Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge

[Newbie]

I understand the words 'true' and 'truth' to be based in facts about our reality. Things understood, proven with evidence, and objectively verifiable from place to place to place and person to person.

But I have heard some people refer to their religion having 'truth' or being 'the truth.'

This is confusing to me, because religion, I think we can all agree, is entirely subjective. It's why religion is divergent in nature, always splitting into smaller pieces. Never do two non-related religious ideologies ever reach the same conclusions and merge together.

[jimwalton]

Obviously there are different ways to define truth. The dictionary, the philosopher, and the scientist will certainly define it differently.

Before I get to an answer, though, I disagree with your assertion that religion is entirely subjective. Christianity and Judaism, for instance, are historical religions, as opposed to Hinduism, for instance, with no historical base and is just philosophical. But that's what makes Christianity different: it's verifiable and historically defensible. If you decided to start a religion, you wouldn't make false claims to recent historical events that didn't happen. You wouldn't give details about time, place, and people involved. Why? Because they could be easily tested and falsified. Your religion would never get off the ground. That's why you don't have religions based on historic events. They are all, with the exception of Christianity and Judaism, based on private encounters that can't be falsified, or subjective ideas beyond inquiry. But, for instance, Christianity flourished in the 1st century, among the very people who could test its claims.

Secondly, just because something is divergent in nature, always splitting into smaller pieces, doesn't make it subjective. Scientists (particle theorists, physicists, astrophysicists) often find themselves in the same boat. It can be the nature of the search more than the confirmation of subjectivity.

Now to your question. At core, Christians believe that the truth is a person. It's more than a proposition or a definition. It's not just a truth defined, but one expressed. Truth, according to Christians, is Jesus: an intellectual definition, a philosophical proposition, a life lived in harmony with the basic principles of the universe, and is himself the basic defining principle of the universe.

[Newbie]

"But, for instance, Christianity flourished in the 1st century, among the very people who could test its claims."

Then why do we see the survival of absurd and falsifiable claims such as Elvis being alive and the moon landing being a hoax? We live in an incredibly skeptical society compared to 1st century Rome and these beliefs still survive. Now imagine one of these beliefs becomes state sponsored.

"Jesus... a philosophical proposition"

Today I learned that a 1st century Jew is literally a philosophical proposition. In all seriousness, I don't think spiritualization of the word "truth" is what I was looking for. It seems a bit incoherent, at least to an outsider, to evaluate a proposition like "The theory of evolution is true" to mean "The theory of evolution is literally Jesus."

[jimwalton]

Seriously? You're juxtaposing a handful of Elvis kooks next to the thousands from Jerusalem alone who swarmed to Christianity within months of Jesus' crucifixion? Just because you can find find somebody who believes anything doesn't take the credibility out of eyewitnesses, or our courts are in trouble. We run our legal system on credible eyewitnesses, despite that one can always find a nut in the bunch. That's where we use our powers of reason and discernment to distinguish the nuts from the truth, as we do every day in our courts.

When I say that "the truth is a person", let me dig that one a little deeper for you. The foundational characteristic of the universe is "fact". The things that exist truly exist. There is an actuality to matter, energy, physical laws, coexistent relationships, forces, etc. Our whole notion of science is that things are true, that they can be found out, and we can count on them being true. We can observe them, and test them, and repeat the tests, because underlying all of it is something true. Now, the Bible says that the universe was created by Jesus, is a reflection of his nature, and that he sustains it all by his nature. That would mean that Jesus is the truth on which the universe is based, as far as Christians believe.

When I said "an intellectual definition," I meant this: dictionary.com defines truth as (1) the actual state of matter, (2) conformity with fact or reality, (3) a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, or principle, (4) a state or character of being true. A Christian believes that the Bible teaches that Jesus IS all these things—that Jesus is the basic principle of reality upon which all reality is based.

When I said he's "a philosophical proposition," I meant this: Truth is one of the central subjects of philosophy. Philosophically explaining the nature of truth involves making distinct metaphysical presuppositions: again, something is true if it corresponds to "the way things actually are," which necessitates some sort of idealism or "gold standard" of the basic principle of all things. According to Bertrand Russell, propositions are the primary bearers of truth. This goes on an on.

Now, my point was that Jesus ideally did what we "all" try to do in part, as best we can: to live our lives and think our thoughts consistent with what is true. Since the Bible teaches that Jesus is the defining principle of the universe, and all truths finds their source and continuance in him, then when he lived his life in flawless consistency with his nature, he was in total congruity with all things that are true, he himself BEING truth, and his life became the expression of ultimate truth.

That's what I meant. I actually wasn't trying to be cheeky. I was trying to answer the question both honestly and deeply. Maybe you were looking for something more shallow, but since you asked how religious folks define truth, I answered him as, um, truthfully as I could.

