Truth: Absolute or Relative?

This post was begun as a return rely to a comment I made on John's last post. Since it is so valid to what we discuss here at DC, I felt it would make a discussion for a new thread.

Rev. Phil stated: “I do have one question though, cannot you position your point to any ideology? Science or politics or humanities all make various claims that they have the "truth" for whatever they may be addressing and yet have widely differing and even contra-dictionary views internally?”

Thanks for your question, Rev. Phil.

OK, lets take science. The one of the main reasons I left Christianity for a career in electronics is over the issue of truth. In science, truth is relative on many levels based on our knowledge at the time.

Lets say there is a power supply whose output dropped form 12 VDC to 7 VDC. As a fellow electronic tech, you claim you know it’s in the filtering circuit (lets say the capacitor) while I claim it’s in the regulator circuit (lets say one of the bias resisters on the Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor or MOSFET). We both strongly believe our knowledge as to the power supply’s malfunction is 100% right; that is our truth. In other words, we both have an opinion based of our understanding of electronics which equates truth with knowledge. However, unlike religion / theology, with just a voltmeter (DVM) or and oscilloscope, we can prove truth in a matter of minutes; thus KNOWING who was wrong and who was right.

The same can be said about relative truth in science. For over 60 years vacuum tubes were the absolute truth. That’s how we understood electronics; it was the only way we understood truth and it worked great in our radios, TV’s and early computers. Then, Bipolar Transistors were the “truth” of the day as developed by Bell Labs. Now it’s the Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor that is our truth and they are used in large scale integration as in the computer you are reading this post on.

The same now out dated absolute “truth” is replacing our analog TV technology which is being relatively up dated in February 2009 with Digital High-Definition TV HDDTV); a totally new kind of electronic truth that is also totally incompatible with the old analog TV truth.

As an example, the other day I went to a musical instrument store with my brother who wanted to get an electric guitar. I noticed the guitar room had a number of vacuum tube amps costing over 3 times as much as a MOSFET amp ($3500.00). I commented to the salesman as to why would anyone would want old technology and pay $3500.00 for a tube amp that is fragile (tubes can break and the control elements can warp or shake loose), needs high voltages (tube plates running at 600 VDC and upwards) and tubes are subject to audio phonics (the speaker can shake the vacuum tube elements causing output distortion).

His reply: “No Sir! No Sir! These amps are designed to avoid all of that. Plus you will not get as high a quality of sound from any solid state amp.”

I asked him if I took an audio analyzer (a test equipment that sweeps a pure known range of frequencies into the amp under test’s input and then compares these audio frequencies to the amps output for the total percentage of distortion induced by the amps circuit) and the MOSFET amp’s signal was equal to the vacuum tube amp or better, would that prove my point, sir?

Salesman: “No Sir! All that fancy test equipment can not replace the trained musical ear which knows true fidelity when he hears it.”

Again, I tried to reason with him and asked him if vacuum tube amps were indeed better, why does not NASA used them to tract their space probes.

Salesman: “NASA needs to cut cost plus the U.S. government gets supports the newest fade in electronics and not from the best proven technology."

Then the salesman demanded: “And just what makes you knowledgeable in this area anyway? You don’t play a guitar do you?” I had hit a wall!

With a background in religion, I felt I was arguing theology. Plus, without the means to prove our facts at the time, it was simply what I said vs. what the salesman (in ignorance) said. We were debating the absolute truth (vacuum tubes now, vacuum tubes forever) vs. relative truth of advancing facts / logic.

You want to know something funny; within 50 feet I walked into the keyboard room and asked another salesman there why none of the keyboards used vacuum tube amps?

Keyboard Salesman: “Hu? I don’t know what your are talking about!”

When I told him what the guitar amp salesman said about vacuum tube amps, the keyboard salesman said that THE REASON MUST BE that vacuum tube amps work better ONLY with guitars.

I started to again explain the logic behind modern technological advances as I had just done with the guitar salesman, but I said to myself: “What the Hell! I’m now in the world of religion and theology.”

The above situation is religion in a nut shell. The problem is that Bible believers are the vacuum tube faithful whose truth is an absolute which can never be surpassed since it was the “truth" that was “Once delivered to the saints”.

