(Part 1 is here: https://thetuinstras.net/?p=1387)
In the first article in this series we talked about the fact that in normal daily life we come at truth in very informal ways and yet in ways that work at the practical level. When we build our homes, we conform them to certain truths about how the construction needs to be done so our homes are safe and function well. We learn these truths by applying what we receive on good authority. This approach seems to be thrown out the window when it comes to discerning, believing and proclaiming religious truth.
In the second article we expanded more on the methods we use to discern what truth is. Here again we discussed the fact that most of us haven’t come in contact with the truth first-hand in most cases. In other words, we don’t learn to build a house by trial and error. We usually learn from somebody who already knows. We weren’t there when historical events took place and we aren’t privy to the information that forms the basis for political decisions. Most of us are not involved in the working out of mathematical equations or scientific principles. We learn these things and base our decisions on them based on good authority. But it’s interesting to recognize that different people accept different authorities. Why is this so? Why, when the President, any President, announces a decision, do some people assume it is a wise and truthful decision whereas others claim the decision is faulty and dishonest? Why do we gravitate to one news source over another or one religious leader over another? Most of these propensities to lean in one direction or another are not driven by facts that we know firsthand.
There are usually unproved and sometimes improvable assumptions, called presuppositions, that move us in one direction or another when we search for truth. The point I would like us to think very seriously about is that there is no guarantee that these presuppositions are directing us toward the truth. Our feelings tell us our sources are true, and we believe they are, but there is no guarantee. I may listen to a particular news source because I feel that it is a truthful source of information. But what makes me think that? And just because I think it, does that make it true? I watch with fascination as CNN fans put down Fox News for presenting a slanted view of the facts. At the same time, I hear Fox News followers cut down CNN for painting a false picture of causes and events. Since CNN and Fox present rather different perspectives on events, they can’t both be giving the true and complete picture. One or the other or both are presenting shaded views of the truth. Our presuppositions drive us to listen to and believe one over the other … or neither. Why is that?
The same thing occurs in religious discussion. Some people do not believe that the Bible can be historically accurate and truthful in the narratives about Jesus Christ, because it describes events which people have never seen with their own eyes. These miracles are described as though they are facts, but some people dismiss them out of hand because of the presupposition that such things cannot and therefore did not take place. Think of the implications if the resurrection of Jesus actually did take place. In other words, if we take it out of the realm of a religious teaching and put it into the same realm as the assassination of Julius Caesar or any other historical event, what would that mean? Think about it. If this man really died, his heart stopped beating, and his brain stopped functioning, someone put him into a cold cave, and then three days later he was alive again, wouldn’t such an event warrant a place in the history books? But somehow it has been relegated to a religious teaching, and the thought that it actually happened has pretty much disappeared. Has this happened because the history of it has been shown to be faulty or because of presuppositions coming into play?
Our presuppositions tend to move us toward some information sources and away from others. We believe some people who purport to be authorities and we reject others. In most cases we haven’t and usually can’t do the research required to independently verify these authorities. This situation shouldn’t drive us to the conclusion that the truth doesn’t exist or that it can’t be known. We don’t do that in normal daily life and we shouldn’t do it in philosophical, political, or religious areas of life. However, we do need to recognize that our presuppositions may not be pointing us to the truth. If we really want to know what the truth is, we sometimes need to work against our natural presuppositions and give other sources a fair and reasoned hearing because it may be that the truth lies in that direction.
In this third article, you’ve started nibbling at the question I had when reading the first article: how to distinguish between objective and subjective truth. Specifically, do you think they are different enough that they should be considered wholly separate from each other? I think something can be objectively true without first-hand witness, but you raise interesting questions about that. How should I interact with someone who rejects objective truth? How does a relationship/church/society function in the midst of opposing subjective truths?
I don’t even understand what subjective truth means. Is this a generational thing because I’m old and you’re young? To me, subjective truth is something a person believes to be true for himself, but it may or may not actually be true. I know that philosophical people dispute even the words that I’m using. But suppose you ask someone who does not believe in objective truth to take their next pay check, cash it at a bank so that it is in U.S. currency, then wad it up and burn it in the middle of the driveway. Now, is it really gone? Was it actually there? I think most post modernists would have originally taken the check to the bank and used it to pay their mortgage or credit card bills. Maybe they can still do that even though the money is now ashes in the wind? To my mind that would make no sense. Are there people who would see no difference between using the money to pay bills or burning it? The two things are exactly the same?
Something can be objectively true without a first-hand witness. I assume there are things yet to be discovered that are true that no one has seen. There are events in history that no one has documented. Someone may have seen them, but no record exists at all. But those events are still objectively true and they may have caused ripple effects down through history that we observe now, but have no clue as to how those ripples got started. I think objectively true and objectively provable are two different things.
People act and react too much on what they “feel” is true. It is very difficult to get at the truth about things. I’m scientifically minded, but am having trouble knowing the truth about the corona virus. But I believe there is truth there somewhere to be found. I’m not sure who to trust when discussing it. I have feelings about who is lying and who is giving me facts, but I don’t know enough to interpret data myself even though I know about math and mathematical models and so forth. It’s very frustrating. But that doesn’t change my view on objective reality. There is some, we just don’t know how to get at it. And there are a lot of emotions on the part of other people. And there are arguments to be had, but most people arguing don’t know any more facts than I do but the opinions are the truth for them.
Thanks for responding. There’s certainly much epistemological nuance on the whole topic area! I don’t think it’s a (current) generational thing; Subjectivity seems to have its roots in the Enlightenment era with Descartes and Kant (thanks Wikipedia!), although it seems like it’s also partially a foundational concept of Postmodernism (I’m at most a neophyte scratching the surface of any of these topics). I’m enjoying this topic series!