Truth and its pursuit

[Bravus]

For a number of obscure reasons we've been discussing the nature of truth and the ways in which we might individually and corporately pursue truth. There are a wide variety of approaches, both explicit and implicit, exhibited here, and it might be useful to explore those so that we can understand one another (and one another's posts) better.

It's a complex set of questions, and will probably meander a bit, but here are a couple of prompts. Please feel free to suggest other prompts, because I know this is far from an exhaustive set.

1. Is there such a thing as objective truth? Or is all truth subjective or intersubjective? If objective truth exists, do we have direct access to it, or only mediated access?

2. Are there different kinds of truth, e.g. scientific, theological, artistic, and so on?

3. In attempting to seek truth, is it possible to pursue a purely objective process that is person-independent, or is every truth-seeking process an individual journey? (I know these are not direct opposites, and acknowledge there many be third and fourth options.)

4. Must we respect other people's personal 'truth' even when it is different from our own personal truth, or from objective truth? Or is it disrespectful not to help them to the truth?

[David Koot]

1. Is there such a thing as objective truth?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

1. Is there such a thing as objective truth? Or is all truth subjective or intersubjective? If objective truth exists, do we have direct access to it, or only mediated access?

I believe there is an absolute, objective truth but... here's the rub, only Go, or at least, sinless beings can see it for what it is. The Bible is truth but only the portions of truth God has chosen to reveal to us.

Quote:

2. Are there different kinds of truth, e.g. scientific, theological, artistic, and so on?

Of course there are different kinds of truth, but one does not contradict another. For example, an artist cannot create a piece of art that defies the laws of science.

Quote:

3. In attempting to seek truth, is it possible to pursue a purely objective process that is person-independent, or is every truth-seeking process an individual journey?

I believe we each have our own journey but they intertwine each other. Like woven fabric, each independent journey impacts the journeys of others it contacts.

Quote:

4. Must we respect other people's personal 'truth' even when it is different from our own personal truth, or from objective truth? Or is it disrespectful not to help them to the truth?

Well, that depends on what the word respect means. If respect means permit each to have their own journey, then I answer yes. We must protect religious freedom unless that religious freedom involves violating the religious freedom of others. I.e. we don't allow a cultic group to kidnap and kill people in human sacrifice.

However if respect means we refrain from sharing what we believe to be truth, then I answer no. Truth need not fear investigation. Sharing what I believe to be truth with someone who believes something else is simply a means of investing differences. If they show no interest in it, then IMO one should not push it but simply dust off their shoes and move on.

[David Koot]

Shane makes a valid point about our ability to observe the facts. Some facts we may readily observe. Other facts are not amenable to direct observation, in which case circumstantial evidence must be evaluated.

And then, there is the 'never-never land' of one's personal emotional or spiritual journey, which are not matters of objective truth, but are quite subjective.

Personally, I am interested in the facts. I find the challenge of identifying the facts to be exhilarating. As for the fuzzy-wuzzy areas of one's personal emotional experience, I would leave that to the shrinks.

I should clarify that last paragraph. I am interested in people, in getting to know them, in understanding them, in empathizing with them. But that is a separate matter from the quest for truth.

Dave

[D. Allan]

[color:#6600c]If objective truth exists, do we have direct access to it, or only mediated access?

Access to what one might call 'truth' is mediated by our senses. Dave feels that he is sitting on a chair, he sees his desk, yet he hasn't the faintest knowledge of what his chair and desk actually are since his senses are very limited (no offence intended, Dave )! Our understanding of complicated, deep truths is further limited and mediated by our limited intelligences, (some have more than others). IMO it is wise to be reticent about claiming to have a handle on truth.

[color:#6600c] Are there different kinds of truth, e.g. scientific, theological, artistic, and so on?

In science isn't truth a process? Truth exists but science always unfolds deeper and deeper insights leading closer and closer to it. Is there a musical untruth? Sentimentality might be classed as a musical or artistic untruth.

Must we respect other people's personal 'truth' even when it is different from our own personal truth, or from objective truth? Yes. Our idea of what is truth may be defective. It may be subjective while we think it to be objective.