As such, the Bible is a vacuum tube manual (but with the Old Testament equal to a Spark Gap Generator) where the true Bible believer is just like those guitar pickers who are willing to pay over 3 times as much for out dated technology (truth) and are also willing to argue their pseudo facts as to why it is so much better than anything secular humanity has today. And when the non- believer objects their flawed logic, we are told just as the guitar salesman told me about not being able to have any valid logic on vacuum tube amps since I did not pick a guitar, or as we so often hear her at DC: “Why should anyone listen to anything you say? You are not a Christian believer!”

As the old independent, fundamental, Bible believing, Bible preaching evangelist once told me about the 1611 King James Version of the Bible: “Brother, if it was good enough for Peter and Paul, it's good enough for me!”

22 comments:

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry~ As much as I love to debate you and get you going I can honestly say that I enjoyed this post...Don't get too excited because as a guitar player for over 20 years I CAN hear and feel the difference between the analog and digital process amps...

I have a digital amp and I will never buy and analog amp because of the very problems you mentioned in the article price being the PRIMARY reason, BUT If I am at a place that has a good analog "box" that I don't have to haul and sound check myself I'll play it every time because it gives what we call a "warm feel"...Now that's a real cross categorical association I know, but that's one way to describe it.

The problem you outline is true that many Christians have failed to research additional answers and situations in the study and search for biblical truth...That's why I like this site...You see, these arguments keep and edge on an otherwise predictable bible study...I can listen and in many cases study the opposing viewpoints to my faith and seek deeper and newer evidence to support my beliefs. Without fail, I always gather more and better information and get to a deeper biblical truth...

Some topics deserve a thumb tack. ie: I say let me research that more. Some deserve and updated search for relative information, but I have seen NONE that have caused me to recant or even doubt the bible and my faith.

In life one thing I have learned, everything IS NOT necessarily as it appears. When I see former Christians who are now atheists, I always look beneath the surface and usually there it is...the deconversions usually weren't based on inforamtion found after a deep personal search for truth...the deconversion usually occurs after some personal setback, or lackluster relationship either with Christ or with some Christian or a "Christian idol"...Now I don't want to paint too broad of a brush but that's what I hear and I've consistently heard on this site.

All the textual criticism that I have seen to date has been no more than bible study material and after researching I have found that most questions posed today and even through this site have been answered quite handily over time.

So I wonder, does solid-state really do "better" than analog? If I can get the same and even more favorable results at the end of the day with analog, and it's there (readily available to me), all solid state can really do is give me braggin' rights to the most new techno-funk machinery but that's a dime a dozen, cheap and easy to trade...Analog is still more valuable, certainly more expensive and obviously more endearing to the truely trained ear...

This reminds me of a little biblical saying..."He that hath ears let him hear..."


Later Harry...I'll be more confrontational next time-(LOL)

Seeker said...

Harry;

As a longtime guitar player and tube aficionado, the reason for the desire for tube amps is a desire for a particular sound. Tube amplifiers react differently to your playing dynamics, and the particular tubes being used add a coloration to the sound that we find pleasing. The fault of most transistor amps is that they're too perfect. They reproduce the sound too cleanly. We like the glassy coloration and natural compression and dynamics of tubes.

Don't know how this affects your example, but that's my .02

stevec said...

"I asked him if I took an audio analyzer (a test equipment that sweeps a pure known range of frequencies into the amp under test’s input and then compares these audio frequencies to the amps output for the total percentage of distortion induced by the amps circuit) and the MOSFET amp’s signal was equal to the vacuum tube amp or better, would that prove my point, sir?"

Are you talking about comparing the input of the amp to the output, and counting any deviation from simple gain as a fault, and counting the amp that does this job best as the better amp?

If so, then you don't know the first thing about guitar amplifiers. Have you ever heard the sound of an electric guitar run through a clean hi-fi amp? It sounds pretty much nothing like any electric guitar you're apt to hear from any musician.

Here's the thing. Guitar amps are MEANT to distort the signal. The distortion is DESIRABLE. And not just any old distortion, either. Tube guitar amps distort differently from transistor amps. Most transistor based guitar amps these days are designed to compensate for the "natural" saturation characteristics of transistors to make them sound more like the natural distortion which is characteristic of vacuum tubes -- or, the transistor amp is done away with and the vacuum tube is digiatlly simuulated by an embedded computer, and that simulated signal is run through a D/A converter and then through a (usually) transistor based hi-fi amp.

