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.
In a recent post on this blog, I stated two opinions about the nature of belief in general and the Christian religion in particular. A friend of mine sent me a message asking me to explain what I meant by them. His message read:Can you explain [these ones] to me:
- "Belief, especially religious belief, is one of the only conventions in the human repertoire that will blatantly defy 'reality.' And no, that's not a good thing."
- "I'm not entirely sure that the Jesus talked about in Christian religious traditions is broadly-enough defined. In other words: Jesus is interpreted too narrowly for my tastes within most expressions of Christianity."
I will attempt to tackle these explanations as best as I can and I hope to satisfy the spirit of the request if not the actual request itself.
The first statement that I want to address is the one concerning belief. I've set out to explore - via this blog - the difference between beliefs, values, ideologies and their relationship to objective reality. Beliefs, as I've come to understand them, are based almost solely on assumptions. This is different from my understanding of knowledge insofar as knowledge is informed by commonly agreed-upon empirical facts. (At this point I could digress into a lengthy bit about the theory of knowledge, the Latin etymology for "facts" and classical skepticism, but I won't. Anyone wanting to understand more about how those three items relate to my previous statements can look those up for his/herself.) Let me explain, crudely, the difference between a belief and knowledge. "God created the Universe." This is a belief. "The world is round." This is knowledge.
Because I feel certain that I'll be interpreted this way, let me say very clearly: there is nothing wrong with having a belief. We all have them both despite and because of our expanding knowledge-base as a species. The problem that I have is when people take a belief, which is fine to have in its own right, and elevate it to the level of "unquestionable authoritative truth." It is my opinion that beliefs enrich our lives most when they are kept in their place: as beliefs. Beliefs, however, because they are often elevated to the level of "unquestionable authoritative truth" often cause believers to blatantly deny "reality" - the existence which can actually be confirmed and verified via empirically-derived factual knowledge.
I've gone round-and-round on this point almost two dozen times with friends, relatives and colleagues so pardon me as I return to it. The Book of Genesis is a beautiful collection of texts, narratives and traditions. It was (and continues to be) the basis for a number of traditions - when read literally - that blatantly defy what humans know about the Earth. The "heavens and the Earth" were not created in six, twenty-four hour periods. Humans know this. It isn't a guess. It isn't a belief. It is backed up by consistently validated, confirmed and verified facts. What's more is: these facts were originally discovered by committed and devout Christians whom, after having discovered them, did not become atheists or turn their back on Christianity but allowed this new information to expand and enrich their understanding of both the mundane and the divine. Holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis is every Christian, Jew and Muslim's right. It is, however, a profound example of how a belief leads people to blatantly defy reality. And no, I do not think that it is good for a person to deny a factually-informed "reality" for an assumption-informed belief. Especially when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of one at the zero-sum expense of the other.
Turning, now, to the question of the Jesus and his relation to mainstream American Christianity, I would like to first say that I, personally, believe there is something special about Jesus in human history. This belief is informed by several assumptions: a) he actually existed as a historical figure of which there is almost no extra-Biblical empirical verification that I am aware of, b) his life had any relationship to the narratives and texts which became the canonized New Testament of the Christian Bible and, c) that the authors of the previously mentioned New Testament texts are trustworthy hagiographers and worth giving the proverbial "benefit of the doubt." I feel that it is incumbent on me to state, very clearly, that I do not treat the New Testament as "authoritative", nor do I approach the texts uncritically. In my own exegetical endeavors, I have come to a number of conclusions that would - and have - angered a number of devoutly orthodox Christians. Most Christians I know believe that, while the original texts of the New Testament were penned by men, the words are actually the direct dictation of God. My research on this question has led me to conclude that at no point in the New Testament do any of the authors claim to have been directly dictated to, outside of the Book of Revelation, which has significant - and currently irresolvable - authenticity issues of its own. (Again, there is a temptation to digress into an explanation of Paul's statement in 2 Timothy 3:16, but that will have to wait for another post if anyone is interested in hearing why it is not a claim of biblical divine dictatorship.)
What can be easily agreed upon by both the most devout and obstinate Christian and the most obstinate atheist is this: Jesus occupies an unprecedented place in human history. Major religious movements and traditions - as well as anti-religious movements and traditions - are devoted to him. Nearly everyone in Western society since him (or, at least, the birth of his movement) has been forced to think about him and come to some kind of understanding about him. Very few men, if anyone, have ever occupied this level of importance in human history: with all due respect given to Muslims, Buddhists, Jews and any individual whose religious patron I have not referenced. The claim that the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus" set off a firestorm of controversy for a reason! In Western tradition - perhaps in all human tradition - no one is, or has been, bigger than Jesus. As Saul Silver might claim: Jesus is "the apex of the vortex" of Western spirituality.
It is both because of this and despite this understanding that I believe that Jesus is "too narrowly interpreted" for my tastes within most expressions of the Christian tradition. In my personal research into primitive Christianity, I have found that the earliest Christians were deeply divided over the nature of Jesus. Was he only human? Was he human at all? Was he to be understood only as a Jewish rabbi? Was he to be understood as the last of the Greek demigods? Despite the revisionist history that comes with the canonized New Testament, there was no monolithic movement which embodied a set orthodoxy of Christianity before - in the very least - the third century AD/CE. There were Ebionites, Paulines, Alexandrians, Romans, Nestorians and Donatists, just to name a few! The name "Christian" was given to anyone that followed the teachings of Jesus, according to the tradition they were exposed to.
"Orthodox Christianity" in a very real sense - despite the beliefs of many American protestants - is still not a settled question and, in my historical opinion, never has been. Deep-seated divides over what is "legitimate" within Christianity have not, to this day, been settled by anyone. From the earliest disputes between James and Paul to the Ebionites versus the Paulines, to the Pelagians versus the Augustinians, to the Roman Catholics versus the Eastern Orthodox, to the Roman Catholics versus the Protestants, to the Calvinists versus the Arminians... the divides continue, mostly because each side believes that they have an exclusive claim to the truth about Jesus. It is partly because of these exclusive claims - which are deterministically closed-minded about other interpretations about Jesus - that I claim that most expressions of Christianity interpret Jesus too narrowly.
Another reason that Christian interpretations of Jesus, in general, "turn me off" is that even with all of the intra-Christian dissent about Jesus, Christianity as a whole applies the same attitude about interpreting Jesus against "non-Christians." In short: Christians believe that you have to be a card-carrying Christian in order to contribute to a faithful understanding of Jesus. This, to me, is both odious and senseless. I feel that Jesus, according to my belief in his special-ness, is far too large of a personality in human history to be closed-minded about. Let me clarify further: the more solid and inflexible your beliefs become about Jesus, the more narrowly you interpret him - the smaller he becomes. I speak from vast personal experience on this matter. It is my opinion that the more you try to define something like Jesus (whether as a person, an ideal, or simply an idea), the more you attempt to contain him... the more you attempt to limit his being and inspiration. Despite his obviously central role within Christianity, most expressions of that tradition - to me - do far too much defining, limiting and containing for my tastes. I prefer to believe that if Jesus is "the apex of the vortex", then he won't mind any of my attempts to find his inspiration, example and the wonder he represents in "unlikely" places.
Feel free to leave any comments that you feel are appropriate. As always, please leave the light on.
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?
