skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In my last post, I attempted to explore and contrast the differences between assumption, fact, belief and knowledge and apply them to the standard of "objective reality." I recently received this comment from a reader:
I'd like to hear more on objective reality. Your "the world is round" comment made me think...is Earth round? Obviously, we know it is round from a extraterrestrial yet intra solar system perspective. But what about from another galaxy? Our solar system is not spherical. It is a flat disc. And our Earth is a non-dimensional speck. Without rambling, I'm just curious as to how objective is reality? And similarly, how universal can truth be?
I want to: a) thank the reader for his question and, b) attempt to answer this question to the best of my ability.
One of the prevalent definitions that I have been working off of for the purposes of this blog has been that of "objective and factual reality." Let me begin by making a clear admission: all three key words in that phrase are highly debatable in terms of conception. Allow me to explain further: - Objective - the dictionary defines "objective" as "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." The definition, however, can be deceptively straightforward. The problem is not necessarily the act of defining objectivity but achieving objectivity. It is my opinion that humans, because of their inherent first-person perspective, are not able to achieve complete objectivity. We all have limited perspectives as individuals and, as a species, our perspective is also currently limited. Whether that will change any time in the future remains to be seen. I do believe that there is a "reality" that is completely objective and free from personal bias and limited perspective, even if humans cannot perceive it. It appears to me that φύσις (physis or, crudely, "nature") is objective outside of νόμος (nomos or "human convention"). In this light one might say that nature, itself, is both objective and real because it does not conform to the biases, feelings or interpretations of human convention.
- Factual - this idea, too, is difficult to wrestle with. In modern, English-speaking traditions we understand the word fact to have the meaning of "holding a mirror to reality." From an empirical, and scientific, perspective this makes plenty of sense. There is a conflict, however, when one reads the idea of a fact in an ancient sense. The Latin word for fact - facere - means, roughly, to do or make with one's hands. It is the same Latin root that provides English words like "factory" and "manufacture". The ancient Greek analog of facere is poeio or poesis - the root word for poetry. Tying this with the previous definition, a fact is also a product of human convention because it requires a medium of communication in order for it to be shared between peoples and because it also, generally, requires an agreement between peoples to be accepted. Thus, in order to get to a place where your knowledge of the world is informed by facts, you must first come to terms with the idea of factuality and decide how you intend to deploy the word with language.
- Reality - this may be the most troubling idea of all. Every time I use the word "reality" I can feel my professors cringe. I use this word a lot, but I also try to use this word advisedly or, on occasion, by framing it in quotation marks. The English word "reality" has a Latin root in res - meaning "thinghood" or "thingness" - and in the Greek word onto - meaning "being". If that sounds confusing or pedantic to you, you're definitely not alone. How can anyone begin to define something like "being" or "thinghood"? This, of course, is the problem associated with using a word like "reality" without prefacing it with a specific definition.
Even with these logological difficulties with understanding "objective factual reality", I still think it is possible to employ the concept. If we refrain from framing our exploration of reality in a human-centered (anthropocentric) view and allow for a broader Being-centered (ontocentric) view, the idea of "reality" begins to take sharper focus. All of that is a ridiculously philosophical way of saying the following: "reality", as I understand it, is considerably larger than the human being's perspective and experience: unlimited, unaltered and indifferent to our attempts - successful or not - to understand it.
With regard to "how universal can truth be", I can only fall back to a simple answer: truth is only as universal as reality is; which is to say that it is only universal, since truth and reality are the same. How people understand, interpret or communicate truth may be prone to mistake or manipulation, but - again - reality (and truth) is unbiased and not influenced by human convention.
The Preamble: I get to have a lot of conversations with a lot of people and they're rarely about trivial or "light" topics. People who know me will laugh at that admission as something of an understatement. I've, often times, wondered seriously if that part of my personality was a flaw in my character and sometimes regret that I can't take a normal conversation to a pleasant and ultimately superficial end. But in these "heavy" or "deep" conversations I get to observe first-hand all kinds of human behavior. Because of the nature of the conversations, I get to observe the way people react to challenging ideas, new principles, or revolutionary theories. One of the most common threads I see with people in these observations is the refusal of any truth (to whatever degree of evidence) because of the messenger. If we, as people, don't like the person speaking - we're that much less likely to accept any truth from them.
