What Is Truth?
Let us agree that not only is “Truth” a word reflective of an absolute existing concept, but also that something that is “True” is an absolute that does exist. For example, all living things die, which is an absolute “Truth” for all humans living on the planet Earth. There are those who believe that Truth spelled with a capital “T” is a synonym for a monotheistic God when used in a religious context. However, a “Truth” that is thought to be true is not always absolute and the truth is that that “Truth” often changes as humankind continues to redefine the meaning of the word “Truth” and thus continues to apply an ongoing definition that evolves over the ages of what “Truth” is and what is consequently really true. But ideally and conceptually, “The Truth” or “A Truth” should be an absolute and not changeable or debatable. But the truth is that what is “The Truth'' to one person is not always “The Truth” to another person. What is true to one culture is not true to another culture. What was thought true in the past is no longer true in the present. So, what are we to make of this conundrum? Our purpose here is to offer an answer and an explanation.
Three Approaches to Truth
There are three major methods or approaches that humankind has historically used to establish the nature of truth relative to human existence and to answer the monumental questions, “What is going on?” and “What is True?” Two of these methods are ancient but are still in use; one is more modern and highly relied upon today. These three methodologies are: “religion,” “philosophy,” and “science.” We’ll examine each in terms of its approach to the question “What is Truth?”
Truth in the Ecclesiastic Christian Tradition
The root word for the term “religion” comes from the ancient Latin word “ligare,” which means to join or link the human with the divine. Religion links beliefs to one’s explanation of the universe or, for that matter, to a variety of observed phenomena. It is of course natural that the evolved human brain would want an answer to spectacular natural phenomena. If mystified and awed by such phenomena, the human brain might naturally be inclined to worship what is conceived as a power greater than itself.
Before words and language, when grunts were perhaps our primary vocabulary, you might imagine the primeval human looking up each day at this bright shiny thing in the sky emanating heat and light only to disappear in cold and darkness yet reappearing again, day after day. We then naturally begin to rely on the daily reappearance of the Sun. No surprise then that ancient indigenous peoples might come to worship or “link” with the Sun as a power over them. Thus, a primitive god was born. But the emergence of a “Sun God” occurred in cultures that were separated by thousands of miles on the Earth, appearing to both the Aztecs in the North America and the Egyptians in North Africa. Indeed, sun worship existed in ancient civilizations from Babylon to India, China, Greece, Rome, Africa, and Europe. Such geographically widespread sun worship reinforces the notion that humans fundamentally have an innate need to understand what is “going on.” It also suggests a human tendency to “bow down” to what is not understood and therefore seems mystical and powerful. So, the sun rises, as does primitive religion.
Human beliefs that are based on interpretations of natural phenomena that are not understood but deemed powerful in their effects on humanity become a “godhead.” These beliefs are then transmitted from generation to generation. Over time they evolve into dogma, or “The Truth.” Such dogma is perpetuated until someone declares a new “Truth.” Such beliefs or “adopted truths” that are transmitted across many generations evolve into what we now call religions, offering a link to the mystical or what is often called “the divine.” Therefore, it is not a great leap to propose that religion is a natural human phenomenon. To put this more strongly, religion is a human invention, created by the human brain when no other explanations are available.
We need explanations for what seems inexplicable and, if an explanation is not found, then one is created. For example, a classic question of existence confronted by early humans is “How did it all get started?” Well, the beginning of the Holy Bible tells us. The ancient Hebrew culture needed an answer which is found in the “Garden of Eden” allegory. (Readers who have a problem with the word “allegory” are respected and are free to believe that the “Garden of Eden” tale is the literal “Truth” about human life’s beginning on the third planet from the sun.) The narrative even came with a talking serpent. But the published narrative wasn’t complete and left out Adam’s first wife Lilith in the King James Bible Version. And some still ask—and even debate—whether Adam had a navel.
But here’s another possible truth: if we accept the Bible as the documented “Truth” we are confronted with a problem. That is, do we take the Bible literally as written? Actually, we have at least three choices. Besides a literal interpretation of the Bible there is a metaphorical interpretation and a spiritual interpretation. So, one can pick the interpretation truth that suits one best. Or, you might decide to take some parts of the Bible as literal, some parts as metaphorical, and some (or even all) parts as subject to a spiritual interpretation. For instance, take the word “God” and how that concept has been defined by humans, both ancient and modern. Some cultures, or religions if you will, take an anthropomorphic approach: God is literally a “He” not a “She,” and a “white man” who resides above the clouds in a physical place called “Heaven.” There are, of course, many variations on this theme. And some people literally believe that a human being named Jesus is God, came to Earth from Heaven who will return to Earth in the future. So, there are a lot of literal choices for “The Truth” when belief, (that is, what one wants to believe) is used to interpret the Bible or, for that matter, any set of religious “Truths.”
