Rather quickly, I realized that those holding opposing views to my own seemed to have a different definition of "truth" than I do. I've witnessed, in this particular conversation, as well as others, three basic concepts of "truth": (1) The one I hold is that there is such a thing as truth, and we should seek to search it out and discover what it is. (2) Another major concept is what is often referred to as "post-modernism", a highly relative idea of truth. We can't really know the truth (or there is no truth). Whatever we want to believe is "true" for us, and reality is defined by our beliefs. Since that is a fairly extreme view, the more common "quasi-relative" view I encountered (3) is a sort of blending of the two. These folks believe in an absolute truth only in the areas that can be definitively proven through empirical means (5 senses); anything else is simply opinion.
Since going in circles in a running debate on a variety of topics with no clear definition of "truth" was kind of making my brain hurt (and is pretty futile), I decided to withdraw and look up the definition. According to Dictionary.com, "Truth" is defined as:
1. the true or actual state of a matter
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
This was the first definition offered, the following ones more or less repeated these ideas with some rewording and very little relativistic meaning. The conclusion: "Truth" simply is that which is.
Our opinions and beliefs do not change or alter what is true, regardless of our devotion, reasoning, or accepted evidence to the contrary.
At one point in the above mentioned conversation, I made the comment, "If there is a question, then there has to be a right answer." I've been thinking about that statement, wondering if that is indeed correct, however, I think that it is.
The answer may be "We can't figure out the truth", "There's not enough information to determine the truth" or even "This is a matter of preference". But there IS a True answer.
Take Ice Cream for example. If the question is, "What is the tastiest flavor?" How do you answer? What if you are lactose intolerant and can't have ice cream? Then you do not possess the means to answer the question since you cannot do the necessary (rather tasty) research. Maybe you have only ever had vanilla and strawberry; you can't answer the question because at this time you haven't tasted all flavors to be able to make a determination. However, I think we would all agree that the answer to this particular question really is a "matter of preference."
The answer may even be determined by the desired result. Consider the question, "What is the best way to get there from here?" If, for you, "best" means easiest, most peaceful, least traffic, then the long way around would be best. But what if you're a pizza delivery driver and the faster you get it there the bigger the tip you will receive? You'll have a different answer.
OK, so now you're saying, "WHOA, Marc! You're sounding pretty relativistic here. I thought you said there is absolute truth?" Yes, there is. In the case of which route is "best" the Absolute answer is determined by your definition of "best". Mainly because "best" is kind of vague. The delivery driver isn't asking "which route is best?" They are really asking, "Which route will get me there fastest?"
A lot of times what appears relative is really just lack of sufficient definitions.
Think about it? When you ask, "Is it raining outside?" Someone might say, "No, it's just drizzling." Well, if you're wearing a silk blouse and "drizzle" still gets you wet when you go outside, you might consider that rain. Where as me in my jeans, boots and jacket may not care and so I don't consider it to be "raining."
Or if you ask a classmate, "Is the teacher here today?" You are seeking an absolute response as to whether the assigned instructor for your class will be present in the classroom, not some abstract idea about how we are all always learning from each other and so whoever is around you is your "teacher" ... and what do we really mean by "here" anyway? That is generally understood.
One of the kids in my youth group is like this. He sees someone using a word where the socially acceptable meaning is not really literal, and he pounces with his sarcastic wit to point out the flaw in the person's statement. But his behavior points out the reality that we all use words differently. Sometimes subtly so and sometimes drastically so. But these differences in vocabulary can cause great differences in perception of The Truth.
Also, most things we can simply test with our senses and know the TRUTH of the situation. "Is it raining?" Look out the window. "Is this burned?" Smell it or taste a bit. "Is the AC on?" Get up and go look at the thermostat. "Is that new movie still playing?" Check the theater's website or call.
However, and this is where all the controversy and hurt feelings come up, there are things which have absolute answers for which we do not appear to have complete information or we place values on the evidences presented to us.
"Is there such a thing as a 'spiritual' or 'supernatural' realm"? Now we can argue all day long about if there is or not, and the sufficiency of the 'evidence' presented by each side, but what we cannot do is say it is a matter of opinion.
The same can be said for questions such as "Does God exist?", "Is Jesus the Son of God?", "Is the Bible reliable?", "Are people inherently sinful or basically good or just whatever society teaches them to be?", "Is there an afterlife?"