The Case: Truth is universal. If it isn't universal then it can't be truth... it's something else. Something less. It applies to all people, all of the time. But there's also another aspect of the universality of truth: if your interest and sole loyalty is to the truth then all truth in the universe belongs to you. My friends have a saying: "all truth is our truth." It's a motto we have that we repeat to each other whenever we have to remind ourselves and each other that truth is truth, regardless of where it comes from. All of this is starting to sound kind of academic and "out of touch", I'm sure. Let me unpack this differently.
When a conservative pundit or politician gives statistical, accurate, and/or factual information about the medical dangers and long-term trauma associated with abortion, liberals should listen to that. Likewise, when Al Gore or some credible liberal scientist talks about the dangers associated with global warming (which are statistically proven - this planet is getting warmer) and urge that humans should make it an urgent and immediate priority to reduce carbon emissions, conservatives should listen to that. Liberals - as normal human beings with very normal human reactions - have a nasty tendency to immediately knee-jerk and refuse to hear the information that come from conservatives.This is true of conservatives as well (and we could debate for decades over who does it more, but that would be a complete waste of time.)
When Osama bin Laden says that U.S. foreign policy and our own greed as a nation (and as individuals sharing in the wealth of this nation) is responsible for the hatred we are experiencing the world over - we should listen to that. Not because we like Osama bin Laden or find him to be a credible person, but because the people that are doing the hating are all saying the same thing. If they all agree on the reason for their hate, then we should pay attention (if, of course, peace is something we would like to ever achieve).
When James Dobson says that families function best when you have a man and a woman in a stable, monogamous relationship producing children - we should listen to that. There is statistical information to corroborate that claim. We don't have to like James Dobson or what he stands for in general to accept the truth of his claim.
When Barack Obama addresses a convention of Christian ministers and says that American Christians "aren't reading their Bibles" and that their behavior and policy positions do not reflect the tenets and teaching of the New Testament - we should listen to that. Barack Obama may not be credible, he may not be a good person, he may be a "closet Muslim" (though the idea is truly ridiculous and laughable to anyone willing to see the truth)... he may not be someone we like, but we should listen to what he's saying because it's true.
All truth is our truth. A truth about the life of Jesus is just as easily spoken from the mouth of an atheist as it is from the Pope in Rome or Billy Graham. A true criticism from the outside is every bit as true (even if unwelcome) as a true criticism from within. A scientist talking about evolution is telling the truth, even when it seems to a religious person that this truth violates their traditions or sacred texts. A lesson on the cyclical nature of violence is true whether spoken by Ghandi or Christ. All truth belongs to us.
In this sense those of us that place a sole loyalty to the truth - outside of ideology or preference, or preconception - belong to a kind of fraternity. In a conversation with a friend of mine I described this idea as "the church of truth". We all belong to a corpus of individuals that are trying to approach this singular, universal, and objective reality from totally different places and viewpoints. In this way we're like kindred spirits - it's a dedication to the objective reality of truth that binds us all together. It, also, not only binds us to each other, but to every truth we can substantiate and every truth we can't - the still unseen and mysterious reality. It's a "church", in the original sense of the word, that transcends any kind of division between us. From race, to religion, political affiliation, nationality, economic background, social status, geography, education, and gender.
If truth is truly universal, and truth truly applies to everyone equally, then it is in truth (knowing it and living it) that we are bound together. It is the common foundation of all of the virtues - upon which all civil human interaction is dependent. It is the destination, the path, and the journey - both the means and the end. Truth is the reality which all humankind exists in and the light by which to see it.
