Socrates Exchange: Are all our beliefs merely opinions, or are there some universal truths?

While I enjoy discussion, analysis, and debate, I fail to see how one would overcome the fundamental limits of knowledge, belief, perception and understanding.

First, language, while great at providing abstraction and communication, can not match the detail and precision necessary to fully describe, understand, or match reality.

Second, perception and awareness already strain the limits of what we can assume; I think we live in 3 spacial and a temporal dimension. I assume stars, planets, protons, diamonds, and Elvis ceramic plates exist; I hope NHPR radio broadcasts actually have people speaking, talking, or singing even though I've not actually seen them. Unfortunately, I've not come across any compelling proof or evidence that reality must actually match what I perceive and assume.

Finally, others' voices bombard me with their noise -- assuring me the universality of their own special brand of truth: "Jesus saves", "Republicans suck", "Iraq is evil", "There is no God". Many at odds, yet all equally certain of their absolute application. I'd wager good money most, if not all, have not a wit of (real) truth to them. I include here my own opinions and beliefs.

Given that, I can confidently state: "I perceive, at this precise moment in time." Everything else is subject to opinion and most likely wrong. I'm pretty sure it's absolute, but now that moment is gone, so probably no longer absolute.

Unfortunately, the question is not well posed. It is stated in a way that creates the impression that opinion and truth are mutually exclusive, so that there can be only one or the other, but not both. But that is not the case. ‘Opinion’ is an epistemological notion, whereas ‘truth’ is a semantic notion; they operate in different ball parks, as it were, and are not mutually opposed. There is nothing that prevents opinions from being true. The real emphasis in the notion of opinion is on justification: when one calls something an opinion, what is directly put into question is the justification for believing it, not its truth. Further investigation might reveal that, indeed, that opinion is true. All our beliefs might be mere opinion even if there are lots of “universal truths”, if it turns out that we cannot get at those truths, if we cannot get adequate justification for our opinions. Accidental truth, something that we happen to believe but without sufficient justification (an opinion), that turns out to be true anyway, is possible, but usually useless, for we have no good reason to trust that opinion.

Can we find an answer to this core truth vs. belief question in the relationship between our beliefs and our values? Everyday we make value judgments based on our beliefs. A colleague presents me with a business proposal and I judge it as a good or bad one based on beliefs that I have concerning how best to run a business. I examine a piece of art and judge it as quality, mediocre, or trash based on my beliefs of what makes good art. I pursue relationships and judge them as right or wrong for me based on beliefs about what makes a good relationship. All of these judgments are informed by values – the business proposal is risky, the art is realistic, the relationship is compassionate. Can this practice of making value judgments based on our beliefs help us to answer this question? Are the values that inform our beliefs absolute or relative to our culture, upbringing etc.? If the values are absolute, how do we explain the appearance of new values? For example, in the past few years the values of sustainability and “greenness” have taken a much more prominent place in our society. Did we simply not recognize the importance of these values before, or is it necessary for a society to constantly find new things valuable in order for it not to become stagnant and whither away? Or perhaps the creation or replacement of values is a sign of weakness in a society, and we would do better to adhere to a few tried and true traditional values?

We are really excited to be kicking off our “Socrates Exchange” series once again. I think this is a great question to get the ball rolling.

I don't claim to be a philosopher (much more a radio producer) but my preparation for this show really got me thinking hard on this question.

As a journalist, we're always taught to question everything and keep an open mind. In our writing for the show we use words like "many believe x, while others believe y" or "Some say this, but there are others who say that". We would want to hear from the religious voice and the scientific voice or the person who believes that global warming exists and leave time for the voices who question climate change.

It was pointed out to me in researching this first Socrates Exchange show that that's what many do, especially in a global and pluralistic society. Many of us don’t want to sound like a supremacist or imperialist, so we allow for the person who believes in Jesus and Mohammed as the one true God as well as the atheist or agnostic. We generally believe that a core truth is that "all men are created equal" or that "all cultures are equal”, that one is not 'better' than another". Then things come up like female circumcision or the sacrifice of animals and some say that that is not acceptable. How does that affect the core truth that we are all equal?
At one point we felt that core truths were that the sun revolves around the earth and that the world was flat. Now most would say that the earth revolves around the sun and that its round and they are core truths. Some in the scientific world may still challenge that's still an opinion. The more we learn about the world and its cultures and how different we are... it begs to ask if we leaning more toward beliefs as only opinions shaped by culture or is a more educated society one that is moving toward learning what actual universal truths are?