I think you just don't understand the job of a guitar amp. It is not only to amplify. An electric guitar by itself is only half an instrument. The amp is the other half, and it contributes a lot more to the sound than just amplification -- distortion -- a very specific type of distortion -- is one of the main things it contributes.

Guitar speakers are nothing like hi-fi speakers.

Try plugging an mp3 player into a guitar amp, and see what sound comes out. It will be horribly mangled by the guitar amp. Mangling a guitar signal in the same way though turns out fantastically.

You've chosen a bad analogy, I'm afraid.

I will grant you that modern transidtor amps do a very good job of emulating the tube amps these days though, esp. some of the digital modeling amps (I like the Vox ones -- the Line6 guys don't appear to have a clue what a guitar amp is supposed to sound like though.)

Edwardtbabinski said...

Harry's right, maybe not about why guitarists choose amps. But he's right about Christian history.

Both conservative Christian seminary professors and entire seminaries founded by conservatives have grown more moderate and liberal over time, more questioning of their beliefs. The process appears to be universal and takes about 200 years or less.

The seminary Calvin founded was 200 years later being run by a president who was fond of many deistic ideas, and Voltaire himself had a home on Lake Geneva by that time.

Harvard was founded as a conservative Christian seminary. Then Yale was founded due to the "theological excesses" of Harvard. Now look at Yale.

Princeton was the seminary of B. B. Warfield a father of inerrancy, then Princeton grew "modernistic" and Machen left Princeton to found Westminster. But Westminster has recently given rise to such "moderates" as Paul Seely and Peter Enns, the latter just having been suspended due to his view that the Bible contains errors just as the "human side" of Jesus could err, as argued in his book, Inspiration and Incarnation. Most interesting is that the majority of the faculty at Westminster voted NOT to suspend Enns, and it was rather the administration of that seminary that voted to suspend him.

Edwardtbabinski said...

ALSO the way CHRISTIANS BULLY ONE ANOTHER WITH UNCOMPROMISING DOCTRINES AND DOGMAS is far more pervasive and worse than mere EXPULSION, for in their case it's EXCOMMUNICATION.

Religious Organizations Allowed by Law to Discriminate on Basis of Religion

Christian institutions of higher learning continue to fire (or not rehire) professors for teaching evolution, and/or for disagreeing with ANY of the beliefs of the religion of the institution at which they work.

For instance Bob Jones fires any employees who are caught attending a church that features "contemporary Christian music," and it's perfectly legal.

The California Supreme Court, unanimously decided, "We can discern no fundamental public policy that places limits on a RELIGIOUS employer's right to control such speech," i.e., in the case of a recently converted Evangelical who couldn't stop speaking about "God" to everyone on the job at a Catholic Healthcare West Medical Foundation. The employee was fired, and the institution, being a religious institution, has the legal right backed up by the Calif. Supreme Court to fire that employee.

Wheaton College, an Evangelical institution, fired a professor recently who converted to Catholicism. They also let go a Christian biology professor who would not compromise and attempt to incorporate Genesis into his biology class. He viewed Genesis as a religious myth, and could find no point of accommodation between the Genesis story and the history of life on earth.

Another recent case is that of Prof. Richard Colling, a long time biology professor at Olivet Nazarene University, and author of the book, Random Designer:
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/09/when-acceptance-of-biological-evolution.html

See also an earlier case:

Documents Related to the Evolution Trial of Dr. Terry M. Gray in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC):
http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/


And these cases:

Would your Church allow you to Publicly Support Evolution?

http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/03/would-your-church-allow-you-to-publicly.html

I also have a personal email from someone in a geology dept. of a large Christian university (whose church's denominational view is young-earth creationist) who says every geologist he works with in that department is an old-earther and pro-evolutionist but none of them can come out of the closet for fear of losing their jobs and creating immense controversy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following two paragraphs are from Christianity Today's website:


"The ordeals of … professors at the more than 100 evangelical Protestant institutions in the United States that require such faith statements—orally or in writing—have spurred charges that they violate academic freedom," writes Beth McMurtrie. "Do they, in fact, defy the academic ideal of open intellectual inquiry? Are the statements—some of them generic—subject to such broad interpretation that they can be used to punish whatever teaching or lifestyle choices administrators may dislike?"