Then there is the metaphorical approach, by which the word “God” represents a real, if not understood and possibly mystical, power over humankind. When this power is in harmony with human behavior then the human or humans in question are “blessed,” that is, rewarded either symbolically and spiritually or with physical benefits (as exemplified by today’s “Prosperity Gospel”). And, when this power is ignored or violated, the humans concerned are punished, again symbolically or by practically and/or physically damaging outcomes. Under the metaphorical approach Bible stories need not to have actually happened in human history but rather are treated as parables, extensively used in the Old Testament as well as by Jesus in the New Testament to illustrate lessons for human behavior and thought. Some believe literally that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. Others insist it was just “a big fish.” While for some it is the literal meaning that matters, metaphorically it doesn’t matter at all. A lesson of this biblical story under the metaphoric approach is that a person who lives righteously (that is, religiously) and follows God’s commandments will be protected and preserved. And what is especially advantageous about the metaphorical approach is that individuals may interpret the Bible and find meanings based on their own views and perspectives.
Finally, there is the spiritual approach to interpreting the Bible (or, for that matter, any set of religious beliefs). For example, the word “God” can be found represented in the word “good” as well as other spiritual concepts and labels such as: “Divine Love,” “Divine Mind,” “Divine Soul” and yes, even “Divine Truth.” Could such terms be synonyms for the “One God” without the personification of God? For example, 1 John 4:8 tells the reader that “God is love”. Interpreted spiritually that could mean “Love is God”, devoid of any anthropomorphic labeling. When such spiritual concepts are written as synonyms for God they are often capitalized, such as “God is Love”, “God is Spirit”, or “God is Truth,” meaning God is literally love, literally spirit, and literally truth.
When it comes to Jesus, most bible scholars conclude that Jesus did, at one time in human history, walk the Earth. But when reading in the Bible about Jesus’ lessons and healings one might come to a spiritual interpretation rather than concluding that Jesus must be God Himself. This might mean that Jesus reflected the “Spirit of God” or the “Love of God” or even the “Truth of God.” From the spiritual frame, one need not believe that Jesus left heaven to visit our planet and then ascended back to heaven again with a plan to visit us in the future to redeem all “True” believers.
The Holy Bible has at least 11 versions with 66 books. The Catholic Bible has 73 books. (Many more were left out by the vote of 301 Catholic bishops at the Council of Nicaea in AD 355. There were some 40 writers of those “missing” books.) Questions naturally arise: Which Bible contains “The Truth”? Is the Christian Bible really a good source for determining “The Truth”? Which writer can a reader rely on for any “Truth”? Can other holy books of other religions be used to seek “The Truth”? How about the The Quran or The Tipitaka? Then of course there is also The Agamas, The Kajiki, The Amesta. . . the list goes on and on, since each religion has its own authoritative text presenting “The Truth.”
Relative to the Christian faith there are well over 300 Christian religions that have been formally identified, not counting cults or informal groups. It seems clear that when using religion as a criterion for determining “The Truth” any answer becomes quite problematic and, perhaps, impossible. The real answer is that determination of “Truth” based on religion must remain with the individual believer. Another variable when basing one’s truth on religion is that most world religions were “divined” (or, if you will, “invented”) by one man or one woman. With very few exceptions an initial (if cursory) look or sampling reveals that some 65 world religions, beginning from ancient times to the modern era, were brought to Earth by only one person. When such an individual human was able to gather followers that believed him or her to have divined “The Truth” a religion was born.
The truth is that there are far too many variables and options to use religion as a basis for seeking absolute “Truth” or even “A Truth.” Each individual is left to determine his or her own truth when it comes to employing religion in order to divine “The Truth.” Consequently, one could logically conclude that religion is a human philosophy crowned by a mystical deity, a godhead. This would not seem to be a good basis for determining absolute and universal “Truth.” However, many would contend, and righteously so, that most religions preach “loving thy neighbor” or an equivalent axiom or context that shadows this thought. This might be considered “A Truth” to the credit of religion per se.
Philosophy
Philosophy is generally defined as “the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.” [Bartleby Research] There are, of course, many subsets and variations of this basic definition. These include metaphysics, logic, epistemology, philosophy of cultures, philosophy of science, aesthetics, morality, ethics, philosophy of mind. . . and the list goes on. There are so many facets and perspectives to philosophy one may conclude that philosophy could be an excellent path to determining “The Truth” or, in other words, answering the question, “What is really going on?”
