Absolute truth and the falsehood in relativism.
-
Peace all,
Recently the discussion of 'absolute truth' has been prevalent. The discussion suffers from inexactitude in specifying what is being referred to as absolute truth and whether it makes sense in the first place.
The question has been presented in relation to whether the reading is an absolute truth or something other than that. To ask such a question one must first of all accept that absolute truths are possible - and if one accepts that they are then one must accept the consequences of that decision.
Absolute has no degrees; it is a yes or no - on or off principle. So in effect asking whether the reading (koran) is an absolute truth equates to asking whether it is ever false. If it is not ever false then it has the property of being absolute truth.
The problem is when people who do not believe in absolutism at all ie. they are relativists; begin asking questions about things they do not accept in the first place. For the relativist nothing is absolute except perhaps that everything is relative. And yet there is a contradiction there - for how can that statement be absolute if everything is relative?
You either accept the absolute or you do not. There is no middle ground. Yet people are asked to relate to the world and its 'grays' to see that nothing is clear cut.
Let's try some examples of grayness.
In terms of the color grey being in between dark and light; this is a misconception. There either IS light or there is NOT. It's on or its not. The only state you can truly distinguish is absence vs. presence. We thus have a concept of absolute darkness.
An easier example is hot vs cold. Cold is the absence of energy/vibration. There is a point at which no vibration/energy exists known as absolute zero. The examples of light and heat are actually related and analogous; both relate to absence vs. presence of energy.
In our universe nothing can be infinite. Infinite is only conceptual. There exists nothing in the universe that is infinite. And the amount of light or heat is limited to what was present in the first place; there can be no more than what is present at the first moment. So in essence the upper limits of light and heat occur at the first moment in the universe. But this is a digression.
Leaving the upper limits to one side, let's concentrate on the absolute side of things - ie. darkness and zero.
We may see by analogy that truth must be like those absolutes. Let's try a diagram
Absolute Darkness (nothingness in terms of light) || ---->more photons = lightness (no theoretical upper bound)
Absolute Zero (nothingness in terms of motion) ||---->more motion = heat (no theoretical upper bound)
Therefore by analogy....
Absolute Truth (nothingness of falsehood) ||---->more falsehood = falsehood.
So absolute truth is essentially the absolute absence of falsehood. In the diagrams above the world of the absolutist is defined by that dividing line between absence and presence of falsehood.
Once falsehood enters it matters not how much there is - it is false. But the truth is pristine and absent of crookedness and falsehood. The relativist is excluded from the left side of the diagram where the absolute exists. They deal in the relative amounts of falsehood and try to find 'truth' amongst falsehood.
Look at how wonderful the reading defines itself and how in keeping with the essential reality of things it really is...
4142 No falsehood could enter it, in the past or in the future; a revelation from a Most Wise, Praiseworthy.
That is a definition of absolute truth as we have analysed it. Absolute truth is where falsehood cannot enter! Not only that but it defines it in terms of whether it can EVER be different -ie. whether the truth is relative to time - and it is not. Absolute as can be.
Thus when asking the question of whether the reading is an absolute truth - one must examine whether it has falsehood - and if you examine it and cannot find any; then it must be absolute truth by our definition.
Regards.
-
Peace Truth,
interesting post, so basically the definition of 'absolute truth' is basically to mean that in this case the Quran is perpetual and shall remain pure and without falsehood till the day of Judgement.
I agree with that BUT the meaning of the Quran has been distorted and lost over the years like every other Scripture. The Quran is preserved for those who only seek properly and leave all pre-conceived ideas (traditional corruptions). The Quran is a very diverse book and people have used it to control the masses, but today we witness the Quran freeing itself from these false ideas and disowning them (that is what I thought was in the Quran has proven not to be).
It is only pure for the sincere seeker, who has the correct mind-frame. If one reads and seeks for errors then they will see them and this is the barrier between them and us, whereas if one seeks guidance from God and reads then Guidance and clarification will come GW.
Thank you 'truth', glad you defined 'absolute truth'.
Absolute truth = Always true and never false
therefore it's only true to the sincere and not the disbeliever of the book.
Nural
-
peace all,
IMO, the question of absolute truth/relative truth does not lay within the constructs of the Qur'an itself. The Qur'an in and of itself is complete-which is a degree of absoluteness (if that is a word). Relativeness comes into play in relation to the universe. The Qur'an is a relative truth to the universe and the God because
- it does not reveal to us everything unseen and unknown
- it is a compilation of words used to describe an absolute existence.