The occasion for the article is Patrick Henry College's denial of accreditation because it requires all teachers to believe and teach seven-day creationism. But McMurtrie's article touches on just about every major conflict over Christian college faith statements in the last five years. There's Wheaton College's dismissal of anthropology professor Alex Bolyanatz; Seattle Pacific University's rescinding an offer to English professor Scott Cairns; Earl Ross Genzel's forced resignation from Messiah College; and successful battles by Greg Boyd at Bethel College and Howard J. Van Till at Calvin. This is an article that goes beyond generalizations and actually names names.



Below is a link to the original article in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

Do Professors Lose Academic Freedom by Signing Statements of Faith? Critics say the oaths at some religious colleges are intellectually confining
By BETH McMURTRIE
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i37/37a01201.htm

Ty said...

Stevec, Hey way to miss the point entirely, good job.

Harvey,

I partially argue with you that many deconversions follow or start with personal tragedies, rather than precipitating from a quest for truth. However, I have read a number of testimonies on hear that I do consider a heartfelt quest for truth. It may not be as intellectual as you'd like, but I do believe them to be sincere.

My own deconversion started not because of an intellectual quest, but because I couldn't understand why God did answer my prayers. Jesus made such wonderful promises about the faith of a mustard seed, yet I hadn't enough faith to receive the slightest healing. When I was young, I was especially egocentric and assumed that God did give others the mustard seed faith. As an adult, I realized that God had not singled me out or shunned me as I once supposed. The truth was that I have never met a single person with the faith of a mustard seed that Jesus talked about.

Has God given you the faith of a mustard seed, Harvey? If he has, use that faith to bring us to repentance. You could command all the trees in our front yards to die, just like Jesus did to the fig tree.

I prayed for faith as best as I knew how. My deconversion process was incredibly slow. I didn't read any anti-Christian literature until I stopped believing this past year. However, I was a Christian for 22 years, and went to Bible College and Seminary. The doubts came from my Assemblies of God education. The more I learned, the more I doubted. I somewhat believe that had I been educated in a secular field, like computer science, that I would still be a believer. Which has given me insight into why the Mormons don't have seminary or formal theological training.

Anonymous said...

I deal with this topic a bit differently. I disagree that relative truth exists at all. I prefer to call it falsely perceived truth.

If I think a false statement is true, then I am wrong. My perception might convince me of being right, but that doesn't make truth relative. It is my perception which is relative. The truth on the issue might not be known to me, now or ever. Maybe no one ever finds it.

I think truth comes on only one type - absolute. I want what I perceive as being true to align closely to what really is true. The fact is that I might not achieve this for anything.

Unknown said...

Relative and objective truth may or may not apply to various subjects.

If i say that Napolean was a brutal dictator and hence bad, i am right. If some else says that Napolean was an excellent military leader and unifier of a shattered france, and hence good, he is also right.

History in particular involves judgement calls and relative acceptance of truth. Science on the other hand does not (barring Quantum science silliness).

When the bible makes claims historically these should be viewed as relative if they make judgement calls and objective if they don't.

For instance, Jesus was a kind and good man. Thats a judgement call. The romans and Jewish rabbis most likely would disagree, but the downtrodden jewish peasant might not. Relative truths.
However, on the event of Jesus' death, zombies lept up from their graves and wandered around Jerusalem (i'm paraphrasing a bit yes), well either that happened or it didn't. My guess is it didn't. If zombies had walked the streets greeting their relatives, you think someone other than the bible writers might have mentioned it. Objective truth.

As atheists with an interest in debunking the bible, i think we are on much safer ground debunking the objective truths of the bible, e.g. whether or not events happen. Than trying to call into question the decency of figures like Christ, John the Baptist, etc which are very much relative.

For instance, Fred Phelps and i could agree on all the particulars of a biblical statement, but reach totally different conclusions.
Phelps might say "God hates gays and there fore so should I and thats all fine and dandy"
Whereas i would say
"God clearly isn't fond of gays tends to murder them enmass or at least encourage that. That makes him wrong. Also Fred, you are a dick."