In my previously mentioned Facebook conversation, a friend mentioned that these things are not matters of truth. Specifically that "You cannot opine truth."
Back to the dictionary! According to dictionary.com "opine" means, "to hold or express an opinion".
Sorry bud, but yes you can opine the truth. Scientists do it all the time. It's called a hypothesis.
[Pet peeve side note: I find it interesting that people who hold up science and the scientific method are willing to accept untestable ideas about the past like Darwinian Evolution (which addresses events of the distant past that cannot be tested with the scientific method) as "True" but then turn around and say that since "spiritual" things can't be tested by scientific methods then they can't be true.]
Uniformitarianism: the belief that everything in the past has always behaved according to the processes we see at work in the present. It is an opinion. The Truth is that natural processes either have or have not been constant throughout history. Since scientists cannot observe the past, they cannot really know for sure if uniformitarianism is "true" or not. Most scientists have the opinion that it is. They may be wrong. They have "opined the truth."
We all use the logic and reason to fill in the gaps where the concrete evidence does not provide an absolute answer. Since we all have certain presuppositions about the world around us, our logic and reason will necessarily produce various conclusions. Because we have a certain conclusion or just because we see a variety of conclusions does not exclude the possibility of the truth.
"Truth" simply IS the state of reality. It IS what IS. Our awareness of it, belief in it, understanding or perception of it does not change or alter the Truth in any way.
The one time I meet you, you may have a bad day. Now my conclusion based on my limited evidence and applied reason says, "This guy's a jerk." The Truth may be that you're actually a very kind and caring person who gives almost to the point of pain to be a blessing to those around you. I just happened to catch you on the day after you've been up all night at the hospital while your mom was undergoing surgery after being hit by a drunk driver and didn't make it. And on top of that the whole reason she was driving anyway was because you decided to stay late at the homeless shelter and she decided to drive herself. So now you're tired, grieving and guilt-ridden. All information I didn't know and couldn't have known. Truth: Nice guy. My opinion based on limited evidence and reason: Jerk.
Chances are that you understand THAT example. That's why we tend to try and give people some leeway and some grace. Because we don't know the whole story, and they may just be having a bad day. We lack complete evidence, and our logic may be based on faulty assumptions.
But then many people turn around and do the opposite with God. Does He even exist? Is He personal and involved or aloof and detached? Is He loving or mean? Does He judge evil or let us slide if we have good intentions? We draw our conclusions about spirituality and God and religion based on our limited experience and apply our logic based on (potentially) faulty assumptions, and then proclaim that we have figured out the Truth, can't know the Truth, or that the Truth doesn't exist. Then when others try to provide additional evidence or reasoning to the contrary it gets dismissed outright because conclusions have already been made and "how dare you try to push your beliefs on me?!"
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that spiritual and religious matters are deeply personal. The impact and consequences of both the truth about, and our beliefs on, religion affect every other aspect of our lives. To even pose the idea that we have foolishly or carelessly dealt with the basic foundations of life would mean that our whole perception is built on a lie or at least a misunderstanding. Our pride doesn't want to admit it, and our sense of self-preservation doesn't want to rock the philosophical boat.
However, for the very reason that it IS such a foundational issue, we should try to be open to the "truth" that we don't know everything. And within the realm of the information we don't possess may be the missing evidence that could change our perception of, and draw us closer to a better understanding of, the Truth.
Does that mean we can't be devout or have strong convictions? Of course not. As the old country song says, if you don't stand for something then you'll fall for anything.
If we do not have a solid foundation, a basic set of presuppositions, that the rest of our reasoning starts from, then we will be lost, confused, believing anything with no clear sense of self or purpose, unable to figure out the larger issues in life ... or the smaller ones either.
We should examine the evidence before us, reason to the best of our abilities according to our experience and the understanding we have, and stick to it, holding any so called "evidence" to a high standard. Obviously we should not so easily abandon carefully considered and deeply held beliefs.
However, we should not be so closed off or obtuse that we outright dismiss or deny any such evidence could exist or that we take offense at or personally lash out at those who would try to introduce us to a new perspective or piece of evidence.
The Truth is out there. And we are obligated to honestly seek it out, regardless of personal stakes or feelings.
No comments:
Post a Comment