Truth, I have a question for you. You said
In our universe nothing can be infinite. Infinite is only conceptual. There exists nothing in the universe that is infinite. And the amount of light or heat is limited to what was present in the first place; there can be no more than what is present at the first moment. So in essence the upper limits of light and heat occur at the first moment in the universe. But this is a digression.
Do you regard this statement as absolute truth? relative truth? theory? why?
I ask because you presented this knowledge as if it were an absolute fact.
Personally, I regard any man-made explanations of the universe as theory...an observational truth at the most.
peace,
Salikah D -
Truth, I have a question for you. You said
In our universe nothing can be infinite. Infinite is only conceptual. There exists nothing in the universe that is infinite. And the amount of light or heat is limited to what was present in the first place; there can be no more than what is present at the first moment. So in essence the upper limits of light and heat occur at the first moment in the universe. But this is a digression.
Do you regard this statement as absolute truth? relative truth? theory? why?
I understand what you are saying. The most important statements in that paragraph are the first three sentences. That nothing in the universe is infinite. Infinity is a concept only and cannot be realised.
Here is something for you to contemplate...
If there was no beginning of time and time stretched back without a beginning can it be said that the universe is infinitely old?
Whatever you answer, you must remember that in the next moment there'll be one more unit in the time that has elapsed. So the universe cannot be infinite in age. There is no such thing therefore as infinite in the universe.
If there were an infinite amount of time before this moment, then there would be an infinite number of events that have occurred which is absurd. These are conceptual arguments against 'infinity' existing in our universe which many people don't quite understand.
Regards.
-
- it is a compilation of words used to describe an absolute existence.
That is good. I can see this.
A TRUTH - I say an interpretation of the wordless absolute as opposed to being called FALSE as truth says in his definition...
Regards,
-
Peace all,
Can anyone here present a few examples/scenarios (at least three) to distinguish between "A Truth" and an "Absolute Truth" or perhaps both?
"Rain cannot fall without clouds!". Would this be "A Truth" or an "Absolute Truth" or both?
Thanks.
-
Hi,
Time does not actually exist, only continuous changes of everything.
If you are borne, live and die, you go through certain changes. When you die, it is not the end of time, or end of changes, everything continues to change, indefinitely.The existence of ?something?, that many prefer to call God, is infinite.
If time was something that existed, then God would have a beginning, i.e. from ?no existence? there would be ?existence?.
How? ?Infinite is just an expression that means you can not find a border behind which there is ?no existence?, of that which you call infinite.
There is no old or young actually, there is only different states in which something exists.
We, humans, must have something to relate to, and therefore we use the expression that something/someone is old, but we actually mean old as compared to???..To say that something is infinitely old is not possible because we can not compare infinite to something else, as there are no limits.
We can definitely say that the Universe is infinite, but not in time, as time is non-existent.
We may only observe everything in a certain state of changes, but when we observe it, it is gone. It is in another state of continuous changes.
When we say that something is ?old? it is already ?older?.And that is an ?Absolute Truth. lol
Best regds
Ali Omar
-
Peace Truth,
Thank you for this beautiful analogy and explanation. I've always seen light and absence of light(darkness) as a perfect analogy for understanding "good" vs. "evil", but that's another story for another day.
My only contention with your post is that I feel you've taken liberties with your understanding of "absolute" and applied them universally.
This is not to say that you're understanding is wrong. In fact, it is perfect.
ab?so?lute
Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
Not mixed; pure. See Synonyms at pure.Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional absolute trust.
Unqualified in extent or degree; total absolute silenceBut you have not defined the pretext or a converse of this understanding, particularly, in relation to what you define as relativism.
Further, you've consequently put people in 2 categories those that believe in aboslute truth, and those that believe in relative truth.
This is a misnomer in that one can believe in both relative and absolute truth, even using the same example.For instance "Music soothes the soul." This is relative to me, and absolute to me, but not absolute in relation to the universe, nor in relation to all music, as some music does quite the opposite. Therefore, it is a relative absolute truth, relative to me, and relative to the type of music. This does not make the statement a falsehood, as your explanation suggests.
Peace,
Tay -
-
Peace LoteTree, all,
I am not sure why you keep referring to "scripture" as "a truth", when you don't hold such a view in your statements.
To be more accurate to your views, you should say that you believe "scripture" to contain "some truth", or that it "was the truth".
peace