Does truth lead to god, or does god lead to truth?

[some_person6]

Hello, my first post here. Card's books particularly interested me to find this forum because the Speaker for the Dead series has been the first story I've heard of which seems to acknowledge the many angles of religion.

I was just considering the two slippery notions of god and truth. In many ways they are very similar, after all one of the ways we usually define god is by saying he's omnipotent, meaning he knows everything, which implies he knows the truth of all things. Both are considered virtuous qualities, people who understand the true meaning of things are better able to change the things they can and cope with the things they can't, and to know god is also considered a path to understanding and living a tranquil life.

However there is a fundamental difference between these terms, that is we usually think of truth as demanding reason and god as demanding faith and interestingly enough reason and faith are mutually exclusive. But it would seem that god and truth are one in the same, or perhaps one might define god as the ultimate truth, but still truth would then imply god... or god would by definition define truth.

So which is it? Does the truth lead to god, or does god lead to the truth?

[Boothby]

But it would seem that god and truth are one in the same, or perhaps one might define god as the ultimate truth

Except that the above is a claim only made by the religious--by the faithful.

In fact, it seems (to this writer) that the more fanaticallty faithful one is--the further one is from reason--the more fervently one makes the claim that God = Truth (with a capital "T")

The non-faithful never make that claim. In fact, we claim the exact opposite:

God does not exist, therefore God <> Truth.

And, at that point, everything pretty much works out.

to know god is also considered a path to understanding and living a tranquil life

That is but one path, and it doesn't always work, either. Ask David Koresh' followers. Ask Jesus' followers. (Not to relate the two)

[jotabe]

This is a major conflict point between believers and non believers, because they use different definitions for truth.
Believers think of truth as "reason, purpouse for what something exists, cause for something/someone acts the way they act".
Non-believers think of truth as "tested and reliable knowledge, events known to be real and accountable".

They are both quite exclusive meanings.
quiet and tranquil life, you are doing it wrong. Faith is supposed to move you, to change your very core. That knowledge can only push you towards action, passion, not to tranquility.

[Boothby]

I've come across many believers for whom truth was "that thing they so desperately wanted to believe, in the utter absence of any evidence or proof. That thing that was so important it be true, that the only way to sleep soundly at night was to pre-emptively declare it as not only 'truth,' but 'The Truth'."

[neo-dragon]

They don't want "truth", they want security. Not all faith has to be self deluding.

[lyons24000]

I've noticed since I've joined a smaller religion that saying "I know for a fact that this is true" doesn't carry as much weight as with church-goers like it used to when I was part of the protestant belief system. It's interesting how much the protestants hate protestant-restorationist religions.

[some_person6]

But it would seem that god and truth are one in the same, or perhaps one might define god as the ultimate truth

Except that the above is a claim only made by the religious--by the faithful.

In fact, it seems (to this writer) that the more fanaticallty faithful one is--the further one is from reason--the more fervently one makes the claim that God = Truth (with a capital "T")

The non-faithful never make that claim. In fact, we claim the exact opposite:

God does not exist, therefore God <> Truth.

And, at that point, everything pretty much works out.

Indeed the line of thinking that God = Truth is often used by fanatics, but the fallacy isn't in defining god in this way but rather thinking you have a perfect understanding of either of them. To define God as Truth is not a fallacy for the religious because God is omnipotent and thus an embodiment of the Truth with the "T". To define God as Truth as an agnostic isn't a fallacy either since we are merely naming a concept that is synonymous with truth, not necessarily the full blown picture most religions make god out to be.

What I wonder is if God => truth or if truth => God. I cannot think of a good answer to this question, for I am either to assume I understand God initially (which is a large jump to make) or I am to assume I understand truth (which no one can say they do perfectly).

You got me on your second point, I guess I was thinking too much of a Buddhist way of thinking at the time (not that I know any more about that than Christianity or other religions I've just gathered that the idea is to remove your desires so you may have tranquility).

[Slim]

This will vary on the person.

In my own opinion, I think it is God that leads to Truth. If we want Truth, it is only through God that we can receive truths that are beyond our own experience.

But I wouldn't disagree with someone that says that they take the truths that they do understand with their own experiences and say that is what leads them to God.

Depending on the person, one path may be easier for them to follow than the other.

And then you could also say it is a cycle: once we believe in God, we can learn more Truth. And as we learn more Truth, that strengthens our faith in God, which gives us access to more Truth, and so on.

[Boothby]

In my own opinion, I think it is God that leads to Truth. If we want Truth, it is only through God that we can receive truths that are beyond our own experience.

...

And then you could also say it is a cycle: once we believe in God, we can learn more Truth.

Slim,

Please give me an example of a Truth beyond your experience that you learned through God.

And please tell me how you know it to be true. Sorry: "True," with a capital "T."

[Slim]

The first time I repented was the first time that I knew Jesus Christ was real, and that He is the Savior. I felt a strong, peaceful feeling that I've never felt before. I cannot generate that feeling in myself-- I've tried. I know it came from the Spirit, just as one knows that the sun makes you warm.

Perhaps not truly "beyond [my] own experience", since what I had was an experience, but I suppose what I mean is that it was an experience beyond the physical world. If that makes sense.

[Boothby]

I accept your statement as valid...for you.

However, there is no outside, "objective" proof of the supposed ironclad validity of your subjective experience. You feel it to be true...very, absolutely true, in fact. You might be wrong. Other people have felt strongly about things, and have been wrong--that is the risk of subjective knowledge.

And re. "an experience beyond the physical world"---sure: they're called dreams. Sometimes, "vivid dreams". It doesn't make them representative of some outside "objective" or "absolute" reality.

[lyons24000]

Like Boothby said, I try not to put much stock into feelings. Sometimes I just know in my heart that Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong because of a feeling I get. I remember the words at Jeremiah 17:9, which says, "The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it?" I feel that the Jehovah's Witnesses are right--no, I know Jehovah's Witnesses are right sometimes because of a feeling in my heart. That is good, because it means I truly believe my religion is right.

However, I tend to put more stock in what Luke said, "Now the [Boreans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11) The Bible says that these dear people were more noble-minded because they proved to themselves through study of the Bible that Paul was speaking the Truth. That is what I do, too.

Don't get me wrong: Feelings are not bad. But we have to prove that those feelings are based on truth by studying it and is actually not our hearts misleading us because of what we truly want.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Boothby!

[Taalcon]

I think the two aren't mutually exclusive. Asking alone doesn't work. Studying alone doesn't work. The two need to go hand in hand.

"Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must cask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." D&C 9:7-8

According to my understanding, the Lord wants us to do all we can do, and then once we've gotten to a point where we can go no further, we ask for confirmation.

We build up temporal knowledge, and then supplement it and confirm it with Spiritual knowledge.

As Paul taught, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14)

Basically, study, come up with an hypothesis or conclusion based on your understanding, and then ask the teacher if it's right

2 additional notes on the receiving of an answer:

John 16: 24
Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

James 4: 3
Ye ask, and receive not, because ye bask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. [in other words, not asking for honorable reasons or true edification]

[starfox]

I try not to put much stock into feelings. Sometimes I just know in my heart that Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong because of a feeling I get. [...]
I feel that the Jehovah's Witnesses are right--no, I know Jehovah's Witnesses are right sometimes because of a feeling in my heart. [...]
Don't get me wrong: Feelings are not bad. But we have to prove that those feelings are based on truth by studying it and is actually not our hearts misleading us because of what we truly want.

So which is it? You don't put stock in feelings, or you do? You contradicted yourself at least four times in the sentences I quoted.