How Many Truths Are There?
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32
Tatyana Noel-Tsygulska, PhD
A scholar strives to come closer to the truth. At least this is the way it was a couple of decades ago. I grew up in Soviet Union. In this country even common people, not scientists, believed in the existence of objective truth. Lately, more and more often voices are heard in favour of the non-existence of objective truth, saying everyone has their own truth, “This is right for you, but it is not necessarily right for me”. In response to an assignment to define truth, which I suggested to my students, the majority of them wrote that everybody has his or her own truth (i.e. that truth is subjective). Only one student considered truth to be objective. This split of ideas quite accurately represents the modern social situation.
The need is ripe to examine the existence of objective truth, or maybe truth is just subjective. Minds have being grappling with this issue for ages and I do not plan to provide an exhaustive answer. I will examine some psychological and Christian psychological aspects of this problem.
A lot of misunderstandings occur while identifying truth when people confuse opinions and facts. Sober critical thinking1 should rely upon dependable evidence, in particular, on facts. All human opinions should be evaluated. People are inclined to make mistakes, and many opinions are inaccurate or false. What is the difference between opinion and fact? How can this difference be defined?
Opinion and fact belong to very different categories. Fact takes place in objective reality, it actually exists. It can be an event, a thing, a phenomenon or an action. Fact is an objective concept, independent from the will of an observer. Human opinion is subjective, i.e. it depends on the will of a subject (observer). Opinion is a judgment or idea, which can be based either on objective facts (on reality) or on subjective aspects, (characteristics of a subject such as feelings, habits, traditions, dispositions, rumours, gossip, anecdotes, etc.).
V. Ruggiero2 described two categories of opinions: judgment and preference. Opinions based on facts are judgments, which more or less accurately reflect reality. Preferences or tastes ignore facts and are remote from reality or may even contradict it.
For example, two different ideas: 1) caffeine is harmful and 2) caffeine is healthy. Which one of those is based on facts (and is a judgment). Science has gathered quite a bit of factual evidence which show the caffeine intake weakening of body organs and systems functions occur and lowering of classical conditioning. The state of low excitability remains for 5-7 days3. Caffeine mobilizes stress mechanisms; sugar, and heartbeat level (tachycardia) and blood pressure rise. It can cause headache, irritability, and insomnia. It is obvious that according to scientific data the first idea about harmfulness of caffeine is a well-grounded judgment, because facts supports it. The second idea about healthfulness of caffeine is based not on facts, but on feelings and opinions (let’s say, a person likes coffee and chocolate, he can not stop indulging his appetite and chooses to believe in what pleases him) - it is a preference, erroneous idea.
When we are guided by critical thinking, we will clearly distinguish a fact from an opinion.
Objective reality does not depend on our attitude, prejudices, doubts, and unbelief etc. For example, the fact that the earth is rotating around the sun was factual all the time through the ages of existence of the solar system. But opinions about this fact were quite different.
A thing that actually exists is a fact. Fact is not our thinking, but a thing, that exists objectively, outside or in spite of our opinions, will, and emotions. Whether we believe in this fact or not, objective reality does not change because of it. For millennia, people believed in rotation of the sun around the earth. They even were burning at the stake the dissidents. Yet, the orbits of these heavenly bodies did not deviate a bit.
Now let us move from theory to practice. Answer this question, please, “If we consider a bird’s wings to be legs, how many legs will the bird have?” Write down your answer or pronounce it aloud. I guess many of you answered “4″. Nevertheless, because we call wing a leg it did not stop being a wing. The correct answer is “2″. When we consider an object to be what it is not, does not change it and does not transform it into something different.
What changes when we hold to an incorrect idea? Our actions. We act inadequately. We hurt ourselves. We are guided by false information; we use inadequate measures and experience failures. It is like trying to arrive at a destination point by using a false map.
How do we learn about facts? First of all, we do it through our senses (vision, hearing, touch, smell and taste), i.e. through sensory cognition. Animals also have this ability. Is it enough to obtain data by sensory cognition for establishing of a fact? Based on the example of the sun and earth it is obviously not always enough. We see with our own eyes that the sun rises from the horizon and do not notice the rotation of the earth. Sometimes our senses tell us one thing, but in reality, something different is happening. People have also a higher level of cognition - rational cognition, operating by reason and abstract thinking, which uses language and mental operations such as analysis, synthesis, comparison, and generalization. It allows us to come outside the barriers of an obvious situation. We have to reflect reality not only directly (in a sensory way) as animals do, but in a mediatory way, by our reason.
