Thursday, April 16, 2015

Nabeel Qureshi on Truth

"To me, it was self-evident that truth exists.  What's the alternative?  If truth doesn't exist, then it would be true that truth doesn't exist, and once again we arrive at truth.  There is no alternative; truth must exist." [1]

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Footnote:
1. Nabeel Qureshi, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus, p. 83.

4 comments:

Edwardtbabinski said...

On "Truth," the Stanford [online] Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "Truth has been a topic of discussion in its own right for thousands of years... The problem of truth is in a way easy to state: what truths are, and what (if anything) makes them true. But this simple statement masks a great deal of controversy. Whether there is a metaphysical problem of truth at all, and if there is, what kind of theory might address it, are all standing issues in the theory of truth. We will see a number of distinct ways of answering these questions."

Topics on Truth covered throughout the encyclopedia:

Axiomatic Theories of Truth
Pluralist Theories of Truth
Pragmatic Theory of Truth
Identity Theory of Truth
Correspondence Theory of Truth
Coherence Theory of Truth
Tarski’s Theory of Truth
The Revision Theory of Truth
The Deflationary Theory of Truth
Question of Truth-Bearers and Truth-Makers
Truthlikeness
The Theory of Two Truths in Tibet

In matters of truth also look up
Realism
Anti-Realism
Presentism
Dialetheism
Many-Valued Logic

Chad said...

Hello Mr. Babinski,

I hope you are well! So, do you agree with Nabeel or not?

Respectfully

Edwardtbabinski said...

Nabeel makes it sound like one must either accept absolute truth or absolute uncertainty with nothing in between, like for instance modest suspicions, or noting multiple hypotheses, or being willing to view some questions through multiple reality tunnels.

It sounds like part of an evangelist’s plea to a naive crowd of potential converts rather than a truly rational acknowledgement that many questions (contested areas of philosophy and religion) remain contested.

It does not take into account the relationship of lack of knowledge to truth, i.e., degrees of certainty/uncertainty that may widen or narrow in scope or change over time. Nor does it consider varying theories of what constitutes truth. Nor does it consider that granted varying theories of truth, limited knowledge (and also granted the creative invention of hypothetical explanations that can be added to smooth out any rough edged questions) that multiple rational and coherent worldviews are possible.

Chad said...

Hello Mr. Babinski,

Even given what you have shared, it just strikes me as bizarre to call into question what Nabeel is saying here. Isn't he simply applying the law of non-contradiction? Meaning, one cannot say, "There is not truth" and "There is truth" at the same time and in the same way. I think that is all Nabeel is trying to communicate here. To infer other motives without evidence seems to me to be speculative at best.

Respectfully