Truth-- we all think we know what it is... but have you ever tried to define it?
Here is my attempt.

On Truth

In any discussion on philosophy or religion (ie. on questions of existence and the reason for life) the problem or subject of 'truth' invariably arises. The reason for this is that the topic is dealing with absolutes, fundamental concepts, and their validity; these concepts all involve the idea of truth, especially 'ultimate truth.'

The immediate problem is of definition; what is truth? Before we get to that, other basic matters need to be covered. There are various paradigms by which one may approach the whole issue. Some ancient Greeks took a theoretical, abstract approach, which we could say is rooted in human imagination. Other schools followed a method based on observation and 'pure logic'. Both of these routes were superior to the superstitious outlook of many of the peoples of that era. What about today's paradigms; are they better? In some ways, technological progress has not really provided a lot of new methodology for grappling with the 'highest questions.' We do have extra information not available (at first glance) to the ancients. E.g. our telescopes and probes give us estimates of the size and age of the universe; archeology and science provide some indications of extinct species, the age of the earth, and so on. But, the interpretation of the data, of the information, is still something that takes place in the human mind.

So, how do we tackle the question of 'the nature of reality' and truth? Over the ages, various philosophers and religious figures have charged into the fray, giving us their 'take' on the subject. E.g. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle; Kierkegaard, Kant, Descartes, Hobbes, Camus, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, and so on. They have each taken a different approach, and each approach entails certain logical or inherent consequences in terms of beliefs and behaviors. Their philosophies have some things in common, of course, leading some unifying thinkers to assert that they're all basically the same. However, history proves that their views are really quite different--or at least, have been interpreted quite differently by their followers. (The proof is in the behaviors--the wars, oppression, benevolence, tolerance, etc. that characterize these groups.)

In the end, we each have to decide what approach makes sense to us, individually. That doesn't mean that every method is equally valid. It's clear that an outlook based on, e.g., fear, ignorance, superstition, etc., will prove fruitless, because they cannot lead the individual to valid, accurate, or 'true ' understanding. We can say "It's truth for him," which is correct. But that doesn't make it true in the absolute. We know that, intuitively. A 5-year old child may have a mental 'model' to explain, say, thunder, or television, or whatever; but that doesn't make his explanation true . Clearly, the more knowledge one has, the more accurate is his/her model of reality. Another way to say it is that the greater is the chance of describing reality accurately. (This introduces the notion of probability, but let's leave it aside for the moment.)

What makes sense to me is to try to 'reason from first principles.' That is, to use a 'reality-based' approach, using a combination of observation, logic and intuition. There is no reason why these faculties can't be combined; indeed, much to suggest that they're there to work together. These approaches are not mutually exclusive, even if some 'purists' would like to argue that they are.

While I'm not too familiar with Descartes' full views, his starting point is compelling. He stated: 'Cogito ergo sum,' meaning 'I think therefore I am.' In other words, "I know I exist because I'm thinking about it right now, and there must be an entity called 'me' who's doing the thinking." It may not be 'airtight' in some people's mind, but I think it's about as good as we're going to get. It's what I call 'reality based'--starting with a fundamental observation that can't be negated; it's a given fact. Where do we go from there?

Well, we can acknowledge that we possess 5 senses by which means we learn about the world we live in--about the nature of reality. By reality, I mean the objective field of existence within which we find ourselves. Some people argue that there is no such thing; that everything is relative and subjective, and exists only in our own minds. While I'd agree that there is a component of subjectivity involved, I think this argument is quite false and fatuous. To illustrate: it's pretty hard to tell a survivor of, say, civil war where his family was massacred before his eyes, that it's all in his head, there really is no objective reality! Intuitively, it's clear that there is objective reality. The subjectivity occurs in our minds, and is linked to our sensual perception of reality. In other words, there is a 'factual, objective reality' out there which we perceive with our senses, and which we interpret with our individual minds. That interpretation approaches the actual, true phenomenon to a greater or lesser degree, depending on a variety of factors.

The more information we have, the more maturity, the closer is our understanding, our model, or concept of reality. This is where truth comes in. It can refer to the degree to which our understanding approaches the objective phenomenon. Altho we can agree on the concept of truth in the abstract, the problem lies in the subjective element, the interpreted understanding of external truth. The 'problem' is that we all think in a unique manner, and have our own models of reality, and these paradigms can be different enough that it leads to conflict. (And that happens because, as noted earlier, our behavior is a consequence of our basic philosophy of life).