Or is it disrespectful not to help them to the truth?

It is arrogant unless they ask for help to assume that they are wrong and we are right. It may be us that needs the help.

These are some first thoughts. I'm hoping to learn.

[David Koot]

Dave feels that he is sitting on a chair, he sees his desk, yet he hasn't the faintest knowledge of what his chair and desk actually are since his senses are very limited

Agreed, and a good illustration of the importance of sticking to the observable facts. I can state as fact that there is a desk, that its surface is grey granite pattern, that the top is 2 inches thick, that it is kidney-shaped, and eight feet wide by four feet deep. I would stick with those facts, until such time as I was able to identify additional facts by virtue of proper observational instruments. To an empiricist, speculation is anathema.

[Bravus]

I know there's an incommensurability here, in that we're asking for people's individual takes on truth, and some of them then say 'truth is absolute, it's not about my individual opinion'. I think what we can do in this discussion is not necessarily 'cnvert' others to our ways of seeing the issues, but at least come to understand on another better. It's always attempting to assume that someone who sees the world differently really sees the world in the same way as us and is just being difficult!

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I believe there is an absolute, objective truth but... here's the rub, only Go, or at least, sinless beings can see it for what it is.

That was suppose to say "only God". I don't grasp the concept of there being more than one truth.

[Bravus]

I guess I'll have my own bash at the questions, just to keep the discussion going.

Quote:

1. Is there such a thing as objective truth? Or is all truth subjective or intersubjective? If objective truth exists, do we have direct access to it, or only mediated access?

This question plays into Question 2 below, actually: is there objective truth in science but not in art, for example? The first and third sub-questions here are also logically distinguishable but practically indistinguishable: we can't tell the difference between an existing objective truth to which we have only mediated access and subjective truths.

I'm less confident than David K that even the most basic empirical facts about our experience are quite as independent as he suggests. Partly because of what goes on at the quantum level (which admittedly rarely effects us much at the macroscopic level) and partly because of the mediation of language and category systems. The inches and feet David used stand in for dimensions of experience that are language-independent, but still... Then there are questions about the fundamental nature of things, and whether that's important. For example, that solid desktop is, at the atomic level, mostly empty space. That is truth, but it's not directly and empirically observable.

Quote:

2. Are there different kinds of truth, e.g. scientific, theological, artistic, and so on?

I think so, and that they're different based on the kind of evidence that's relevant. Empirical evidence is the relevant evidence for scientific questions, and some kind of textual or hermeneutic evidence for (text-based) theological questions. We could argue about Keats' 'beauty is truth and truth beauty' in the realm of art, and whether aesthetic criteria are too subjective to allow us to make truth claims in that domain. But none of us is really all that interested in the truth of art, I don't think, so perhaps we can just talk about the similarities and differences between theological and scientific truth. Then perhaps theology needs to be split into the text-based and the mystical/experience-based dimensions.

Quote:

3. In attempting to seek truth, is it possible to pursue a purely objective process that is person-independent, or is every truth-seeking process an individual journey? (I know these are not direct opposites, and acknowledge there many be third and fourth options.)

The claim is made that it is possible to seek truth in an objective way such that all reasonable observers will agree that it is indeed truth. In very simple observations of physical systems it is probably the case, although even there once we go beyond 'that rock is gray' to say 'that rock is falling' and then 'it is falling because of gravity' we quickly start to have to think about Newton's gravity and Einstein's gravity (and some of us are still using Aristotle's gravity). I guess my point is that, although the claim is made, it seldom seems to work in practice (i.e. that everyone agrees something is true). Isn't it, therefore, empirically falsified?

Quote:

4. Must we respect other people's personal 'truth' even when it is different from our own personal truth, or from objective truth? Or is it disrespectful not to help them to the truth?

I think Shane is right in questioning what 'respect' means in this context. I don't think it means 'hold as unchallengable' - if it's their truth then there's nothing further to say. It's more a matter of how we challenge their perspective... and perhaps of humility in relation to our own level of knowledge (which is independent of the existence or otherwise of objective truth). Dismissing someone else's truth as lies or deceptions or whatever is likely to mean that the only role we can play in relation to them is adversarial, which may be unhelpful in introducing new truth to them. On the other hand, accepting their truth as unchallengable means we have little left to say.

