What is the truth?
Is there such a thing?
Is truth self-evident?
These are questions that have been with us since there have been questions to ask. Does truth truly exist and what form does it take?
Truth is subjective, yet objective at the same time. My truth may differ from your truth - in cosmetic ways, but at the end of the day, everything is truth. What does this mean? It means, even that which seems wrong is truth in it's truest essence, because nothing can exist apart from truth.
Truth is God, truth is within everything that exists and without existence itself. There is truth and simultaneously, there is not. Because the very bounds of existence itself cannot apply. The bounds of non-existence too do not apply.
Truth is self-evident - how can it be otherwise? It cannot be explained, it is inexplicable, thus the only way to recognize it is through knowing. This means, truth can only be self-evident. When it is known, it is obvious, it is understood completely. When it is unknown, it is unrecognizable, it lies dormant, waiting for you to look and find it.
Truth is.
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Science
Recently I've heard some say that they do not believe in God and that they are atheist. Often times, it is because this school of thought resonates with those who wish to follow the principles of science instead of faith. There are also several surveys that have found a majority of intellectuals, university professors, etc... profess to having no faith.
I find this to be quite interesting.
To my flawed and limited knowledge, science as we know it today is based on the scientific method, which relies on repeated observations of phenomena in controlled circumstances to infer as to the cause of said phenomena. Science is built upon the null hypothesis, that is disproving things. It is far easier to disprove anything than to actually prove it. This means that by it's very nature science is not about proving any singular truth. Rather, science and experimentation tell us what cannot be true, and we are left to infer from all of the remaining possibilities what is most likely to be "true," (or at least less likely to be disproved).
Science, by it's nature recognizes that what is seen as fact today will not be so in the future (with the possible exception of some fundamental basics, but even these are only possible exceptions). What seemed impossible decades ago is fact today, what seems erroneous today, may prove to be relevant tomorrow.
This means that a true scientist, and a truly honest intellectual cannot be fixated on any one truth. Whatever that may be. There is no one truth in science, there are only a limitless number of non-truths, which when removed from the equation bring us to a closer approximation of reality.
With this being the case, how can any honest intellectual ever truly discard the possibility of God?
Maybe God does not exist in the manner commonly referred to in traditional forms, maybe the Creator is not found in man-shape atop a cloudy heaven with hosts of angelic beings around Him. This however, does not discount the possibility of there being a creator.
If scientific endeavors have taught me anything, it is that we cannot discard anything that has not been disproved conclusively through rigorous testing. The existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven or unproven through the methods known to science today. As a result, this question cannot be conclusively answered.
However, stating that one is an atheist is stating something that cannot be proven is false in one's own mind. This would be okay, if this perception was kept to an individual level, but oftentimes it is not, with those practicing religious traditions being the subjects of ridicule.
It is okay to believe in God, it is okay to not believe in God. No one can make you believe or disbelieve, but try not to discard the possibility. It is quite unscientific to do so.
I find this to be quite interesting.
To my flawed and limited knowledge, science as we know it today is based on the scientific method, which relies on repeated observations of phenomena in controlled circumstances to infer as to the cause of said phenomena. Science is built upon the null hypothesis, that is disproving things. It is far easier to disprove anything than to actually prove it. This means that by it's very nature science is not about proving any singular truth. Rather, science and experimentation tell us what cannot be true, and we are left to infer from all of the remaining possibilities what is most likely to be "true," (or at least less likely to be disproved).
Science, by it's nature recognizes that what is seen as fact today will not be so in the future (with the possible exception of some fundamental basics, but even these are only possible exceptions). What seemed impossible decades ago is fact today, what seems erroneous today, may prove to be relevant tomorrow.
This means that a true scientist, and a truly honest intellectual cannot be fixated on any one truth. Whatever that may be. There is no one truth in science, there are only a limitless number of non-truths, which when removed from the equation bring us to a closer approximation of reality.
With this being the case, how can any honest intellectual ever truly discard the possibility of God?