Each individual human one day reaches an awareness of his/her existence, and intentionally or not, makes some kind of evaluation of the nature of reality, and then carries on in life in accord with that model. I say 'intentionally or not' because even if someone says they have no interest in the question, that response indicates a particular outlook that entails a certain type of conduct. Each person's model is a product of many factors, such as culture, religion, education, economic status, birth order, personality, and so on, and on. The circumstantial factors are actually very powerful, and often not at all recognized, which makes them even more effectual. I'd say only a few individuals are able to free their thinking from the constraints of their birth circumstances and the environmental factors of the society in which they live. (Such persons tend to be the contrarian or eccentric thinkers of their societies; often a thorn in their side, but in my view, they are indispensable to any organization.)

Now, back to truth! I hope that I've demonstrated the existence of truth as an absolute reality... without resorting to complicated contortions of philosophy and language. Maybe this approach lacks the 'rigor' demanded by scholars; but those attempts generally end in confusion and indecisiveness anyway. In the end, it comes down to individual faith in one's selected philosophy. My integrative approach does not even require strict definition of terms, and axioms, but relies on common sense (as espoused by author John Ralston Saul). The question of truth is a particularly persistent one that will not go away. If one insists that he doesn't believe in absolute truth, you have only to ask him "Are you sure?" If he answers yes, then he has just contradicted himself; if he says no, then he admits he doesn't really know!  As the song says, 'The Truth goes marching on.'

Therein lies one of the truths about truth: there is such a thing as enduring truth, and humans have an inherent motivation to strive towards it. The other thing about truth is that any attempts to rigorously define it, end up being tautologies; that is, truth is self-evident, in a sense (i.e. our attempts to define it end up being 'circularly referential'). Truth is an intuitive concept; you can neither define it nor avoid it. Your mind may be starting to put things together at this point, in an interesting way. Yes, the description or discussion of truth bears an uncanny resemblance to the similar discussion on 'God' or the concept of a primordial, non-material, self-existent consciousness that underlies reality. This is not a 'proof' of the existence of God; merely a fascinating correlation. (It's also interesting that Jesus called himself 'the Way, the Truth, and the Life,' and that it is also claimed in scripture that he is the creator who made the universe.)

I didn't start off with any intent to prove the existence of God. In any case, His existence can't be 'proved' to the satisfaction of a relentlessly skeptical researcher. Nor does His existence require proof. In the end, it's a matter of faith, or inner conviction at the intuitive level. (As it is with truth.) You can assemble all the evidence of science, personal experience, external experience, 'inner logic,' and so on... and then you make the judgement. And in my view, the evidence of common sense and intuition is just as valid as so-called objective science, especially in this matter of 'ultimate answers.' These faculties are not to be dismissed because they're 'obvious' or 'not measurable' or whatever.

What one has to ask him/herself in the end, is "Which explanation of reality appears most probable of being true ?" You then look and find there are few options. Science presents itself as a rigorous method of explaining reality, but is limited by its own defined scope to the material universe. Nonetheless, people attempt to use science to describe the nature of reality, which experientially, includes non-material phenomena (such as thought, emotion, love, intuition, 'spirit,' and so on). To my mind, it seems like a self-defeating exercise.

If not physical science, what else? Well, there's religion, which purports to be a field of study that specializes in exactly those matters of ultimate consequence, the realm of the spiritual, so to speak. Here, my perceptions and interpretations lead me to conclude that 'religion' has become another 'game' invented by people to distract the masses from having to deal with ultimate questions on their own. Not to dismiss all religion; but to the extent that religion is embodied in denominational, group-think organizations, I have to regard it as artificial, at best, and fraudulent at worst. Yet, I believe there is religion in a generic, authentic sense, that is a science of the spiritual dimension, and that can help us in striving towards ultimate truth.

That kind of religion is not found in churches, nor in organizations, nor in self-proclaimed gurus. It has to be found in one's own mind, in our struggles with those ultimate questions, and our sincere attempts to find the answers. As the Bible states, 'Seek and ye shall find...'. We will not find the final, absolute answers, but we will find the answers we need to live this life in the best way, for our good and for the good of our fellow travellers on this journey. For example, Jesus told his followers "Love your neighbor as yourself," and elsewhere, Paul wrote, "Finally, these three prevail: faith, hope, and love; and the greatest of these is love." Similar concepts exist in practically all other (non-Christian) religious traditions. The point is that philosophies are useless and futile if they're just musings about the nature of reality. The reality is that we are thinking beings who share this planet with our brothers and sisters, and with the rest of creation. What's important is how we co-exist with creation and, especially, with our fellow pilgrims.

