John Lennon might agree (see cover of his song). Perhaps we should focus less on proving truth than seeking its manifestations.
.
1 Like
I’ve always been puzzled by the concept of ‘truth’… as a child, this puzzlement got me into a bit of trouble. I’ve since learned that for some people, truth is ABSOLUTE… black and white. Art enables a synthesis of data to enable a deepening of shared experience. Believing in one absolute truth seems to be a mental cage for some.
The multi-faceted concept of truth is a wonderful vehicle for music… a way to layer things, deepening the concepts through sound imagery and rhythms. So what is the value of truthfulness? For me, it’s all about being ‘true’ rather than anything to do with truth…
2 Likes
I guess what I’m trying to get across is that truth is only scientifically proven; anything with human involvement creates impurities in truth. These impurities lead to debate on how one person shapes the truth to fit their perception versus another version of the same “truth”. To many, God exists as “truth”. To others God cannot exist, therefore their truth is defined differently. This creates a dichotomy, which is the inspiration for many works of art as reaction to things that cannot be scientifically be proven, but are still the truth that many people believe in.
I, for instance believe that there is some divine purpose for my life. That is truth to me. An atheists truth would refute that purpose. Who is right, and understands truth in its unadulterated form, and who adjusts the truth to fit their understanding?
This friction is the impetus for a lot of artistic expression.
Bob, this is what my previous (long and theoretical) post was all about. There might be such a thing as an absolute truth (i.e. a reality that exists without our observation), but at a very fundamental level (relativity theory, quantum theory and the biological science of observation) we can’t observe in an objective way. So the best scientists can do is to come to an agreement on what they each observe. And from those observations form interconnected theories that logically explain all those observations. This is called intersubjectivity. On top of that there’s a branche of philosophy called pragmatism that basically says: if it works then the theory is fine. That’s my kind of philosophy!
I consider myself - without any hesitation - an atheist. But I do not agree to having no feeling of purpose. On the contrary. I don’t need some promise of heaven to inspire me. Life itself is one huge inspiration, and there is no bigger purpose for me than to protect life (nature) from harm. But don’t like misusing the concept of ‘truth’ for this purpose. I’d rather say that I tend to interpret scientific observations in such a way that I worry about the future of life on our planet. It’s fine if some one else has some other interpretation, but I hope we can have an open conversation about how we look at the world none the less 
@Emma: your way of looking at the world around you is different from mine, more an artists viewpoint than a scientists I guess, and yet I think your wonderful way of thinking is very similar, accepting the fact that there are so many ways to observe, each of them worthwile. And indeed, an artist is able to combine these views to form something new and fresh. Maybe that’s why art fascinates me at least as much as nature. It forces me to observe outside of my comfort zone. Would this perhaps be more true of the visual arts than music?
4 Likes
I have no issues with anyone’s approach to religion, other than those who choose to bend it into a cause for violence. It is a form of truth for some, and for others it makes no sense.
It is just one of those pesky questions with no answers.
1 Like
The problem with any religion is the people that practice it. Christianity for example might be the worst. The idea of Christianity is not bad. The tenets of Christianity are actually often very good. The teachings of Jesus are wonderful. How can anyone find fault with the humanity of New Testament Jesus? He cared about the poor and sick and downtrodden. But christians, the very people that claim to practice Christianity, are some of the worst people on the planet. They don’t follow the teachings of Jesus at all. They actively do the opposite at every opportunity. They use their religion as a weapon. They judge and hate and use religion as a pedestal to falsely hold themselves higher than they are. Suffering and death by the hand of Christianity throughout history makes the holocaust look like a Chuck E Cheese birthday party. Jews and Jihads got nothing on a bunch of white Christians being assholes.
My Truth by The Cocteau Twins
1 Like
To be fair I have known Christians who do their best to follow Christianity, but they never show up in the news like the other kind do.
The larger issue to me is the overall influence of Judeo-Christian teachings on our culture and thought processes. The concepts of right and wrong, truth and lies, sin, justice, faith and much more come from Christianity. These are all binary absolutes which are arbitrary and inaccurate. To say that they are wrong or harmful though is to fall into that same thought pattern.
Westerners can study other cultures but it’s difficult for us to not see the world and think in Christian terms.
Hey @antihero, how about posting another song?
You’re right of course. In America our laws and general moral societal behaviors are filtered through a Christian outlook. In some ways some of it is more barbaric than what we accuse others of doing. We all bitch about how women are treated in muslim countries. We’re obviously not as old-world as those people, but we could certainly do a lot better here at home. America’s bond to Christianity also exposes our hypocrisy towards human rights in other countries. It rings a little hollow to gripe about human rights in other countries while we put people in cages right here at home. And of course, the white-washing of Christianity. It’s funny that people imagine Jesus as a white guy with light brown blonde-ish hair and blue eyes. He was obviously born in the middle east. He lived his short life in one location. The reality is he probably had dark skin and dark hair. He probably looked a lot more like an islamic terrorist than an aryan. But no, that’s not a pretty picture. We need all the little white kids to see him as a righteous white man. Lol.
Yeah maybe. I’m finishing up an album that’s been in the can for years. Laziness. I’m gonna give it one more mix and then be done with it. It’s follow up is already pretty much done too. I’m always motivated to write and record. I’m not motivated to put my crap out into the world. There’s enough of that already!
that sentence has so much truth embedded in it. Love it.