Is all truth relative? No. Hungry is hungry. Malnourished is malnourished. Only after your belly is full can you begin to search for fundamental truths.

This is my first time at the Exchange, so please forgive me if my argument seems simple or lacks strong logical skill-it has been a long time since I have had the opportunity to argue philosophy or ethics. (In other words, don't beat me up too badly; I'd like to participate again.)

My beliefs are based on experiences and the reasoning of the human mind. These experiences are limited by the form in which I exist-a human form-and the mind is fallible.

Elephants ran from the tsunami in Thailand while I would not have known trouble was coming. My dogs bark when someone walks on the road several hundred feet away yet I hear nothing. These are just two examples of things that I cannot experience due to the form I am in, yet I believe they are true experiences for those creatures because the cause of their distress becomes apparent after time. I also think that people actually see something in those hidden pictures while I see nothing. No, not quite true-I see exactly what is on the page and nothing buried in the page. No second form, second pattern, second scene. So either my eyes do not work in the same way that the eyes of others do, or my brain does not work in the way that their brains work, or there really is nothing hidden there in the first place. I'll never know.

Despite all of that, I do believe there to be one universal truth: The world is constantly changing. I have never known it to stay the same and I have never known people, plants, animals, weather, or soil to remain the same. I have seen no argument to the contrary and, in spite of the acknowledged limitations of myself as a human, I would have great difficulty believing anything else.

Are beliefs merely opinions or are they truths? Does the noun “truth” mean the same as the adjective “true?” I don’t think that these words are interchangeable even allowing for grammatical usage. Scientific facts and laws are true. They are provable and for the moment the best explanation of the phenomenon. They do not call upon us to believe. Science explains the natural world as accurately as possible. Science strives to be true, not to offer truths.
Truth defines how we live and has an eternal quality to it. Truth explains the human condition and experience. Truth is the realm of religion, philosophy, literature and art. “Beauty is Truth, And truth is Beauty” wrote the poet.
An opinion, unlike a truth, explains a personal view rather than a universal condition. That is point and purpose of an opinion, (much like this comment), to say “this is what I think”… Opinions validate my experience and existence but may not be applicable beyond me. Opinions hold true to me, but are not the truth.

The human has a genetic-physiological base incorporating drives and instincts, especially associated with survival and procreation, this being our "old brain" shared with other species. Everything else is social construction. To answer the many questions of life and existence we have used our exclusively human "new brain" thinking power and have created beliefs and build society including
god(s), religion, culture, institutions, government, morals, laws etc. all of which are only real if we believe it. Outside of our physiological base the rest we have merely constructed with purpose, some of which counters our basic physiology. Only physiology is true, all else is relative, based on what we are taught or what we learn and choose to believe.

The human mind is a tabula rasa, ready to absorb whatever indoctrinating belief system impinges on it as the individual passes through his or her formative years. Once impressed on the mind those beliefs assume the status of truth. In the end most humans do not have the ability to escape their initial indoctrination, even if they switch belief systems. Indoctrination is the key, not the specific beliefs since they are culturally determined while indoctrination knows no cultural barrier.

For several years I have been considering how to separate those beliefs that aim at consolidating power for one tribe or social unit at the expense of those who are not members - from universal truth that would hold for all people regardless of tribe. My interest has been to draw out those universal truths from the many spiritual pathways humans have traveled since humans first began thinking about more than feeding and procreation. I have come up with a simple rule that I think assists in clearing away beliefs that may have had value in the survival of certain sects or tribes at a certain time, but fall short of universal truth. That rule is:
If a stated belief has the effect of limiting who is able to be a member of a certain sect or tribe as in, “If you conform to this description, you are a member of our tribe. If you do not conform, you are other than our tribe.” It is axiomatic that a belief which does not hold for all, that belief cannot be universal.
I think “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” , fits here as a Universal Truth.

