I have stated I am an objectivist. However I am not an absolute empericist. This means that I do not believe ALL truth can be derived at through scientific experiment or proof in a test tube. It is said that you cannot prove a negative. Actually Police do this all the time when they eliminate possible suspects. They say “We know so and so could not possibly have committed this crime”. What you CAN’T do, however, is to disprove an Unknown. You can disprove a Known, but not an Unknown. We cannot scientifically prove that there is no Existance after Death. As I said in late summer 2004 (I think) was that Death as we know it connotes the existence of time and space as we know it. We know, for instance a tree when it dies is just wood. But a hundred thousand years later that stump may have become petrified. So change is occurring. But as it says in the book of Revelation, among the things that end up being destroyed are Death and the grave, itself. None of us has “experienced” non existence and come back to tell others about how it felt being Dead. It can be argued that without the passage of Time, that Death as we understand it cannot truly exist. But where I part company with the “Faith” people is that if Dr. Levy says something I have substantial Doubt about, a Believer will reason that it is more important to Believe, even if your rational mind is riddled with doubts. I reason rather, that one should investigate for himself whether the things he says be True or False. And if they prove True, than you can finally have genuine faith in them. But the Believer rather chooses to be ruled by unreasoning Fear of what he may find out, as we discussed in our last posting. I believe there are things that Exist beyond our ability to know then. Some would ask
In Jesus Christ Superstar Governor Pilate utters the line “But what is Truth. Is Truth unchanging law? We both have Truths. Are mine the same as yours?” Those are good lines. Dr. Levy, you this morning had a thing about Truths up there on the screen. If you’re still reading this it must be an aufully long letter. Let’s run down a few of these on the list. It was stated “Truth is what Works”. I basically agree with that. Both pastors Gene Scott and Mark Bove have from the pulpit attacked people who hold to this axiom at least in regard to Christianity. Because some try it and conclude that it just does not “Work” for them. They both say “You are not allowed to say this about the Faith.” Clearly what “works” is a keystone of evolution. As such it is a key attribute of both natural and social science. The second one is that Truth is the totality of one’s experiences. This is OK, with qualifications. I don't believe it's any crime when confronted with a new fact to say "I didn't know that. It's never been a part of my own experience". My problem with the whole Jury system as we know it is that in trials certain evidence gets routinely excluded because some Judge concludes “Oh, the jury is not intelligent enough to sift through this evidence and it might lead to some sort of bias”. As a potential juror- - I find this an insult to my intelligence. My greatest fear as that I go to a trial and vote to acquit a man who is as Guilty as sin, yet the evidence was so edited and filtered, that all I could do is end up being confused, and perhaps vote with a majority if the defendant should be acquitted in their opinion. We then have “Truth is logical” or “Truth is rational”. There is no real “nexis” between what is Rational and what is True. Arguments can be structured so as to be highly valid, and yet highly Unsound. Sure in math – this statement is true. I think even Law Enforcement is aware that sometimes “what is True can be stranger than fiction”, and all that. But still if it’s not logical, if a story doesn’t “Hang together” cops are much less likely to believe it. Some Nazi types can make rather logical and half way rational arguments to promote their own sick point of view, yet it would immediately violate the sensibilities of any ethical Moral person. We then have things like “Truth is Beauty and Beauty is Truth”. I’m not going to argue that one one way or the other. Others would say “Truth is what you Feel in your Heart”. We could discuss this one. As you know an axiom of James Dobson and other fundamentalists is “Your feelings will always Lie to you” and “Don’t trust your feelings”. Of course the punch line is “Don’t trust YOUR feelings - - Trust Mine”. At least then we come to song lyrics. I guess my view is that I don’t mind sentimental love songs, but I don’t like schmaltzy songs, to employ a Yiddish term. For instance “God only Knows” by the Beach Boys is a sentimental song. I don’t necessarily agree with it for myself, but “I believe the singer sincerely believes it”. But you come to another song on the same album “Wouldn’t it be nice”. This song is pure “schmaltz”. It’s like the soundtrack to some “girl flick” movie, or a Broadway musical. It’s corn ball “sentimental hogwash” as Mr. Potter would say. I think there is another stronger Yiddish word “schlock”, which connotes an added bullshit factor, as though the speaker is attempting actively to deceive us. I believe there is much in the Gospels and the book of Acts that is in this vein. Truth can be properly discovered with “right discernment”. I believe if you are what is called a Clear in Scientology, you are in a much better position to Discover the Truth. Again I discuss this a little in the previous posting. I guess another on the list could be “Truth is what Fits”. Well again, this one is not fool proof. But I think it’s a good test for new information. If it’s something that seems off the wall, like a roomer about a person you may know that just seems utterly unlike them- - you can use discernment and “consider the source” and judge for yourself.