"Anyone working and living in truth and reality is constantly drawing closer to the light so the work they do can be seen for what it is: divine." - Jesus (John 3:21)
"You will become increasingly intimate in your knowledge of what is true, and that intimacy with truth will liberate your entire being." - Jesus (John 8:32)
The Question: What truth are you rejecting becuase of the messenger bringing it? How do you respond to the idea of a "church or truth" that transcends all methods of division (including religion and culture)?
First, I would like to thank all of you that have sent me emails and called me up in regards to the previous post (honesty - the best policy). It's been such a great experience to share with all of you and to get such great positive and constructive feedback. A lot of the questions I got were based on the structure of truth as I was trying to explain it. It became very apparent to me that I had explained this part poorly and need to clarify. While I was meditating on the subject my thoughts drifted to the scientific method and I immediately began to see the connection between the scientific process and the structure of truth that we're all looking for together.
The scientific method, for those of you who aren't very familiar with it, outlines the process by which scientists substantiate their hypotheses and create scientific laws. As the method goes, a scientists starts with a hypothesis: this hypothesis is simply an unsubstantiated idea or question. From there a scientist will take that hypothesis and use the tools of observation and experimentation to flesh out the hypothesis. If the experiment fails or the observations don't pan out then the hypothesis is either tossed out or adjusted so that the new information and facts drive the process - not the beliefs.
Once the hypothesis has been proven to a reasonable degree (i.e. in every way that it can be proven with the tools and information available to humans), then it becomes a scientific theory. A theory in science, unlike a "theory" as the word is used by a layperson, is not just an idea... it's a proven idea. It's proven to be true as far as we can tell. For instance, creationists (wanting to remain firmly in their strict and literal interpretation of Genesis' creation narrative) will attack the concept of evolutionary theory being taught in high school biology because "it's only a theory - it's not a fact." But that's a general misconception of what a theory is: a theory is a fact in every way that we can measure, but (as in the case of evolution) we can't prove as fact all of the necessary details to make it into a scientific law. But the title of "theory" means that it is as factual as we can tell and is potentially a law.
A scientific law is the equivalent of "factual truth". It is proven to be true in all circumstances and for all people all of the time. "The Sun is the center of the solar system", "humans carry two pairs of 23 chromosomes in their genetic structure", "the earth is round", "what goes up must come down". These laws were born from a hypothesis that became a theory through experimentation and observation and were declared laws when all points could be independently substantiated.
To search out truth - real, factual, empirical, objective, and universal reality - the same method is at work. The only difference is the terminology. Instead of "hypothesis" we use "belief", instead of "theory" we use "axiom" or "philosophical truth", and instead of "law" we use "factual truth".
In this sense a belief can be false. It's just an idea. It's not really proven at any real level. It is here that all ideology is born. This is why ideology is incredibly dangerous - they are all based on completely unsubstantiated ideas. If they were proven they wouldn't be ideologies or beliefs - they'd be taken for granted as truth. That doesn't mean that the core belief of an ideology is definitely false - it means it is unproven and could be false. An ideology could be having the believer base his or her entire view of reality on something that could be false.
The axioms we have in life are also equally unworthy of being called truth. "The sun will rise tomorrow", "the world will keep on spinning", "mankind is inherently evil", etc. These are a step up from an unsubstantiated belief. We've got some observation and experimentation involved in these. The Sun has never failed to rise. The world has never ceased to spin. And man's cruelty and malevolence toward one another and toward the world we live on has no shortage of examples to draw upon. But it isn't proven in a quantitative or qualitative sense. Only that which can be proven, over and over and over, should be given the coveted and elite title of "truth".
This is an uncomfortable reality for the ideologue or ideologist because it undermines their authority to speak on behalf of the ideology. It, potentially, undermines their individual or collective credibility. Typically there is only one form of combat an ideologue has against this argument: discredit and accuse. At this point the ideologue becomes dangerous to the truth because they will, on occasion, behave like demagogues - arousing the passions and prejudices of the people and flatly refusing the overwhelmingly objective reality. If anyone is curious about the factuality of my argument I simply encourage you to pick up a history book and start at the beginning.
Please - as always - continue to feel free to email me, leave comments, or give me a call. I cherish your thoughts and criticisms.
