[aragornreborn]

I don't think this is what aragornreborn meant. I think he was saying that even when both parties are wrong, there is something right and neither party happens to be doing it.

Yes. Very nicely put, Sophia the Thunder Mistress.

Well, Galadriel of the Olden, you may not like my answer. Because my answer can be rather inflamtory in today's politically correct society where apples may be apples to me, oranges to you, or grapes to someone else and everyone is OK with that. Everything could be relative or unknowable. If so, life is pointless. There is no real meaning or possibilities or life itself, really. On the other hand, there could be an absolute set of standards (good) and the deviation from those standards (as Daugther of Vana put it), bad. If that is true and there is only one set of standards (obviously there can't be more than one set of absolutes), then anything conforming to the set of standards is right and anything rebelling from the set is wrong. In the case of religion (as well as anything else), there is truth. There must be some religous truth and it must be knowable. If you believe that (if you don't I'll go right back to saying everything's pointless), then, yes, all but one religion is wrong. That isn't as harsh as it sounds. People aren't forced to believe things. It's their choice. And If they choose to believe that life has a point, they need to find that point, the truth. It's their responsibility.

In this you are right, aragornreborn. But the trick is coming up with an accurate standard by which one can gauge this objective world. How does the objective world work (natural science), what is the objective world and why does it exist (metaphysics), what is our place in the objective world (philosophical anthropology), and how do we relate to others in this objective world (ethics)? All of these studies have a dialectic history that can be boiled down to opinion and counter-opinion, even the scientific method.

Well, here I respectfully diagree. Yes, there must be a standard of measurement (which would be inherently accurate or it is not a standard). But if you say that that standard is based upon human opinion I beg to differ. The standard must be from beyond human "creation." Otherwise, all is relative. There is no reason why I should believe one person's standards over another's. Therefore, the standard must be present but not the creation of man. Man certainly discovers it, but the source must be outside of man. By discover, I mean that men discover, for example, the scientific laws. Man did not create them them, certainly. He gave them names, but didn't create them. Through logical study and experimentation of the natural world, men were able to discover somr truths. The only way you can "know" that something is true is through logical study and experimentation. In the past I've used know in a different way. When I said that all truth is knowable, I meant all truth is comprehendable. What we can know through science is absolute fact. We can discover truth as far as we can logically study and experiment. But science has its limits. It is limited to the natural, physical world. Philosophy, ethics, and religion can not be measured by science (synonymous to logical study and experimentation) because they can not be logically studied or experimented with. They are in what I'll call the super-natural. They are beyond the physical nature of things. They are of a different quality. As such, they can not be known by the only method that we can absolutely know anything by - science. That's where knowing as comprehending comes in. There certainly must be a truth in religion because religion spawns all super-natural ideas and super-natural things exist or everything is pointless. But, since we can not logically study or experiment with the super-natural, it can not be known as absolute fact. The truth does exist and is comprehendable, but it is not absolutely, factually, knowable because religion is faith. And faith is not based on fact. It can't be by definition. Faith is based on faith. You have to trust and believe that what you believe is right. That does not mean you just pick a religion and blindly hope it's right. While faith can not be proved by facts, facts point you to faith. Faith (a religion) can be trusted through inner conviction based on outward evidence. By outward evidence I mean that if the religion says that oranges are grapes then obviously it is wrong. If science can prove the religion wrong, the religion is wrong. If the religion says that oranges are oranges, then at least you know that it is correct scientifically. If a religion is completely correct scientifically, it has passed the first test. The test of outward evidence. It must also pass the inner conviction test. The supernatural rules over the inner conviction aspects of a religion - They "why's" and "how's." And, I can't tell you how to prove your inner convictions because they can't be proved. It's faith. Some general guidelines are does the religion makes sense? Does it contradict itself? Does it work? Do you have a purpose? Is your life changed? True religion must exist, and there must be only one true religion. Our job is to find it and have faith.

All your playing with apples, there, is making me a little nervous, aragornreborn. *Carefully peeking over the hedge*

LOL, sorry! That does have personal implications for you doesn't it! I might have to switch to oranges...