We both have our relative truth there but its different.

As for Harvey asserting that christians usually leave the faith for emotional reasons. And? Do you honestly expect me to believe that people carefully study the bible and the counter arguements and come to the decision to become christians? Of course not. Christianity is a purely emotional topic, once that emotion leaves, so does the christian.

ismellarat said...

I'm with JS Brown. I'm baffled as to why there's ever any talk about "my truth" vs. "your truth." I've had this said to me too many times as a copout "defense" to losing a debate. New Agers love it, for example.

Doesn't this just muddy up the concept, when we could just as easily be using the word "belief", with no ambiguities at all?

Maybe there's an advantage that I'm blind to, but if truth is seen as being subjective in any way, it encourages so many idiots to feel secure in doubting the obvious, or in feeling they know what they can't prove.

"Their truth" may tell them that the earth is flat, you must be killed for Allah, etc.

And isn't it just the coolest thing, that once you "know" something, you no longer need to waste time thinking about it? I guess too many of you are trying to come by truth the hard way. :)

Don't encourage these people with fuzzy definitions!

Harry H. McCall said...

Thanks for the comments Harvey. However some points need clarification. Analogue and digital are simply electronic formats that can be run on either tubes are solid state (from the fact that they are form from p and n junction field effect without a vacuum open space or gas inside) or (MOSFET) circuitry. It simple takes many more active components to handle digital than would be practical with vacuum tubes. Remember, the first IBM computer was a monster and drew thousand of watts of power. I remember back in the late 70’s that Christians studying the End Times Bible Prophesy claim the “Beast of Revelation” was a huge compute already running in Europe. If this computer was vacuum tube, it truly was a “Beast”!

Anyway, I think you confused these electronic formats by thinking tubes are analogue while solid state (MOSFET’s) are digital. While it is true today that tube amps process the sound “AA” or analogue in / analogue out; solid state can run either analogue or digital. However, all final circuits must convert all digital formats to analogue as this is how the speaker and human eardrum are driven.

If you have used a cell phone for any time, remember the first cell phones used an analogue signal…you could listen to a conversation on a 800 - 900 Mhz scanner. The new phones use a digital format and a scanner hears nothing but white noise / static.

This same digital format is used with XM Radio, Sirius Radio, Direct TV and the new High Def. FM.

Now we could discuss the value of biasing the finals output of and amp “Class A”; “Class B”; or “Class C “, but in short most are biased “Class AB” while cell phones are biased “Class BC” to save battery life.

You sated: “Later Harry...I'll be more confrontational next time-(LOL)” Well, my post to night on child sacrifice should get your blood boiling!

Shalom:
Harry

Seeker:

Thanks for the “.02” cents.

If the “coloration” to the analogue signal is a from of pleasing distortion, then I agree; tubes amps have there place, but there is no wave from format that can not be synthesized by a microprocessor.

Stevec:

You just proved my point about true hardcore vacuum tube believers!

You stated: “Are you talking about comparing the input of the amp to the output, and counting any deviation from simple gain as a fault, and counting the amp that does this job best as the better amp?

If so, then you don't know the first thing about guitar amplifiers. Have you ever heard the sound of an electric guitar run through a clean hi-fi amp? It sounds pretty much nothing like any electric guitar you're apt to hear from any musician”

My point as stated in my post on audio distortion stands and you are the one who missed the point!

Stevec, do you know what an Agilent (formally Hewlett-Packard) model 8903B Audio analyzer is about? My point is proven in you reply as any modification of the input signal is distortion or, doctrinally put, perverted truth.

So, pure Biblical doctrine / wave form once run though the distorting tube circuits / heresy is not absolute truth, but simply made relative for guitar players subjective ears! It is distortion! My HP 8903B says you just corrupted pure truth / the test wave signal and called it normal.

So, Stevec, just what Class is a tube guitar amp biased at?

I can drive any wave into distortion by over driving the input or by clipping it in a Class C circuit. Heavy Metal Rockers do this very well for special effects.

Your apologetic defense of guitar amps is one that does not have the math to back it up since no two tube amp will distort the same. I would say that all you have proven here is the procebo affect in that it’s simply a belief in the head of the guitar player.

