The enemies of truth. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. GeistkieselPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh, really?? It's entirely a matter of degree as to which is the most dangerous. :shrug: Bald statements like that are pretty much worthless.
the convictions referred to is the fanatical belief of the validity of an untrue statement or maybe not
Truth has many flavors, it depends upon where you are at the time for many places have different meanings of what truth is to them. You can be in one country where certain truths are accepted but travel to another country and those truths aren't accepted. Look at the truth about the Judaical systems in each country, they are many times different so beware when traveling about for you could be right in one place but doing wrong in another.
The statement implies that a conviction is not truth. However logically all truths are convictions but not all convictions are truth. So why is a conviction more dangerous an enemy of truth than a lie? If a truth cannot be perceived then all you have is a conviction until something comes along to disprove it, not through external argument, but only by internal realisation. (I have always liked the phrase 'a man convinced against his will remains unconvinced still) Perhaps it would be better to say that being unaware that a conviction could be wrong is the enemy of truth. (Just babbling)
I agree only if the definition of conviction means "strongly held belief" For a lie to exist a truth must already be known... "The truth is always irrational to those who believe in a lie" therefore all truths are irrational....
What is the truth of any matter save our current conviction? That which we now hold as true, may well fall in the face of new discovery.
But convictions can simply be placeholders for until that time when precision and adeptness becomes more accessible—or even manageable. For example: known laws of physics does not support faster-than-light travel theory, hence ET is improbable, hence a fantasy, hence ET is a woo-woo.
I disagree. Lies are untrue, simply by definition. Even worse, lies are typically stated in hopes of inducing other people to believe in the truth of false propositions. That's not a good thing. Convictions, on the other hand, are just strongly held beliefs. Many of the things that people believe are in fact true, and it's not a bad thing that people believe in those propositions with enough confidence to take the risk of acting on them. I do agree with you that convictions can sometimes be enemies of truth, if people hold on to false beliefs with such a tight grasp that no counter-evidence can ever convince them that they are wrong. That's disfunctional closed-mindedness. But I think that it's probably an over-statement to assume that all conviction is closed-minded belief in falsehoods.
It's an interesting play of word meanings in "conviction": on the one hand, a strongly held belief, on the other hand, a condemnation, a judicial sentence of penalty. In one sense, strongly held beliefs are a form of condemnation.
yes... yes and yes... "I fall into the hell of my own beliefs as truth is now unavailable to me because of it"
the enemies of the truth are those who can't handle the truth which seems to be most people think about it , if someone told you were wrong and could prove it , would you still defend your position regardless of you knowing you were wrong ?
surprisingly this is way too common.... the cost of ego proppiing behaviour is phenonemal... just look at events on the Middle East with this in mind and you start to realise just how staggering this issue actually is to the world. The actual amount of invested time, money and energy devoted to avoiding the revelation of truth is utterly amazing... Given the staggering cost involved this is you would think "surprising"... "What price Ego?"
I feel that this is so, yes, as "the truth is always humiliating to those who believed in a lie" This is why being humble seems so important for any one seeking the truth. A natural consequence of "false pride" in ones beliefs is in fact the humiliation that this false state eventually generates.
Except when the convictions are true. Are sure as the sun will shine, someone will claim that it won't, or doesn't, or that we just can never tell. Each of these people may actually carry on arguing about it in the blazing light of day, wincing and mopping brows. It's not too important what a person's conviction is, but rather, whether the conviction is true, or, if that's too hard to ascertain, whether or not it comports with best evidence. All the rest is styrofoam. In this case, worse, since styrofoam floats.
