What is truth?
Lately the question has been kicking around in my life, so here I find myself typing out my thoughts. When it comes to truth, I am no relativist. I have little
patience for those folks who believe all opinions, religions or cultures are all “equal” or “the same”. I
mean no one is stopping you from believing that way, but it’s just plain
lazy.
On the other hand, I think the Buddhist/Hindu/Jain story informs
my point of view as well.The story goes like this… there were once six blind men that were taken to an elephant and asked to describe what an elephant was like.
 |
| I know this looks and sounds like a mean fraternity prank. |
Each of the six men had a different description of what an elephant was based upon where they stood in relation to the elephant. The man at the trunk was convinced an elephant was like a huge python, the man at the tusk believed an elephant was like a spear, the guy at the ear thought it was like a fan, etc., etc. Of course the point of the story is that none of the men were completely right and none of them were completely wrong. They each had a part of the truth but not the full truth.
For Hindus, the "truth" (and for that matter, God) is too subjective (or in God's case incomprehensible) for anyone person to claim they can see the whole truth. Most people are like those blind guys, believing they know what the elephant is.
When Buddha was asked by people what truth was, he was said to have been silent. Jesus was also silent when Pilate asked him what the truth was. Maybe the question is just a big trap
question. Maybe the truth about truth is that it's like the Tao, once you name it, you’ve lost
it.
..................
In this particular case the woman was proved wrong by the
simple fact that she almost died (she had to end her little experiment). As silly and disturbing as her truth claim was, it could
be verified in the here and now. She
could be proved right or wrong.
The "truth" is, religion kinda sucks as a truth
claim.
Not too long ago, we had a visit from some Mormons in our house. They came by while I was doing yard work, so I set up an appointment with them the following week. After about 40 minutes about talking about the cross, Joseph Smith and the
Book of Abraham, I finally asked them how they knew they were "right". One of them replied that they had prayed about it and they felt God had given them confirmation of the truth of
The Book of Mormon. This is a standard Mormon line. They feel it's true, so therefore, it's true.
I asked him if he thought the Islamic terrorists "felt" they were "right". He replied that yes, he thought that they believed they were following "God's will". If religion's truth is based on how you as an individual feel about it - isn't this a problem? Even if I move beyond my "gut feelings" and I put my trust in the Bible, a church, a pastor, etc., you are still no better (although you might be better informed). Any given church may have misrepresented, mistranslated or even misunderstood "God's will" thus muddying the water even more.
This brings me to the idea of unfalsifiable beliefs. This is best explained by John Wisdom's
Parable of the Invisible Gardner:
"Two people return to their long neglected garden and find, among the
weeds, that a few of the old plants are surprisingly vigorous. One says
to the other, 'It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing
something about these weeds.' The other disagrees and an argument
ensues. They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever
seen. The believer wonders if there is an invisible gardener, so they
patrol with bloodhounds but the bloodhounds never give a cry. Yet the
believer remains unconvinced, and insists that the gardener is
invisible, has no scent and gives no sound. The skeptic doesn't agree,
and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive gardener differs
from an imaginary gardener, or even no gardener at all."
This parable brings up some problems for all religious believers, as faith can’t be verified. It cannot be proved true (or false) in our
lifetime.
One could say that some Christian claims might be able to be "proved" wrong by a discovery of an ancient artifact. However, many believers might question the authenticity or realiablity of any discovery thus undermining this claim of falsifiability.
While falsifiability does prove to be a problem for the veracity of any truth claim, I don't think it sinks all religions. If the religion's truth claims can be proved likely to be not true at all (i.e. Mormonism) then, you have a clear case for disbelief. However, I would posit that if God exists, a level of mystery would be needed in order to retain the moral free agency of people. Either way, I do find problems with discovering what the “truth” is from any religion’s point of view.
All this week I kept thinking about why my pastor’s sermon rubbed me the
wrong way. What’s the problem with stating that Christians have “the truth”? I
mean, I am a Christian after all, don’t I believe my own faith?
I guess that’s what it comes down to – faith. For me, faith is ultimately a call for the
believer to stop trying to answer what the “truth” is. Because
once our faith is something you know as a fact then it’s not really faith
anymore. You cease to have free will and
are only responding to something you have to respond to. I am suspicious
of people who seem to know it all.
 |
| "You should never never doubt what no one is sure about" |
Some people take comfort in answering life's riddles - they put their faith into a church or God or something else entirely. That way their doubts are silenced, their "truth" preserved. My profession has honed my skills as a thinker - every question can be questioned, every query can be reversed to show another side. When I come up with an answer, a new question is then created. Maybe I am insane. Lately I've been consumed with doubt.
Authentic faith, like the pursuit of truth, requires authentic
doubt. Questioning your beliefs or your faith isn’t just a burden, it’s a gift. That’s
how Kierkegaard saw faith, as a miracle from God. When Jacob wrestles and struggles with God he
isn’t struck down by a lightening bolt, he is blessed. It is because of his struggle
he gets the blessing.
The more I struggle, the more I risk, the more I feel like
this is the way it’s supposed to be.
I guess my problem with claiming I have the truth is that in
doing so, I am ignoring the fact that I have doubts about my truth claim. It
doesn’t mean I don’t believe in my truth claim, it’s just it can’t be
proved.
The idea that my truth claim is
somehow better than the other blind guy trying to feel the elephant is a little
silly.
So, we’ll just keep feeling
together, hoping the elephant is really there.
Postscript: Just read
an interview with the new pope and I thought he pretty much summed up this whole post a lot better than me:
"In this quest to seek and find God in all things there is still an area of uncertainty. There must be. If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble. Uncertainty is in every true discernment that is open to finding confirmation in spiritual consolation. Our life is not given to us like an opera libretto, in which all is written down; but it means going, walking, doing, searching, seeing … We must enter into the adventure of the quest for meeting God; we must let God search and encounter us."