Harry McCall C.E.T. (Certified Electronic Technician)

Ed: Great points!

As you can see from Stevec comment, the vacuum tube believers are alive and well and, as the old cigarette commercial goes; they would rather fight than switch!

I strongly believers in out dated technology and religion have much in common, a belief in unfound dogma. But, hey, if you think only a tube amp adds meaning to your guitar music than, you have as much right to you superstition as a religious believer does.
After all, what do I know, I’m just a modern technological non-guitar playing tube amp atheist!

If major electronic manufactures had the religious mind set of the schools you name and fired any engineer for promoting solid state (MOSFET) technology, our energy demand would be as high as God himself and your laptop computer would be the sized of a large house!

Thranil said...

"When I see former Christians who are now atheists, I always look beneath the surface and usually there it is...the deconversions usually weren't based on inforamtion found after a deep personal search for truth...the deconversion usually occurs after some personal setback, or lackluster relationship either with Christ or with some Christian or a "Christian idol""

Well for me this is an oversimplification. I was opened up to taking a second look at my beliefs after an emotional setback, but I didn't leave christianity until another 8 years later. It wasn't until I started studying the bible (not just what it said, but who wrote it, what information do we have about how it was written/formed, compare contrast with other writings from the time, etc) that I started to really doubt my beliefs about jesus and god. Atheism didn't follow directly from being unable to maintain belief in of the bible, so I started looking around at other religions... of course what I found there was more mythology, and so I eventually had to conclude that all the religions I have had access to thus far were clearly constructs of man. It was sites like DC (although I found DC after I deconverted) where I was able to start making sense of the beliefs that I was taught as a christian and understand just how unsound they are when logic is applied to them. What this helped me do was to let go of the emotional attachment to these ideas. Of course as a christian I accepted the apologetic answers to most quandries (much like you appear to do) without a second tought... now I'm much more critical of any argument I see (on both sides). Anyway, eventually after much study (I spent a good 6 months obsessed over this... annoyed my wife, that's for sure ;) ), I found that I could no longer sustain a belief in any supreme being as I had nothing to backup such a belief.

But at the end of the day, as Matt D. from Atheist Experience has said (paraphrased): You and I just have a different standard for how we decide what is true or not. I determine what is believable by using logic, reason, and science. You don't.

goprairie said...

most atheists I know came at it slowly over time as one by one of the peices of the story just couldn't hold up. and several never really believed to begin with but played along because it was the only way to fit into society. when the discovered another atheist or that whole groups were out here, via online discussions like these, they breathed a huge sigh of relief and admitted it. i do not personally know any atheists who got there by crisis. i think that is a myth that christians spread because it makes it look like our faith was not strong enough in some crisis. that makes it into our failing, not the failing of their illogical irrational myth system. sorry, i don't buy it. it was little things failing to match reality that did it for me and the real people i know who are atheists.

Rotten Arsenal said...

I'd have to disagree with the "Crisis Deconvert" as well. It might be the final straw for somebody who already doubted or perhaps it made that initial chink in the armor that allowed initial doubt to creep in, but at best, an unhappy result due to crisis isn't going to make a believer become a non-believer just like that. Walking away from religion is typically a process that requires steps. The person makes a realization that something doesn't add up and then looks a little further beneath the surface. If you can just switch your belief on and off like a lightbulb, you probably never believed anyway.

For myself, I never remember truly buying in. I can remember being a kid and following along because that's what the authority figures in my life told me was true and I lacked the mental training and world knowledge that allowed me to question it. I know I never felt comfortable in church and never felt like "Jesus was in my heart". As I got older, the whole thing seemed more ludicrous and as I started realizing that for one person to be right about religion, a whole lot of other people had to be wrong, and NONE of them could claim any proof that they were right. Eventually, while reading Douglas Adams' "Salmon of Doubt" (2002), I came to the realization that I was an atheist and finally admitted it to myself and started admitting it to others. It was a 27 year journey of stepping out of the room of delusion.

Harry H. McCall said...

Well put Rotten Arsenal. You are more honest in your statemant and feelings than most Christians.

DingoDave said...