Maybe God does not exist in the manner commonly referred to in traditional forms, maybe the Creator is not found in man-shape atop a cloudy heaven with hosts of angelic beings around Him. This however, does not discount the possibility of there being a creator.
If scientific endeavors have taught me anything, it is that we cannot discard anything that has not been disproved conclusively through rigorous testing. The existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven or unproven through the methods known to science today. As a result, this question cannot be conclusively answered.
However, stating that one is an atheist is stating something that cannot be proven is false in one's own mind. This would be okay, if this perception was kept to an individual level, but oftentimes it is not, with those practicing religious traditions being the subjects of ridicule.
It is okay to believe in God, it is okay to not believe in God. No one can make you believe or disbelieve, but try not to discard the possibility. It is quite unscientific to do so.
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Justice
We all desire justice.
It is a fundamental human desire to see fairness in our world, however subjective that "fairness" may be. It can even be argued that justice is a desire found throughout the animal kingdom (as can be seen in the famous capuchin monkey experiment - if you haven't seen it, Youtube it). This desire for justice though is a very curious thing in it's subjectivity. We are completely okay with an imbalance that works in our favour - we justify it by saying we, "deserve this," or, "it is the way it has to be," or even, "thank goodness that wasn't me."
Evolutionarily it makes sense. We don't want others to have an advantage over us. That advantage could manifest itself into a slight edge for survival. The curious thing is that we still insist on calling it a sense of "justice."
Justice needs fairness in an equal manner. It needs objectivity. This is especially salient when we look at today's world and our short attention spans.
We have millions of displaced people in Syria. These people are suffering in conditions that are terrible and are being forced to migrate away from their ancestral homes in a struggle to survive and better their lives (something that they deserve as human beings). We forget about all of these displaced people the moment there is a chemical weapons attack and a military offensive by the US against Syria.
Then, we forget about the chemical weapons attack and the retaliatory measures the moment a doctor gets dragged off a United Airlines flight. Why does this happen? Because we can easily relate to that doctor, that could have been me! Can I picture myself and my family as refugees?
I saw this happen in my own life over the past week. I am ashamed to say, that I had forgotten about those suffering in Syria. My attention focused on chemical weapons and why this attack mattered. Then, the new obsession of the week became United Airlines and how they mistreat their customers.
We want justice, but do we really understand what it is?
Justice is not forgetting South Sudan. Justice is not forgetting the Central African Republic, North Korea, Syria, Iraq. Justice is hard. It is easy to move one's attention from one "flavour of the week" to the next, but it is exceptionally hard to truly desire justice.
Because fairness for all isn't just about you and I. It's about looking out for everyone, realizing we're all equal in the eyes of God. Even if it is just a prayer, send some love the way of those who really need it in the world.
Life isn't fair, but we can at least try to make it a bit more just.
It is a fundamental human desire to see fairness in our world, however subjective that "fairness" may be. It can even be argued that justice is a desire found throughout the animal kingdom (as can be seen in the famous capuchin monkey experiment - if you haven't seen it, Youtube it). This desire for justice though is a very curious thing in it's subjectivity. We are completely okay with an imbalance that works in our favour - we justify it by saying we, "deserve this," or, "it is the way it has to be," or even, "thank goodness that wasn't me."
Evolutionarily it makes sense. We don't want others to have an advantage over us. That advantage could manifest itself into a slight edge for survival. The curious thing is that we still insist on calling it a sense of "justice."
Justice needs fairness in an equal manner. It needs objectivity. This is especially salient when we look at today's world and our short attention spans.
We have millions of displaced people in Syria. These people are suffering in conditions that are terrible and are being forced to migrate away from their ancestral homes in a struggle to survive and better their lives (something that they deserve as human beings). We forget about all of these displaced people the moment there is a chemical weapons attack and a military offensive by the US against Syria.
Then, we forget about the chemical weapons attack and the retaliatory measures the moment a doctor gets dragged off a United Airlines flight. Why does this happen? Because we can easily relate to that doctor, that could have been me! Can I picture myself and my family as refugees?
