by BlogSpotThinker
September 7, 2011
(Revised September 19, 2011)
Truth appears to be considered by some to be a concern of philosophy rather than of science. I humbly submit that, for the purpose of currently discussing this topic, I consider the terms “truth” and “accuracy” to be interchangeable. In that context, science appears reasonably considered to be concerned about the accurate representation of or “truth” about phenomena.
Religion appears reasonably considered to be focused on determining truth. However, “truth” here appears reasonably considered to refer to “moral truth”. The portion of science that addresses the physical might be less than focused on such concepts. The term “portion of science” is used here since science appears considered to include the study of all reality. Some of the apparently reported moral philosophers appear also reported to have been physical scientists and to have considered science to incorporate all of reality.
An apparently subtle, yet possibly material distinction appears to be that religion appears not to claim the capability to “establish”, “determine” or “systematically or logically deduce” moral truth. Religion appears to suggest the existence of an entity (God) that establishes those values.
“Facts” and “truth” appear suggested by some to be capable of opposing each other. However, the two appear to be defined such that they cannot oppose each other. A fact appears reasonably defined to be an assertion that is true, or in other words, a “truth”. Perhaps a perspective based upon an incomplete set of facts and/or truth might be untrue but, apparently, facts, by definition, are true.
No comments:
Post a Comment