The message that I take from this little tale, is that Christians, and the Christian message, are a lot like an electric guitar player and his tube amp.

Christians don't mind that the information coming through is all mangled and distorted.
They don't mind the fact that the product uses old technology, and that it and requires far more energy to operate than modern technology does.
They don't mind that the product is fragile, and is susceptible to breakdowns and expensive repair bills.
In fact most of them prefer things that way, and are willing to pay way over the odds to get it.

So, I disagre with those who say that it's not a good analogy. I think that it's brilliant.

Anonymous said...

J.S.Brown: "I disagree that relative truth exists at all...
I think truth comes on only one type - absolute."

Oli: "History in particular involves judgement calls and relative acceptance of truth. Science on the other hand does not (barring Quantum science silliness)....As atheists with an interest in debunking the bible, i think we are on much safer ground debunking the objective truths of the bible, e.g. whether or not events happen."

Ismellarat: "...but if truth is seen as being subjective in any way, it encourages so many idiots to feel secure in doubting the obvious, or in feeling they know what they can't prove."

Holy Hierophants! You guys are getting to be as bad as the christians!

Ok, first off, J.S. - If our perceptions are relative and the only way we can experience the truth is through our perceptions then doesn't that make relative truths (truths relative to our perceptions) the only knowable truths we can experience? How can you experience objective truth without first passing it through the subjective filter or your perpective?

So, Oli, quantum science is silly, huh? Well I guess you wouldn't mind christians dismissing other branches of science (like biology, genetics or paleontology) as just being silly? Do you have any empirical evidence that shows that quantum science and all of its implications should be ignorred or is this a faith based assertion?

Oh, and I disagree that debunking objective truths is the best way to approach christianity. It is far to easy for them to fold their arms and say "Were you there? Did you see it yourself?" Because ultimately you are not talking about an objective truth you are talking about the probability of an unlikely event. You can say ancient jewish zombies are an absurd idea you can't say you know for a fact that they never actually existed.

In my opinion, "relative" arguments (the problem of evil, the injustice of damnation, the immorality of the exodus etc.) tend to give christians much more trouble while just saying "it just didn't happen" is preaching to the choir.

And Ismellarat, you've really got it all figured out, don't you? Not like those idiots who want to believe what they can't prove.

So you won't have any trouble proving that absolute truth is knowable.

Now, I'm not questioning whether or not truth actually exists, I'm questioning whether or not you can know absolute independently of your subjective perspective of it. In other words, how can you differenciate between what you think is true (your relative perspective) from what is actually true (absolute objective fact).

Doesn't sound too hard, does it? All you have to do is to verify what you assume is true to be true. Without relying in any way on any of your senses or your accumulated memories (all of which would color, distort or otherwise contaminate your results). What, you don't like this rule - you think you are immune to mind tricks, delusions and cognitive dissonance. Sorry.

This, by the way, is what most "New Agers" mean when they are talking about "your truth" as apposed to "their truth". Its not the objective truth that they are talking about but each person's unique perspective of it. You see things your way and they see things their's.

Well, you have any proof yet? I doubt it - unless you are willing to believe in ESP, out of body experiences or the existance of omniscient beings.

So if you can't prove that absolute truth is knowable doesn't that make your beliefs about what is and what isn't true subjective?

To say that objective, absolute truth is knowable is a faith based assertion! Its what leads to discrimination, hate crimes and holy wars. Because sooner or later someone is going to get it into his or her head that they are the one who knows what the absolute truth is.

Unknown said...

Tigg13..

You've grasped the wrong end of the stick. Quantum science IS silly. That doesn't mean it is wrong. Indeed, the counter-intuitive nature of Quantum physics is its defining mark. I'm a full believer in the things we do know about quantum science. I'm also deeply aware of how, as soon as you begin to talk about it, you lose the frames of reference that most people understand. Multiple dimensions (beyond 4), quantum uncertainty, etc are concepts that at face value are ridiculous. But they DO stand up under tests (or theory in the case of string theory) and hence, until disproved, should be believed.

As for arguing objective truths. The point isn't to say that jewish zombies can't have existed. The point is to make the more aggressive christian apologists (whether trained professionals like William Lane Craig or hacks like Way of the Master) try and defend these ridiculous claims that normal christians don't normally think about.

