|Lanier’s Metaphysical Directory|
Do you believe in absolute truth?
Truth is absolute, but I question whether we as human can ever prove truth absolutely. Therefore belief in what is true and what is false is based on probabilities of truth, based on the strength of the evidence; evidence interpreted by examining events in cumulative human history.
How does that work with a nonemperical truth, a metaphysical truth?
Well, first let’s make sure we agree on terminology.
Definition of METAPHYSICAL TRUTH: the truth of ultimate reality as partly or wholly transcendent of perceived actuality and experience.
So the question is: is there an ultimate reality that may exist apart from what we as humans can experience and perceive? My answer: Possibly.
However, if this “ultimate reality” cannot be examined, tested, seen, or touched how do we know it exists other than in the imagination of the person proposing it’s existence?? For instance, if I state that leprechauns are a metaphysical reality, how would you ever prove me wrong?
I therefore choose not to worry or concern myself with metaphysical realities, because if I did, how would I know which of the thousands of claimed supernatural (metaphysical) “realities” are true? The only way to determine reality, in my mind, is to examine the evidence, and by definition, metaphysical reality defies examination.
Conclusion: I consider the metaphysical the play ground of philosophers and theologians. I do not believe that it is a field of study that warrants even the slightest of attention from everyone else. Show me evidence (not theories) of the existence of your “ultimate reality” and if it is strong on it’s surface, I will spend the time to study it. But if it’s central arguments are weak (such as those for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism), I am not going to waste my time.
I’m using the term “metaphysics” to refer to truths which are not subject to physical experiment.
Do I need to? What difference would it make if it were true? And what consequence is to me if I think it a silly make believe? Again, presuming it to be true, and I do not believe it. What difference does it make?
Well, there is little to nothing one can do about what one does not know. Is there? It is not physical, how do you test it? And how can you suppose something is true, not knowing what it is?
Physically yes, it defies examination. Not if a supposed truth were true, and had plausible consequences. What would be the best choice? On the premise, which ever you choose to choose will most likely be wrong? And you do not have the intention of believing what you think would be wrong. Between 10 different competing ideas, how? By taking two at a time. Eliminating one, and comparing a second. And so forth. 10 different people may end up with different choices. Or might all come to the same conclusion, believe none of them. Or maybe one of them.
Pascal’s Wager was between two ideas. It fails only because others suppose multiple other issues not in the two ideas.
So ultimately truth does not really matter to you. Is that not so?
Attention Readers: This is why I usually prefer to avoid discussions regarding the metaphysical. Call me ignorant, poorly read, and naïve, but I consider lofty discussions of the metaphysical as nothing more than the nonsensical pastime, and silly playground—full of all sorts of pretentious adult pissing contests—of philosophers and theologians who have nothing better to do with their time.