Just some very preliminary thoughts and reactions.

[Bravus]

Quote:

I believe there is an absolute, objective truth but... here's the rub, only God, or at least, sinless beings can see it for what it is.

Oops, I meant to address that point, Shane. I agree with you (as fair as I'm sure of any of this), that there is an absolute truth, known only to God and fully graspable only by God. Our efforts to know are therefore our efforts to know the mind of God - something we work toward but never fully reach.

[David Koot]

Okay, for a little more clarification . . .

I grant you that even the most basic empirical observation relies on axioms. I am assuming those axioms to be true. And, regardless of the axioms, the true nature of the desk is factual. It is not affected by our axioms. The issue is observational in nature. Thus, we make visual observations of the desk, and we assume them to be accurate and measurable based on our measuring instruments.

But now, let's go on to another level of complexity: origins.

Whatever DID happen in terms of origins, it is a matter of fact. It is factual in nature. The problem arises in the realm of observation. Since we were not eyewitnesses of the events, we are left with circumstantial evidence. A student may observe evidence, and reach conclusions. One challenge arises when the student places his or her own construct--"spin"--on the data. None of that in any way affects what actually occurred. The issue is our observations.

Similarly, in terms of the existence of God. Whatever may be the rruth about the existence and attributes of God, such matters are factual in nature. The challenge for us is observational. The Bible and other sources contain circumstantial evidence about God. Observing and interpreting the data is an ongoing, and challenging task.

Dave

[David Koot]

Then perhaps theology needs to be split into the text-based and the mystical/experience-based dimensions.

[Bravus]

On empirical physical questions, I agree: with sufficient technology we can definitively choose between competing theories.

I wasn't as clear as I intended to be in what I wrote above. I was then extending the idea to talk about theories in other domains of life, including theology. I was saying that the claim is that, if objective methods are followed, everyone (or everyone but the insane) will agree with the result. We see no cases of this 'in the wild', so that's what I was saying is falsified: the idea that appropriate methods lead to agreement, in fields other than science.

[Amelia]

How important is knowing the truth now vs knowing the truth in Heaven? I am not pointing to any specific truth, just truths in general?

[D. Allan]

Everyone agrees that the David's desk is really there, i guess. Our judgements and propositions about it make not the slightest difference concerning its reality. It is our judgements and propositions about its reality that we are evaluating in our pursuit of truth. This is the 'empirical' view, if my understanding is correct. That the test of truth is the correspondence with reality of our judgements and propositions with "objective reality." The empiricist says truth is the agreement between a statement of fact and the actual fact. Truth has to do with the statements or claims that we make about things.

One problem with that viewpoint is: how can we compare our ideas with reality? How can we step out of our minds in order to make an objective unbiased judgement of the correspondence of our ideas with reality. We cannot escape from our experience. We cannot know anything apart from ourselves.

Some of our ideas have no objects outside of our thoughts that we can check for a correspondence with reality. Ideas like math and logic. Yet there is a high degree of certainty about the truth of math and logic.

So can we say that the empirical method of checking our ideas for correspondance with reality is not broad enough? It may seem to work in some cases, but we cannot be sure? With math and logic it does not even apply?

[David Koot]

I was then extending the idea to talk about theories in other domains of life, including theology.

[Bravus]

OK, that's clear. Three follow-up questions:

(1) Is Scripture the only revelation of God? Are there other relevant forms of evidence?

(2) Is it your view that Scripture is infallibly factual in its reports of the character and nature of God? In other words, you've talked about the fallibiity of our observations. Does that apply to the Bible writers, or does your view of inspiration make that impossible?

(3) What about the tale of the blind men and the elephant? Where the elephant can stand in for either God or Scripture. We might be millimetre perfect and objective in our measurements of the elephant's tail but unaware that its tusk even exists. God and the Bible are both too great and complex for us to fully comprehend. Do you accept that statement, and what are its implications in the quest for truth?