Physical science does not provide this kind of practical, harmonious advice, because it doesn't deal in this realm. Why, then, do science and religion find themselves in contention over the nature of reality? It's because when we deal with absolutes, with the ultimate causes of the universe, with pure truth, the two fields of study, while coming from different directions, overlap. We saw above how the discussion of objective truth (the ostensible realm of scientific purview) leads to the observation that it is similar to discussions of God (the originator of creation), which is the realm of religion. How about that!?

In my mind, then, it makes complete sense to put my faith in (genuine) religion as an explanation of reality. It seems to me that you can't use the tools of material science and come to valid conclusions on ultimate reality. As a cosmology, science puts forth the Theory of Evolution, which is an entirely materialistic attempt to account for reality. Regrettably, the explanation provided by many in the Judeo-Christian religions is a literal reading of the poetic story outlined in the 'Book of Genesis.' Both arguments, while having some validity, fall short and are inadequate. It's interesting however, that the most recent thoughts of prominent scientists have come around to acknowledging 'intelligent design' in the creation of the universe. They generally don't use the word 'God,' but His 'fingerprints' on creation are identified, using the methods and tools of science. It's in the interpretations of the data by the scientific minds that the notion of 'divinity' emerges as inescapable, at an intuitive level.

Once again, I go back to reasoning from basic principles. I look around this universe and use the data provided by science. By forcing myself to be aware (like the shamans) I note the incredible intricacy of existence: the unimaginable distances of outer space; the complexity of something as simple as eye-sight; the subtlety of smell; the diversity and inventiveness of nature; the strangeness of sub-atomic particles; the mystery of human consciousness... and so on. How to account for such ineffable creativity and variety? Science (i.e. traditional science) states that it all 'evolved' by pure random chance and the 'laws of natural selection.' Religion (i.e. my interpretation of it) proposes that it was designed and created by a supreme, spiritual consciousness, a divine creator. Which explanation makes more sense? Contemporary scientists have asked themselves this question, and using their own logic, have had to conclude that it points to 'a Creator.'

Another way to think of it is: "Which explanation results in behavior that is conducive to harmonious society?" Is this a crazy question? Not if you follow the two systems to their logical conclusions. We saw above that Christianity exhorts people to love each other (which of course they may or may not do) and we intuitively know that a loving society would be a harmonious, safe, happy environment. In the case of the scientific paradigm, the Theory of Evolution is premised on the principle of 'survival of the fittest.' This is a notion that individual members of a species compete with each other and struggle against environmental factors to survive and reproduce. It postulates that the members that are best adapted to their circumstances are the ones that survive and pass on their genetic material to the next generation, a natural selection of successful genes. Since humans are just another species in that scheme, it follows that human individuals also compete for dominance, and that the underlying rationale for our behavior is survival. Obviously, at the extreme, this philosophy leads to social chaos, as individuals all act out of self-interest and can justify any abuse of their neighbors under the guise of the imperative to survive and preserve their genetic heritage. By the way, I agree that in fact, people do often behave in a 'Darwinian' manner (competitively and selfishly). But, they do this in proportion to their 'level of consciousness.' Those who exist at the most unconscious, carnal plane, behave most like other creatures. Persons who are more attuned to their 'higher' faculties, more motivated by them, behave more like 'divine' entities, putting altruism (pure love) before self-interest.

Hence, using either of two differentiating criteria, I come to the same conclusion: a spiritual explanation of reality makes more sense to me, and provides more benefits to my daily existence. Unlike many 'philosophers' I believe that the 'heart' cannot be ignored in pondering the absolute; that love is a fundamental value, and even integral to the universe, at some subtle level. At the intuitive level, the spiritual framework provides more explanatory power... it can comfortably accommodate the materialistic world; the reverse is not true . It may appear 'too simplistic' to be valid, but I have come to believe sincerely that, fundamentally, the universe rests on very simple concepts or constructs-- love and truth. In fact, I'd even say that God is the actuality of those two intuitive concepts.

So, there you have it: my reasoning for adhering to my 'religious' outlook on life! I hope it gives you something to think about, some new ideas, and another way of looking at your world. Of course, once one posits religion as his preferred paradigm, the next question to arise would be: 'Why Christianity?' My response is to leave that big issue for another essay!


Expand your mind: visit www.truthquest.info