The preamble: I credit Dallas Willard with giving new life to what should be one of the most obvious truths available to all mankind when he said - of truth - that, "Reality is that thing you run into when you're wrong." Dallas was trying to contrast the concept of "relative truth" and "absolute truth" as he went on to give a parable which I will paraphrase. He talked about a man driving a car and running out of gas. The man, not really comfortable with the inconvenience of his current reality decides to engage in a series of denials. But, as Dallas puts it, no matter how much our shared reality offends our sensibilities, no matter how much sympathy we garner from others about how we shouldn't be beholden to a reality that is so at odds with our own self-interests, no matter how much we protest it: that reality continues to exist. It is that objective reality that should return as the standard for our labels of "truth".
The case: As a history major I had to take a class my first semester at the university to teach me how to be a historian. In this class our professor had to lay the foundation for "historical inquiry" by training us to see the difference between fact, inference, and opinion. You might think to yourself: "wow, seems kind of obvious what the differences are." You might be right. What I noticed during that grueling process (which, at some levels, took all semester) is how unable most people - myself included - are unable to separate empirical fact from inferences and opinions stated as though they were facts. As it says on the sidebar of the blog, I've come to the conclusion that truth has three essential and core elements: it is universal, it is factual, and it is objective. Let's unpack that here for a second.
By claiming that truth is universal, I'm not insisting that it is absolute. The word "absolute" carries with it a stigma that I won't inject into our, hopefully, shared vision of reality. By attributing that it is universal I'm simply characterizing truth as something that must apply equally to all at all times. That means if something is really true for you, then it is also true for me. If it is really true, then that truth almost certainly transcends time. In this way is truth different than fact which can be tied, intrinsically, to specific points in time.
While truth and fact are different in certain aspects of their nature, truth is factual. Truth must be rooted in facts for it to be actual truth. This is where so much truth gets confused and lost for so many of us. As I mentioned in my last post on ideologies and "isms", many of us filter truth and reality through our ideological constructs and we begin to claim that things are true simply because we believe them - not because the reality supports them. I'm not saying that having a belief is wrong so please don't misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that having a belief can be dangerous because you may find, at some point, that your belief is actually at odds with the truth... and that is a life-shattering moment. This is true of all ideologies (of which religions are a considerable member). We see this confusion of truth and belief or opinion in mediums as muddled as car dealership commercials and as sacred as commentary on holy texts. But the reality of it all is that factuality determines truth, not belief. I can no more say that the Christian Bible is "inerrant" holy writ than I can say that so-and-so Ford dealership is the best place in the world to buy a car. The available and empirical facts simply do not support either statement as truth. (I promise to return to this statement in a later post because I know that it might be something of a 'bombshell'.)
Perhaps most importantly for us to remember is that truth is objective. Truth has no agenda to advance, no ax to grind, no interest to protect. Truth simply is... it just exists. As I've mentioned before, the enemy of truth is ideology which is rooted in ego-centrism and the preservation of one's own self-interests. Therefore, it stands to reason, that one will often find truth quite at odds with one's own self-interests.
It is at this starting point of truth as objective and factual reality that our individual and collective journey can begin. I'm not sure if it is a fact or if it is true, but I believe that you - the reader - are likely to be interested in finding some kind of truth in your life. If that is true of you then your first step on this path to finding truth (which will always go deeper and farther than we expect it to, feel comfortable with, and can afford) is to make a solemn pledge of allegiance to the truth. Be prepared to ask questions that make your stomach turn. Questions that are truly unthinkable. Questions that will very likely offend your morals, values, and your sensibilities. Questions that may shake the foundation of your identity and your view of reality. And then prepare yourself for the answers which will almost certainly do all of that and more.
The questions: What values are so deeply ingrained in you that you consider them "non-negotiable"? Are those values rooted in belief or in objective and factual reality? (Be honest with yourself.) In what areas of your life have you been like the man that ran out of gas? Perhaps most importantly: how far are you willing to go to find out the truth?