However, the existence of so many types of philosophy raises the question of whether philosophy is really the best approach for finding “The Truth.” That the search for “The Truth” is elusive and monumentally variable when employing philosophy as a way to discover absolute “Truth” is suggested by the fact that there have been over 3000 philosophers in human history. The number of philosophies – really human opinions and observations – continues to grow and is still growing. There are at least 340 or more major and actually named and commonly recognized philosophers beginning about 600-500 BCE with the Greek philosopher Thales of Miletus (c.624-546 BCE) and extending to the current popular philosopher Nick Bostrom (born in 1973) and other modern philosophers born more recently or yet to be born.
The questionable value of the philosophical approach to answering what is “The Truth” is suggested by the huge number of individuals who are stating what’s may well be simply their own individual perceptions and perspectives on the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. So which philosopher or philosophy best determines “The Truth”? Again, we each get to pick the philosophy, or “The Truth”, that we feel resonates the best with our own views.
Look, for example, at one aspect of philosophy as an illustration of how variable philosophy is as an approach to seeking ultimate and absolute “Truth,” namely “human nature.” Socrates said when addressing human nature that “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” This statement is written in absolute terms, indicating that it defines an absolute “Truth.” But others may contend that there are other good things in life and that there are other evil things in life. The fact is that this is just Socrates’ opinion, an opinion from a human individual. Socrates’ student Plato argued that human behavior flows from three main sources: “desire, emotion, and knowledge.” This is another absolute statement, stated as an absolute “Truth” authored once again by a human individual. We are free to accept this as “The Truth” or we may seek other opinions. This is assuming of course that one’s culture and/or personal belief system (which may be a religion) allows or supports looking in other directions for “The Truth.”
While even in ancient times philosophy began to be differentiated from religion, it was not until the Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that religion was clearly separated. Only in the nineteenth century did philosophy become other than a servant to theology. It was around the same time that science, the third approach to “Truth,” began to develop. It was also about this time that psychology, the study of human nature and behavior, split off from philosophy. Even so, The Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology, with about 300 members, is well over a hundred years old and continues to hold an annual meeting.
Are there different absolute “Truths” relative to human behavior and nature? This is where philosophy and science cross into each other. The axiom of “cause and effect” may become cloudy when philosophy and science are mixed into the same pot. The individual seeker of absolute “Truth” who finds philosophy lacking may have to develop a personal “philosophy of life” – which may be based on psychology – and declare it to be his or her “personal truth.” But the quest for “Truth” described here is for absolute and universal “Truth.” Let us then consider “Truth” in terms of the most recent basis for its search: science.
Science
One definition of modern science is, “The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through human observation and experiment.” [Oxford English Dictionary]There are, of course, other definitions of science but they all share one basic element: science is based on identifying repeatable “cause and effect,” natural or human actions that generally produce the same specific results. Most scientists – individuals formally trained in the method and practice of science – would probably agree that science is the best shot one has to determine “The Truth” (or, to put it more modestly, “A Truth”). This is done using “the scientific method.” While aspects of the scientific method developed throughout human history, most scholars consider a key development to be the work of an Englishman, Sir Francis Bacon, in the seventeenth century.
Here’s a summary of the steps of the scientific method, adapted from a presentation by Bacon:
Step One: Question. Based on observation, define a question involving a “cause” and its possible “effects.”
Step Two: Research. Identify what is known relative to the question.
Step Three: Hypothesis. Develop an hypothesis that connects cause to effect, predicting what the results, the effects, will be as a result of a proposed action or cause.
Step Four: Test. Design and conduct a test of the hypothesis by enacting the proposed cause to determine whether or not the expected effect actually results.
Step Five: Analyze Results. Examine the quantitative, measured outcomes of the test.
Step Six: Report Conclusions. State whether the proposed cause has been shown to
produce the hypothesized effect.
Based on Bacon’s ideas and writings, many academics and scientists place the beginnings of “modern science” at around the 17th Century CE, centered in western Europe. However, applications of rudimentary modern scientific methods have been observed and recorded from ancient times. It seems likely that the first absolute “Truth” recognized by humans was that humans die and can be killed. However, from the time that our ancestors might have jumped out of trees, landing on two feet, humans began to question the mysteries of life and existence. (Assuming, of course, the reader believes in the science of evolution.) As in the case of life and death, “Truths” began to accumulate through increasingly sophisticated observation. From this human act of truth accumulation there evolved more empirical “Truths” thanks to observers such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, who gave the world “The Truth” of our planet’s rotation on its axis and its rotation around the Sun.