[David Koot]

Everyone agrees that the David's desk is really there, i guess. Our judgements and propositions about it make not the slightest difference concerning its reality. It is our judgements and propositions about its reality that we are evaluating in our pursuit of truth. This is the 'empirical' view, if my understanding is correct. That the test of truth is the correspondence with reality of our judgements and propositions with "objective reality." The empiricist says truth is the agreement between a statement of fact and the actual fact. Truth has to do with the statements or claims that we make about things.

[Bravus]

By the way, much as I'm enjoying the dialogue with David, it'd be great of this thread can be broader and include more voices and perspectives. Please do chime on either on the on-going discussion or on the initial questions.

Amelia asked: "How important is knowing the truth now vs knowing the truth in Heaven? I am not pointing to any specific truth, just truths in general?"

On one hand I'm inclined to leave it for heaven, when we'll be able to just ask and find out. On the other hand, if 'the truth shall make you free', I wanna be as free as possible now!

[Bravus]

Mathematics, apart from simple counting and arithmetic, is not really empirically based, although it is sometimes used as a tool in science. It is more of an internally consistent human construct, in which the rules are established by consensus among mathematicians, not derived from the physical world.

[Amelia]

pardon moi, but wasnt some math invented to proove theories?

[David Koot]

Are there other relevant forms of evidence?

[David Koot]

Amelia asked: "How important is knowing the truth now vs knowing the truth in Heaven? I am not pointing to any specific truth, just truths in general?"

On one hand I'm inclined to leave it for heaven, when we'll be able to just ask and find out. On the other hand, if 'the truth shall make you free', I wanna be as free as possible now!

Discovery is thrilling for discovery's sake. And accuracy is an end in itself.

[Woody]

I am going to jump in on this one. I haven't keep up on the previous posts. But ... personally I refuse to state that ANY of the truths that I know of are "objective truths". ALL of my beliefs are my opinion of truth. I believe that God will reeducate me when I get to Heaven. I refuse to be so dogmatic as to believe that I won't need to be reeducated by God. I am not so perfect in my human abilities as to say that my beliefs are beyond error. No matter how much the Holy Spirit guides me.

I do my best to understand the Bible and God. I apply it to my life the best I can. God accepts it as my best effort. But even my best effort needs to be covered by His Robe. My best effort is not worth anything. The only hope for my Salvation is HIS Life as a substitute for mine. God works in me as much as I allow Him. It is HIS good works in me to the extent that I allow him to. But it is still not good enough. His working in my life still needs His robe to cover those works of His.

My salvation is not .... What He does in my life plus His robe. It is totally His robe. The works He does in my life does not count towards Salvation.

Well ... that is MY personal opinion. You can have your objective truth and I will have my opinion. But my opinion of truth is based on my study of the Bible just as your pursuit of truth is based on your opinion of the Bible.

In the end accuracy of the truth is just an opinion that will most likely have to be adjusted far more than we would ever think ... when we get to Heaven.

[bevin]

1. Is there such a thing as objective truth? Or is all truth subjective or intersubjective? If objective truth exists, do we have direct access to it, or only mediated access?

What is truth? To me a statement is true if it is part of a fairly reliable predictor of future experiments. For example: "My wife loves me" is a true statement, because it is part of the prediction that "the noises from down stairs are her making my breakfast" (a real-life statement, by the way)

2. Are there different kinds of truth, e.g. scientific, theological, artistic, and so on?

Such distinctions are convenient and personal - it helps one organize an otherwise unmanageably many set of issues

3. In attempting to seek truth, is it possible to pursue a purely objective process that is person-independent, or is every truth-seeking process an individual journey? (I know these are not direct opposites, and acknowledge there many be third and fourth options.)

People are inherently subjective - our sensing and analysing is done by fallible cell-based wet-white-and-gray-stuff

4. Must we respect other people's personal 'truth' even when it is different from our own personal truth, or from objective truth? Or is it disrespectful not to help them to the truth?

We can provide input, but unless they want to hear it, and can understand it, it usually aggrivates them - and, since it is all based on fallible biology, life is a lot easier with we accept our and their limitations