We've all heard the old saying: "Everybody is entitled to their own opinion."
I'd like to talk about the phrase that comes after that one: "....but, NOBODY is entitled to their own FACTS."
I can talk to you about my toothache and how much it hurts and you will probably sympathize with the pain. But, I'm the only one really feeling it.
After all, my pain is MY pain and the best anybody else can do is try and relate to some similar feeling of their own.
This is SUBJECTIVE empathy. But, my toothache is OBJECTIVE pain.
That's pretty clear.
But, for you, there is no way you can actually KNOW I really have a toothache at all! I could be faking it!
There are a lot of things that will always remain Subjective which others cannot access DIRECTLY and have to rely on sympathy, empathy, fellow feeling, trust, etc.
Let's steer clear of those for a moment.
WHAT ABOUT OBJECTIVE FACT?
Is there such a thing?
If we were all gathered at the beach and everybody built a bonfire, that is an OBJECTIVE fact for all of us to acknowledge. But, each person will "feel" the warmth a bit differently and see the fire from a different angle of view. None of which affects the actual bonfire in the least!
What is OBJECTIVE about the bonfire? The FACT of its existence, location, temperature per se and brightness in and of itself.
Anybody who denied the existence of such a bonfire would not be correctly identifying the FACTs.
Why? Because a Fact corresponds with a reality and NOT A PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW.
Reality IS what it is; whether you acknowledge it or not!
Small frightened children pull the covers over their head when it is dark. Some people cover their eyes in a horror film. What's going on there?
Any actual threat not sensed seems to go away! REAL THREATS do not.
Jehovah's Witnesses actually have their own set of OPINIONS which they all agree to treat as FACTS.
This does not miraculously transform opinion into fact, however.
What is the true test which distinguishes FACT from opinion?
Do you know? How can you easily identify/distinguish one from the other?
Is it just a matter of getting enough people to agree with you? If that were true, the Chinese would be the only people with a lock on reality!
You can't vote out that bonfire, after all.
A number of years ago, a small religious cult committed suicide together after agreeing that an approaching comet was the "mother ship" come to take them away! This was OPINION treated as though it were FACT.
Millions of people consult Astrology books to determine their fate or future. Thousands of people wear copper bracelets, rabbit foot charms, lucky bowling shirts and religious medalians to ward off bad luck. They feel there is a "reality" to the effect. Need I convince you it is only OPINION?
How much proof would an irrational person have to have to become convinced of something?
FACT: "truth" is what matches actual reality rather than opinion.
Are there tests for what is True? Are there standards and rules? Sure!
Primary truths
There are three "primary truths" inherently accepted in the investigation of knowledge and truth. They are the first fact (the fact of our existence), the first principle (the principle of non-contradiction) and the first condition (the ability of the mind to know truth).
A person objecting to these essential truths cannot set a standard of proof without implicitly accepting the premises.
Validity
Truth is the agreement of a premise or judgment with reality. Contrastingly, validity is the adherence to rules of logic in the relationship between premises and conclusions.
Evidence of certainty
Truth is not usually self-apparent and must be proven through rational analysis.
For example, the boiling point of water must be discovered and tested. if this is doubted, the experiment can be recreated and the evidence of truth confirmed. To be of rational value, evidence must be objective.
Three possible sources of objective evidence:
1. the evidence of the senses
2.the evidence of rational thought
3.the evidence of expert testimony...however, there is great need for caution with expert accounts, there must be a willingness to challenge authority. When experts have different opinions you must discard Authority as a means of establishing truth.
Coherence
The simplest theory which most effectively reconciles all facts may be considered most likely to be true. Coherence is difficult to dispute as a criterion of truth, since arguing against coherence is validating incoherence, which is inherently illogical
Consistency
Correct statements do not contradict themselves.
Accordingly, an individual is consistent if he does not contradict himself.
It remains a necessary condition for the truth of any argument, owing to the law of noncontradiction. The value of a proof largely lies in its ability to reconcile individual facts into a coherent whole.
In view of the above, if Jehovah's Witnesses were to start a publishing campaign warning people that a momentous event would occur within the next 7 years and that event did NOT occur--it would not matter what OPINION anybody had about the TRUTH of the warning or FACTS of the failure.
In 1968, for example, an advertising and preaching campaign for the END OF 6000 YEARS OF HUMAN EXISTENCE went into full force for 7 years.
It culminated in a NON-event. The FACTS contradicted the message and the authority of Jehovah's Witnesses and their source.
Jehovah's Witnesses were entitled to their own opinion about 1975. The FACTS, however, destroyed all credibility.
The unwillingness to abandon their source authority is further EVIDENCE of unreal and spurious foundational beliefs.
Put simply: they embrace ERROR while caling it the TRUTH.
Calling error the same as truth is evidence of LYING.
You can't have an opinion about THE TRUTH. Reality is as reality does.
Jehovah's Witnesses "reality" is mere OPINION.
Some people will argue with you all day about that......sadly.