I was raised where heaven and hell were so deeply embedded that as kids we were pretty much Pavlov-ially trained to act with those markers deep in our brains, with little to no choice to think different. Thankfully the truth in music has liberated those restraints and it is quite frankly freeing to kick that concept to the curb and start fresh.
quote=“FluteCafe, post:36, topic:5649”]
Thankfully the truth in music has liberated those restraints and it is quite frankly freeing to kick that concept to the curb and start fresh.
[/quote]
Well that is an inspiration! I salute you
I was brought up in an atheist family (though not very pronounced) and inspired by John Lennon more than anyone when about 14 -16 years old (check the song “god” for instance: “god is a concept by which we measure our pain”). I was living in Manchester England at the time, and just across the water there was a religious war going on in Northern Ireland. I was appalled and outraged that people could kill each other over some futile different viewpoint on a vague idea. In fact one of the first songs I ever wrote (when about 15) was exactly about this.
Come to think of it, I think one of the reasons I went on to study biology is because I badly needed a view of life that was not based on some religion.
So to come back to the original starting point of this thread: music certainly influenced my idea of truth, even though the idea of truth became much more complex when I grew older.
Ah! 
Yes Yes. Relativism - which brings a fascinating perspective on truth to the proverbial ‘table’ lol. @FluteCafe
How does one ‘be’ true? Would this mean like… being true to ones self? Perhaps?
2 Likes
Wouldn’t that create a bit a dilemma? I’m not certain science can’t prove that science exists, nor can science prove that science itself is true. Can you then stake the foundation for truth on assumption that only science is equipped to demonstrate that someone is or is not true?
I’m not trying to pick a pointless argument… I only bring it up because I never clearly understood how someone reasons into that position. I’m no scientist myself, but my understanding is that science was never intended to define things beyond what can be tested, repeated and observed. So basically, it seems like science is amazing at enabling us to interpret things we experience in the world around us, but helplessly unequipped to define things that are metaphysical and abstract. And when I say metaphysics, I don’t mean ghosts and gods. I was more talking about constructs like ethics, truth values, and epistemology.
That’s not to say science is not valuable, but perhaps the wrong tool for that application?
@Aef - Reading that really closely, I don’t think he was saying an atheist wouldn’t identify with having purpose. I think he was suggesting an atheist would likely not ATTRIBUTE their personal feeling of purpose specifically to something DIVINE. So I think he was saying ‘yes’ to purpose, but ‘no’ to that particular purpose in the case of most atheists.
I could be wrong though.
Ah well read Johnathan! It looks like I may have misunderstood Bob. Thanks for pointing that out out to me. I’m sorry Bob. The lack of purpose is often expected by many religeous people and I’m willing to tell them otherwise, but it seems it was uncalled for in this case.
1 Like
Funny… I realised that once I had typed it out… (grin)…
It’s all nebulous… and fluctuating… hmm and I find myself thinking of ‘flow’ the creative process, as a sort of purity, energy without conscious input. Clearly we are all the sum of our experiences/dna etc but for me, that ‘flow’ process is the nearest thing to ‘truth’ that I can envisage.
I have always been quite fascinated by ‘social psychology’ and the mechanisms for measuring language and intent by non-verbal means. Speaking words that have specific meanings while simultaneously making small gestures and movements that contradict such statements. It’s all fascinating stuff!
3 Likes
Your interpretation is correct. I don’t believe atheists feel they don’t have or need a sense of purpose. That purpose comes from within.
I’m not overly devout in my religion, however there have been times when faith helped me, as did the thought that there was a purpose for whatever I may have been going through that I couldn’t understand at the time that would become more clear later.
It is hard writing about this, so I’ll end by saying I mean no offense to anyone whose beliefs differ with mine.
I only mean that Atheism precludes a purpose imposed by a God that does not exist to the Atheist. I didn’t mean to imply there is no sense of purpose.
I’d probably call that “honesty” in many cases. That word hasn’t even come up yet on the thread IIRC, but a person can only be honest about what they feel or what they (think they) know. Truth, if such a thing exists, seems to be mostly relative to perspective. Honesty is sometimes defined as “telling the truth”, but I’d say it’s more of telling your truth.
Science had more of a ‘pure’ role at first, removing superstitions. Once it became capitalized it was corrupted for technology and control to a large degree. Thank “The Elite” for that. I see it as a tool, as you say, and not a savior. I believe Nietzsche said “God is dead.” It seems that God was resurrected or reincarnated as science. “Science is the new God”, as they say. At least if you choose to buy into that narrative, and wear a “Follow The Science” t-shirt. 
I saw Glenn Beck say something on the Dave Rubin show, talking about his faith … but also how he is friends with Penn Gillette (of Penn & Teller fame) who is an avowed atheist. He said something to Penn like “you may be right and I may be wrong”, but explained how faith helped him function in the world. If it’s seen as a personal choice of what helps each person navigate their life experience, it helps remove the “right and wrong” dividing line.
Speaking of dividing lines, the topic of “agnostic” hasn’t really come up yet. That one could defy the divide. One approach to agnostic is to simply say [shrug shoulders] “I don’t know” and leave it at that, but another approach is to examine both sides - and any shades in between - and hold both possibilities as points of view.
1 Like
The Gay Science isn’t so much a treatise on anti-theism, as much as it is a criticism of absolute values and moral law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead#:~:text=info)%3B%20also%20known%20as%20The,of%20the%20existence%20of%20God.&text=God%20remains%20dead.,And%20we%20have%20killed%20him.