Sir Isaac Newton constructed the first major integrated approach to the “Truth” of physical reality, using his “calculus on forces” that gave us the term “gravity.” Interestingly, Newton had not yet transitioned from an explanation of the physical world based on religious beliefs. When some found his explanation of gravity unconvincing Newton tied his “forces calculus” to direct divine action and stated that “space” was a “sensorium of God” who is the ultimate cause of gravity. Newton also sought to find an imaginary magical device called the “philosopher’s stone” that could change lead into gold. This is a good illustration of the slow transition from religion and philosophy to science as the primary way to explain “what’s going on.” And even today many physicians, who base their daily professional practice on science, thus making them scientists by any definition, pray, adopt a religion, and regularly attend church. Indeed, many scientists – including the Director of the US National Institutes of Health, express commitment to religion as well as to science. Thus, the transition from religion to science to explain what is “Truth” is far from complete.
A similar point can be made with regard to the separation of philosophy from science, with the latter as the primary arbiter of truth. For example, Ivan Pavlov was an eminent and Nobel Prize-winning scientist who studied animal physiology. Even so, he tried to extend the ancient philosophy-based concept of human physiology based on the “four humours” defined in ancient times by Galen and Hippocrates: phlegmatic, choleric, sanguine, and melancholic. Today some still think of these as aspects of human attitudes and emotion but no reputable physician would consider them as the “True” bases of human physiology.
In terms of a practically useful understanding of our world and the universe, science appears to be the best way to come to understand “Truth.” The scientific method is a formula that shows how to go from possible truth to probable truth and, ultimately (perhaps!) to absolute “Truth.” Thus, the scientific method is the best approach we have for determining “Truth.” But, in truth, what is thought to be absolute “Truth” will likely continue to evolve and change. This is because even as science continues to be the primary approach for determining absolute “Truth,” many aspects of the universe are yet to be discovered and “Truth” will undoubtedly continue to be redefined.
The Future of Truth
You might at this point ask whether there might be some way to accelerate our efforts at finding “Truth.” One obvious answer would be to learn from others who have found Truth, that is, intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe who have developed civilizations more advanced than our own. However, despite the fact that thousands of potentially habitable life-sustaining planets have been identified within a few hundred light-years from Earth, no evidence whatever has been found to support the notion that intelligent and scientifically advanced life exists elsewhere than on Earth. The famous physicist Enrico Fermi once asked his lunch companions, “Where is everybody!” What he meant was that we should be receiving radio transmissions from at least some of our “neighbors” in our galaxy. But despite massive efforts since his comment to track and identify communications from outside our own solar system we’ve found nothing. It may be that we are alone in the universe. We might have to use science to invent our own future by ourselves. An even less cheerful prospect is that the reason we haven’t heard from “anyone” is that intelligent life forms tend to self-destruct, an obvious possibility considering the massive stores of nuclear weapons that have been produced here on Earth.
Whether “The Truth” is finally discovered on our planet or is shared with us by those from other worlds, the point is that “The Truth” has always been sought by earthbound humans and always will be. Thanks to the application of science and the scientific method, along with the human mind, we are likely to continue to seek answers to the basic question of “Truth.” Religion will no doubt continue to assert the hope that our metaphysical beliefs will be a truthful basis to “make it through the night.” Philosophy may to some extent satisfy our human thirst for answers. But as noted here more than once, it is likely to remain for individuals to determine their own “Truth” and to conduct their lives according to that truth.
Finding one’s own “Truth” requires the freedom to use all three of the modalities described here, religion, philosophy, and science. And to do this search for “personal truth” the most conducive regime to secure such a personal freedom is a democracy within which individual thought and questioning is governmentally protected and not governmentally controlled or dictated. There is no one way to think. The “Truth” is that there are many ways to think and develop one’s own truth.
Other than such absolute “Truths” as death, gravity, and the (apparent) rising and setting of the Sun, the final empirical “Truth,” whether determined by any given human observation or declaration in some future era, will be subject to change as human knowledge evolves. The continuing quest to seek absolute “Truth” and the constant increase in truth (small cap) will hopefully move humanity forward, and that is a good thing. And yes, this essay is just one “Truth” and may well change in the future.
In this essay we’ve described changes that have taken place over thousands of years in the ways humanity has approached the search for truth. The amateur philosopher and multi-media artist Henry Rollins has observed, “Change is hard, but change is good.” Writing about two hundred years ago Thomas Babington Macaulay expands on this observation:
Those who compare the age in which their lot has fallen with a golden age which exists only in imagination, may talk of degeneracy and decay; but no man who is correctly informed as to the past, will be disposed to take a morose or desponding view of the present.
Despite the shouts of those who tell us that the world is “going to hell in a hand basket,” the truth is that most humans now living in conditions of want and poverty actually live far more comfortably than did “the poor” at any time in past history. And those of us living in relative comfort actually live in a manner that would turn most rulers throughout past human history green with envy.
In sum, learning and improvement continue and a “Truth” is a truth only until proven untrue. And that’s “The Truth”!
Written by Fred Straedel Th. D and Marshall Sashkin Ph. D
Cover Photo by Simone Secci