Hopefully that's not incoherent, but feel free to discuss this more with me.

[Newbie]

To be clear, I didn't mean to use Elvis to ridicule your beliefs, merely illustrate a point. Perhaps scientology or Mormonism would be better examples. I was trying to avoid religious examples.

For the record, I suspect eye witness testimony is less credible than you seem to suggest. Sure, we use it, but the question as to whether we should is still up for debate. Also, you talk about modern methodology, but do you really expect so much from first century Romans? They lacked modern means for gathering evidence, lacked theories that competed with religion, likely lacked modern skepticism, and were ignorant by today's standards.

"When I say truth is a person... as far as Christians believe."

For the sake of pointing it out, this entire section seems to presuppose foundationalism and an objective reality, but I'm not going to try to go there.

What I find interesting here is that you seem to presuppose that Jesus is, in fact, truth. That said, shouldn't an epistemology swerved l serve to help one discover and understand reality rather than assume something to be the truth? To put it plainly, is it even possible for your beliefs to be wrong with this definition?

"When I said he's "a philosophical proposition"... this goes on and on."

Same question as last section. You clearly have an epistemic foundation in what you deem reality, but you merely assume that Jesus qualifies as this truth. Does this kind of definition aid you epistemologically at all past providing credence to your religious beliefs?

"His life became the expression of ultimate truth."

Here is another potential issue I see with your definition. If Jesus is ultimate truth, couldn't I formulate this statement as "His life became the expression of himself"? So? My life is the expression of myself as well. This is just a tautology.

"That's what I meant. I actually wasn't trying to be cheeky. I was trying to answer your questions both honestly and deeply."

I never doubted that you were trying to answer them honestly. I merely question whether your definition of truth is actually useful and meaningful.

As is hopefully clear from my post, many of my questions are about the structural integrity of your definition, but I suppose I also dislike the attempt at being deep that I emphasized in the quote. I see language, at least in this atmosphere, as a tool to convey ideas. Obfuscation of these ideas for the sake of being "deep" seems counterintuitive. Then again, I tend to be very analytical anyway.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. Aside from my quip in the first comment, I'm not trying to attack your definition as ridiculous, I'm trying to deconstruct central meaning of your definition.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for a great reply. I'll answer in two areas, but this is getting too big to handle really thoroughly. First, i want to say a few things about eye-witness accounts. As far as I know, there are three kinds of "first-hand information" that are accepted in courts which can (*can*) qualify as "eyewitness" information. (1) You were actually there, and you saw/heard it; (2) You didn't actually see it, but someone you know and trust did. Now, that's technically hearsay, but it is admissible in court as it affects the witness' attitudes and behaviors ("The reason I WENT to that store in the first place was because Johnny saw a poster that said Miley Cyrus was going to be there!"); (3) We have evidence about the culture (terms, idioms, moods, expressions, attitudes) that can be brought to bear on the question at hand. We certainly have those elements (all three of them) in the gospel writings.

But then we also have to weigh whether or not the testimony can be trusted. How does it historian determine reliability? One way is to examine how the author (eyewitness) talks about other things, what their attitude is, and how they are viewed by their contemporaries. If the "eyewitness" can be shown to be a habitual liar, or a bit whacked out, historians will disregard the testimony. But if the person is otherwise trustworthy, mature, and wise, historians tend to trust the person's testimony as more reliable. That's why I think the gospel accounts are reliable historical documents.

As to the second question, i think that all of our epistemologies are founded and grounded in certain presuppositions that guide them. I guess, though, to be honest, I'm not presupposing the Jesus is truth. I have become convinced, based on the evidence, that he is God, and on that conclusion continue on to a subsequent conclusion that he is truth. The epistemology, then, would serve as the process and grounds I used to determine his deity rather than a coy way to sneak around facing the facts.

By "his life became the expression of ultimate truth," I was clutching and clambering for the proper terms, and probably didn't give it as much thought as I should have. What I am meaning to say is that truth is not just an philosophical construct, but has to apply to real life and find its way into our daily-ness. I was trying to say that the fundamental principles of the universe found their way into real life in a pure form in the person of Jesus. I don't know if that's any more clear or not.

Had I been trying to come across as a pseudointellectual, obfuscation would have been an asset. What I was actually attempting to do was to say that any montage of words to define truth is going to leave something out of the picture or mislead in a particular way. It will always fall short of the goal at hand, and will be faulted for its deficiency. But the honest answer to the question is that truth is a person, and in that definition I hope to reach all the edges that encompass what truth truly is.

Not sure I've helped. Feel free to talk back, and I thank you for stimulating discussion.