. Nature is not the originator of anything. All that is manifested through nature exists within it by the will of the Maker of nature, God. Nature doesn't design nature any more than an apple seed designs the apple. Nature is a process of unfolding the design implanted in substances, forces and in man.

And you believe nature is nothing more than the natural progression of matter as it endlessly adapts in the constant struggle to survive.  OK. But that does not explain or answer my question ... how did nature come to be on earth? And what is your body of empirical scientific that supports your answer?

Of my belief that God created nature, you tell me:

Nature is not self-existent. It had a beginning, God is its first Cause. The marvelous order seen in nature that we both acknowledge would be an impossibility without a Designer of the plan, a Maker of nature and the laws of nature.  Astronomers, physicists, chemists, and other scientists will tell us the laws of nature are so exact that calculations can be made in advance with mathematical exactness.

The laws of nature posit the existence of a Law-Maker whom we call God. You must accept this or assume that the laws of nature  originated my mere chance in a self-existent universe that came from nothing ... something absolutely impossible and something that has virtually no body of empirical scientific evidence to prove it.

All you have to do to comprehend is to step down off your cloud of perfection and understand we are not theology students in search of things we cannot comprehend … that would be you guys. If you really look back you would see that we (I) claimed the bible as a not an historical document … you were the only supporter. As I said it is convenient to reference old stuff, and I will admit this is not something I follow … but if there were any such proof, I think I would have heard if for no other reason you would be heralding it from your cloud … and you are not, just implications.

Now that I am thinking about it, I do not see why there could not be actual for real people mentioned in the bible. Most fables, parables, customs and legends are linked to actual people or events … so what? And you still cannot prove it.

Lula, if you are looking for some theological arguments from me, don’t, maybe myfist0 will??? But there was one quote of yours that did catch my eye...

Lula, you want the answers to all of life’s mysteries and don't we all. The truth is that we just do not have the ability right now and can only work with what we have. We are learning more and more and we will get better still. But it all takes time. I tried to walk you through the historical evolution of the earth (in the eyes of man) and you defended it as if it were another attack on your religion. It was intended to demonstrate that science has a way of catching up with its own anomalies. You missed the whole point. There is nothing built into your theology to check yourselves. There is nothing built in to allow for time and custom or any other kind of adjustment … you are locked in a self-justifying, self-administered and self-supporting circle that views any disagreement no matter how slight a blasphemous thing and some kind of attack.

It is my contention that the church made a bad decision way back then. When they compiled their book of books, they had two choices. 1. Claim this book as actual historical fact and dominate the foreseeable future or 2. To represent it as the wisdom of God which could have been molded through time to incorporate societal changes … but this would lessen their immediate control. I expect that they just assumed that this god would do just as well as all the others. But the math and sciences changed the evolutionary irrationality that is religion. I am beginning to think that your real old predecessors sealed your fate with their pursuit of the sciences through the years. It took 2,000 years to gain the technology and make it available worldwide for the information age of today to exist. Now all we have to do is convince those less inclined to work, to push a few buttons, whew… and look for themselves. Same thing applies to Iraq or Afghanistan … a few clicks away … and most seem to find this arduous task beneath them … push, whew, push … no this is just too much to expect from me, the hell with the truth … full speed ahead. This irrational belief in the church or the USG as entities of good intent is well preposterous if history is to be our guide.

Sorry about that. I should have been more clear. As far as time relative implications, yes, God gave His true religion to mankind gradually, (over two periods of time) so that men could be prepared by more simple doctrines for still more noble truths.

I attempted to explain that there can be but One God, so therefore there can be only one religion of God's making  in any given period of time when I wrote:

 In a nutshell, that one supernatural religion was ancient Hebraic Judaism (the only God revealed religion in the period of time before Christ ) become Catholic Christianity (the period of time during and after Christ that according to Christ will last until the end of the world). Christianity is the perfect development of the Hebraic Jewish religion, just as the perfect tree is the perfect development of the seed from which it grew. Catholics hold their religion, Catholicism or Catholic Christianity with its Christ instituted priesthood and sacrifice to be Hebraic Judaism full blossomed.

This goes to what Myfist0 said,

I agree. All those man-made religions, no matter how lofty their doctrines or ideals, contain truth mixed with error and therefore are flawed.

The very existence of those man-made religions, are, inferentially, a denial of the One-ness of God. God is Absolute, Eternal Truth does not contradict Himself, as do the varying religions. 

Here is your lecture on how awfully restrictive and un-free the Church and Catholicism are. I can assure you this notion comes from not having a true idea of the CC or being based upon lack of information or even upon wrong information.

Honestly, I, and all the Catholics I know, can't imagine how we could be freer or less restrictive than we are as Catholics. As Catholic I am bubbling over with happiness knowing that a)--- I'm free from all error by the Christological teachings of the Church and able to be liberated from my sins by her wonderful Sacraments and the other means of God's grace and that --- the Church and the Catholic Faith has the road map to eternal life in Heaven.

The Church's sole purpose is to lead souls to their ultimate Happiness and Good Who is God. I think of the Church as a parent who wants happiness and the good for their child. Much like the Church, they structure rules and guidelines to make this happen.

George Kendall wrote an article about the CC and Freedom in The Wanderer newspaper.  I'll use his ideas and logic.

First about being unfree. People consider themselves unfree when subject to circumstances they can't get what they want. So it's really about the good and one's pursuit of the good.  Kendall says that a situation that restricts you from pursuing your good seems restrictive and one that does not do this, not so. It's a question of whether our rules, our authorities or whatever we deal with structures things for us in a way that helps us get to our destination or prevents us from doing so. To Catholics, the real freedom in life is in the hope of eternal life with God.

Now about restrictions. And here again, we can relate the Church to parents bringing up children. So, of course there are restrictions because the whole point is to keep us on a certain  path and restrict us from going off the path which could lead us away from our destination.

In her effort to keep us on the road to Ultimate Happiness, which is our goal and destination, the Church and Catholicism restricts us from from traveling on other roads which could lead us where we do not want to go, namely Hell.

Q. # 1,  No, only God the First Cause can create life, especially human life. God created man and woman so taht they could effectively partner and cooperate with God in the creation of new offspring. 

Q #2, I have no idea.

Sorry Lula ... let me see if I can catch up ...

I need a break from the Middle East ...