I saw this happen in my own life over the past week. I am ashamed to say, that I had forgotten about those suffering in Syria. My attention focused on chemical weapons and why this attack mattered. Then, the new obsession of the week became United Airlines and how they mistreat their customers.
We want justice, but do we really understand what it is?
Justice is not forgetting South Sudan. Justice is not forgetting the Central African Republic, North Korea, Syria, Iraq. Justice is hard. It is easy to move one's attention from one "flavour of the week" to the next, but it is exceptionally hard to truly desire justice.
Because fairness for all isn't just about you and I. It's about looking out for everyone, realizing we're all equal in the eyes of God. Even if it is just a prayer, send some love the way of those who really need it in the world.
Life isn't fair, but we can at least try to make it a bit more just.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Perception vs. Reality
In the book Sophie's World, the protagonist wears a pair of rose-tinted glasses through which she sees the world for a short time. When she wears these glasses, her perspective changes subtly. How she sees the world is different. The book uses this device to explore the concept of perception vs. reality.
Does perception influence reality or is reality an immutable concept? This seems to be a strange question to ask. How does my perception of anything change that thing?
This however leads us to another question... Does perception imbue the perceived with anything?
It can be argued that without being perceived, something cannot exist. At least in a physical sense. If I cannot sense or measure something, how do I know it exists? It is an argument applied for and against the existence of a higher power. If I don't know it exists, does it exist? Or how can you refute it's existence if it is something you cannot perceive (ergo, it's existence is irrefutable using empirical methods or sensory perceptions)?
So, what does perception bring? When we perceive an aspect of something are we seeing something that objectively exists in what is being observed, or is all perception marred by subjectivity? If I note that snow is white, does that mean that the colour of the snow is a truly ingrained characteristic of snow or does that mean that my perception of snow includes my perception of the colour of the snow?
It really makes one think about the reality of matter itself. If seeing the world through rose-tinted glasses affects my perceptions of the world, but does not affect the characteristics of the objects being perceived, then how many layers of glasses do we wear on a daily basis? How many layers of false perception separate us from the truth inherent in everything?
The key question here though is, what is that truth? What lies within any object at its core essence when we strip away all of our false perceptions? Is that true essence the same within all things or does it differ?
When we perceive anything, we make it ours. That which is imperceptible lies beyond our ability to control. I feel our ability to perceive something limits it. Perhaps that is why God is often times called He who is seen and unseen.
I guess the trick lies in opening our eyes.
Does perception influence reality or is reality an immutable concept? This seems to be a strange question to ask. How does my perception of anything change that thing?
This however leads us to another question... Does perception imbue the perceived with anything?
It can be argued that without being perceived, something cannot exist. At least in a physical sense. If I cannot sense or measure something, how do I know it exists? It is an argument applied for and against the existence of a higher power. If I don't know it exists, does it exist? Or how can you refute it's existence if it is something you cannot perceive (ergo, it's existence is irrefutable using empirical methods or sensory perceptions)?
So, what does perception bring? When we perceive an aspect of something are we seeing something that objectively exists in what is being observed, or is all perception marred by subjectivity? If I note that snow is white, does that mean that the colour of the snow is a truly ingrained characteristic of snow or does that mean that my perception of snow includes my perception of the colour of the snow?
It really makes one think about the reality of matter itself. If seeing the world through rose-tinted glasses affects my perceptions of the world, but does not affect the characteristics of the objects being perceived, then how many layers of glasses do we wear on a daily basis? How many layers of false perception separate us from the truth inherent in everything?
The key question here though is, what is that truth? What lies within any object at its core essence when we strip away all of our false perceptions? Is that true essence the same within all things or does it differ?
When we perceive anything, we make it ours. That which is imperceptible lies beyond our ability to control. I feel our ability to perceive something limits it. Perhaps that is why God is often times called He who is seen and unseen.
I guess the trick lies in opening our eyes.