When an apologist defends the right wing churches hatred of gays using leviticus, its easy to point to other absurdities in
Leviticus that they ignore. Such as the rules against shaving off your beard, or wearing clothes made of two types of material (cotton and polyester shirts anyone?). It puts them from offense to defense and forces them to justify why they choose to follow one part of the bible as if its the word of god, and ignore another part a few lines down as just some silly old suggestion.

The jewish zombies is a case in point. If someone preaches the truth of christ and gets around to the death on the cross, one can call into doubt that account by asking them if the zombie bit happened too. As soon as they admit that they ignore the bits of the bible that don't make sense, they are admitting that they are not taking it as the word of god. And if the bible isn't the word of god, then what is it? If bits of it can be wrong, how do they judge which bits are right and which are wrong.
The problem is that most christians do not think about these issues. Most don't even know about these issues. Bringing these absurities into the light and saying "Ok, did this actually happen?" can be a great way to get people to really think about their religion.

Rotten Arsenal said...

oli:

Your last two paragraphs sum up my thoughts perfectly. Bravo!

Logismous Kathairountes said...

I'm siding with J.S. Brown on this one:

If what you believe matches up to reality, then you know the truth. It's that simple.

If you believe that truth is relative, you have to also believe that reality is relative. If I have one reality and you have another reality, then and only then can my truth be different from your truth.

So:

Two people can't disagree about something real and yet both know the truth - because only one of their beliefs matches up to reality, as long as there's only one reality to be known.

Anybody who believes that either vacuum tubes or transistors represent the best way to build a computer is probably wrong - But depending on whether a better technology is one day invented, they either know the truth or they don't know the truth.

And even if the truth can never be known, that doesn't make it not the truth.

And that's all there is to it.

Anonymous said...

Logismous Kathairountes said, "If what you believe matches up to reality, then you know the truth. It's that simple."

But how can you be sure whether or not it matches up to reality if the processes you would use to test your belief are the same processes that led to the belief in the first place?

LK: "If you believe that truth is relative, you have to also believe that reality is relative. If I have one reality and you have another reality, then and only then can my truth be different from your truth."

If I see a man wearing a blue hat and you see the same man but to you his hat looks red does that mean we are existing in two different realities or are we looking at a man with a hat that's red on one side and blue on the other. One reality, two truths, both relative.

LK: "Two people can't disagree about something real and yet both know the truth - because only one of their beliefs matches up to reality, as long as there's only one reality to be known."

Yes. But what if neither of them is correct? Again, I'm not saying that truth or reality don't exist. I'm saying that absolute truth is not knowable - by anyone.

LK: "Anybody who believes that either vacuum tubes or transistors represent the best way to build a computer is probably wrong - But depending on whether a better technology is one day invented, they either know the truth or they don't know the truth."

But even if they "know the truth" they won't know that they "know the truth". All they can do is believe that they know the truth - a truth that is relative and subjective from their point of view.

LK: "And even if the truth can never be known, that doesn't make it not the truth."

It can't ever be known because its not knowable.


Hi Oli! I'm sorry that I jumped to the wrong conclusions about your opinion of quantum physics.

I also see where your coming from as far as the whole jewish zombie thing goes. Its still not my cup of tea but if it works for you then that's all that matters.

Harry H. McCall said...

Logismous Kathairountes Stated: “If you believe that truth is relative, you have to also believe that reality is relative. If I have one reality and you have another reality, then and only then can my truth be different from your truth.”

RE: Truth and our perceived reality MUST be relative since, just as the the disclaimer on a product warranty reads, they are both: “Subject to change without notice.”

George Washington was bled to remove the bad blood which the current medical “truth” of the day claimed was making Washington sick, but the process was in fact killing the poor man.

Old many women in Europe where hunted down and killed by the thousands for being a witch. Why? Because the Bible says witches are an absolute truth of reality (You shall not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:18).

In fact, based on the absolute truth Christians claim the Bible holds, the medieval Catholic Church even created a list of question to determine if a person was a witch at an inquisition trial.

The only absoutl truth is that truth itself will remain a more absolute fact for the uneducated than for the educated.

Unknown said...

I contend that you all never were Christians. Now THAT is the absolute truth! Duh.