Ryan Marcus — It’s all Frank’s fault!

Arik Burakovsky (edited for spelling and formatting):

I disagree that nobody wants to know the absolute truth. Plato explained that truth can only be found through a higher spiritual realm of the ideal and the universal. Material objects are only symbols and expressions.

According to the doctrine of ideals, the truth is found when a person transcends to that higher realm. Nietzsche makes a good point that believing is for keeping peace of soul and pleasure; believing is the the way that people hide themselves from the truth.

When they finally see the truth, they have, in fact, reached this higher spiritual realm. Nietzsche himself valued the “will to truth”, the truth at any price, but he made the connection that truth was God. Nietzsche, of course, was an opponent of the Platonic ideal, but Nietzsche contradicts himself.

He says that truth is the highest, most perfect being imaginable. In this sense, both Plato and Nietzsche agree that one must inquire to transcend to the higher realm and become a perfect, ideal being.

…

Continuing on, religion has the opposite effect.

Religion shields up from the truth, giving us only what we want to see. Remember Jiana’s [a member of our debate team who discusses Pluto] analogy about the Platonic Ideal. People who devote themselves to religion feel as if they have already found the truth.

Science is not the complete truth either, but at least it is the inquiry. But as you said yourself, they are the devotees of truth and while they haven’t found spiritual truth, they are seeking it. I would say that possibly Jesus, or at least according to Christianity and Nietzsche, was the only one who found truth here on Earth.

Your approach at “truth” is interesting. You don’t separate religion and science at the core base as you claim too, instead, you take an almost opposite stance to mine.

You say that the truth is sought out via “higher spiritual enlightenment,” but perhaps the Church (I use the term generically) is not the best way to do so. You advocate finding your own path to Truth and Meaning. A very Unitarian view.

However, we have to ask ourselves: Do we strive to be perfect, or do we strive for completion? If we reach a point at which all of our questions are answered, and all of our hopes are achieved, have we then achieved the “truth?”

Of course not. If we all believed the world was flat and was completely fine with the concept, would it be flat? No, of course not.

But would humanity push to answer the problem? In the case of the world being flat, yes they did. However, religion took a different tone to the problem.

Thus, religion is flawed at its basis. It is forced to never change its views. Even now, the Pope must avoid the subject of our spherical world, even though it has been scientifically proven. The Church (once again generically) seeks to give answers through itself, not through a science. Thus, religion, as it is today, is not the path to the absolute truth.

But now, science. The Church makes it out to look like a dark, number-filled purposeless region of ourselves that has been striving to answer things, but will never be able to achieve them.

In a sense, The Church was right. Science will never be able to answer all of our questions, as each one leads to a second question, and then a third, and so on. We never discover the “truth”, only the next step in a never-ending staircase.

Thus, science is flawed. We will never achieve the absolute truth through it as it is impossible. Science, even today, through people for loops. Even things as constant as Newton’s laws change on a large scale and on a small scale. We’re trying to climb the never ending staircase.

A solution? I don’t have one. However, Albert Einstein may be able to shine some light on the problem:

Science without religion is pointless; religion without science is blind.

While reading Nietzsche, I came across a particularly interesting line:

If you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe. If you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire.

In short, what Nietzsche is saying is that the truth does not lead to the “peace of soul” or “pleasure.” Nietzsche wrote that if you wanted to find yourself, if you wanted to be at peace, then believe. If you want to be a “devotee of truth”, then inquire.

Let me give you a little background. Nietzsche is writing this letter to his sister, who recently discovered that her husband was cheating on her. Nietzsche explains to her that not all things are bad, and that sometimes believing is better then knowing.

From there, the letter fades away into philosophical ranting, where quite a few well-merited statements are made:

1. Religion has inspired us to believe, not necessarily seek the truth. In fact, most religions (with the exception of Unitarianism and others) seek to move their members from seeking the truth. Religion puts their version of the “truth” right there in front of you, for you to see.
2. Religious people are far from devotees of truth. In fact, they try to move away from inquiring, calling it “doubting.” In essence, it is doubting. One only questions something if there is a question to be asked.
3. Examine the counter-opposite, science. Scientist are definitely the devotee’s of the truth, yet some fall back on old scientific theories, unwilling to accept change. They do this purly because they seek the “peace of soul” that Nietzsche describes.
4. Belief will never become the truth. Honestly, nobody wants to know the absolute truth, people want their beliefs to continue and to strive. We want to answer questions with things we can comprehend. For some, this turns people away from science, as they do not comprehend. This turns many towards religion, as there is no easier answer then “God.”
5. Sometimes, an explanation is too simple. Some people strive for better answers. Take Sir Issac Newton. He did believe that we were simply “on the ground”, so he”discovered” gravity, to give himself peace at soul.

And, the final conclusion:
Science and religion are both flawed at their very core; We don’t want the truth, no one is truly a devotee of truth. Doing so would instill a sense of pointlessness that could not possibly be overcome. Science and religion are essentially the same. They both seek to give us answers, science just takes one more leap then religion. For the purposes of humanity, one is just as correct as another.