Before posting this reply I first attempted to define a universal truth. My definition is that it is an obvious truth that stands on its own and is unchanging. It applies to everyone and is indisputable. I believe there is one true God, but does that fit the above definition of a universal truth. At this point in time there are those who would dispute this and therefore it does not fit the definition. There are two things that do fit. Death is a universal truth and as Ruby mentioned everything is always changing is the second universal truth. This was a tough question and I look forward to seeing what others say.

This is very interesting conversation. It reminds me, recently I saw a show on the history channel about the universe. At one time, Einstein was debating whether or not the universe was infinite or whether it had a beginning and an end. He wanted to believe it was infinite. It wasn't until later that they were able to decide, through math and measurements, that the big bang theory had much more evidence to support it. That the universe is expanding (exponential theory) and that at one time, the universe was so small, smaller than an atom. (This is the Big Bang versus Same State debate--you should check it out if you get a chance). They say that for all of his genius, his inability to allow himself to accept the finite nature of the universe led him to avoid this particular question. I would intuit that possibly it simply made him anxious. The show was mind-blowing, clearly, but, also touching. For all of his genius, he was still a human being. I wonder, often, how much we can 'know'? It seems that great truths have come to us in doses over-time (the earth is round, for one). Maybe one scientist, philosopher, artist takes us as far as we (or they) are mentally, emotionally, some might say spiritually ready for? Once this new model has been absorbed and debated, we are ready to go a little further? For those who are really curious, I think this is why a level of compassion is elemental in the process of discovery.

Boy this is a tough one. Some would say a it's a universal truth that "thou shalt not kill"...but what if someone's coming at you with guns-a-blazing? Do you just stand there or pull out your own gun? Because of situations like this, it's hard to say "there are universal truths" - on the other hand, if everything's just "relative" and a matter of "culture" or "opinion"...I fear we get into a pattern of excusing behaviours that the vast majority of people would say are inexecusable.

...We each have Our Own Truth.

We each have a unique and valuable view of reality.
We each have a duty to discover and express what that is.
We should be open to learning from others and respecting their "truths" -- as long as they respect the truths of others.

I guess there's another universal truth:
Any one who claims to know what is true for someone else is wrong! Practically and morally.

I realize this might end looking like a copout, but the greatest universal truths that spring to mind have to do with a lack of knowledge: There is so much we don't know. There is so much we will never know. Nobody can know everything.

This is a critical place to start in my mind, because right away we're acknowledging that we're imperfect, fallible beings. It's a form of humility that serves as the basis for our ability to reject absolutists, ideologues, and extremists. It enables us to be skeptical without being cynical, an essential ingredient in good journalism.

Nobody's moral compass is exactly the same, but the ability to doubt yourself and embarce the core uncertainty of the universe, is an essential ingredient in the ability to tell right from wrong.

I don't think that a scientific definition of "Universal" is applicable here. The value of science is that all theories are open to debate. Some current physical theories require the existence of nine or more dimensions. As we, at this time, cannot perceive more than four dimensions; there is no way to determine the universality of what we cannot perceive. Even with contemporary agreement on a theory, any scientific theory cannot be put forward as "Universal" or is ceases to be scientific. The most that can be hoped for in science is a functional truth.
Sometimes the scientific truth and religious truth seem to have been mixed up. The restriction on eating pork for both Jews and Muslims seems to be an example of the mix up. It would seem that the problems with raising and preparing pork required the elimination of pork from the diet of the time. The confusion between what is revealed of God and what is good culinary practice in the bronze-age presents a suspension of belief in an age when pork health problems have largely been solved.
Universal Truth in the face of fanatical adherence to literal interpretations of works of man like the Bible and the Koran make the parsing of Universal Truth from contemporary political rulings very difficult and emotional. As we humans, thank goodness, base much of our spiritual existence on the inheritance of these big bags of ideas, that have been added to from the time we began to think outside of our own puny existence, we have to take a clear-eyed look. We have to sort out those parts that are Universal Truths. I absolutely believe the truths are in there. I also know that these bags are stuffed with information that is flat out wrong or no longer applicable.

"This, too, shall pass."

I certainly believe in universal truths. As a Christian, I know that the Bible is the Word of God. It is the ultimate guide to one's life. Everything in it is absolutely true. Man-made philosophy will disappoint, but the Word of God will never disappoint.