Here is a classic example from Psychology. In the morning, you look out the window and see wet roofs and wet asphalt. At night through your senses, you did not feel anything; you did not see rain and did not hear its noise. But you conclude: there has been a rain. How did you come to this conclusion? With what was your thinking mediated? What mediators are between what we perceive with sensory cognition and rational thinking? By senses, we perceived only wet roofs and streets. How did we conclude about rain?
Many times after rains, we have seen puddles and wet leaves and wet roofs. We remember such situations, i.e. we used knowledge. We also analysed the situation and compared similar cases. We were analysing it in parts: the road can be wet because of a watering truck, but roofs are usually wet only after rain. It means that a wet road is a nonessential indicator. We used language, naming certain things with appropriate words. This means mediation becomes possible through usage of knowledge, language, instruments of thinking, mental operations, such as analysis, synthesis, comparison, generalization etc.
The most essential difference between a human and an animal is this. Animal activity is immediate, directly caused by a situation and sensory cognition, but human activity has a mediatory character4 and allows us to come out beyond the limits of the immediate situation.
Let’s restate one more time: belief or disbelief in a fact does not change objective reality. Consider the factuality of God’s existence. For simplicity of discussion let’s assume that He exists. Of His existence we cannot be convinced directly, through our senses, i.e. we cannot see Him or touch Him. We can learn about Him indirectly, in a mediatory way; through His creation, through effectiveness and honesty of His Word, by accurate fulfilment of almost all the Bible prophecies (a few have yet to be fulfilled), through what He does in our lives and in our hearts. If God exists and we believe in Him, then we can enter in relationships with Him and receive abundant blessings, including immortality. If He exists, but we do not believe in Him, we lose everything.
It is worthy of attention to look upon God’s name, which God spoke to Moses. “And God said unto Moses, І AM THAT І AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, І AM hath sent me unto you” (Exodus 3:14). God’s name means, “I exist” (In the Russian Bible “I Am Existing”). Even through His name He let us know that He is real, because He exists in actuality.
I gave an assignment to my students in the Ukrainian College of Art and Science a question, “What is truth?” The students’ responses are worthy of attention.
In order to define what is right or wrong one needs to rely upon clear criteria or to correlate with a predetermined standard. Let us choose a dictionary as such a criterion or standard. Dictionaries fix the meanings of terms, which become rooted in a language.
Webster’s dictionary5:
Truth: (1) the state of being the case : FACT
(2) the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY
(3) a: transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality, b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true, c: the body of true statements and propositions
Dahl’s dictionary6: “Truth is the opposite of untruth (lie); everything that is correct, real, accurate, just; thing, that exists (everything, that exists, is truth).”
Now having obtained a criterion of correctness, we can define, which answers of students are correct, which of them are incorrect and which are arguable.
First let’s consider the correct answers, which identify the essential characteristics of truth. Letters mark the answers from different students:
(a) “Truth is a correct right representation of reality in thinking. Its criterion is practice. Truth is knowledge, which corresponds to its subject and always agrees with it.
(b) “Truth is a thing that exists in reality.”
The answers listed above describe a characteristic of truth:
1. The reality of truth as a fact or a judgment, which adequately represents reality.
The following statements correctly depicted other important characteristic s of truth:
2. Truth is confirmed by reliable proofs (evidence), which are able to withstand the most severe scrutiny.
(a) “Truth is statement, which has irrefutable proofs in its defence.”
(b) “Truth is undeniable knowledge.”
3. Perfection of truth.
(a) “Truth is irreproachable knowledge.”
(b) “Truth is an absolute.”
4. The objectivity of truth, truth is independent from an observer.
(a) “Some people believe that truth depends on circumstances and conditions, but it is undeniable and absolute.”
5. Moral value of truth:
(a) “Truth stirs right motives, guides along the correct way and brings to correct results.”
(b) “Truth is the Word of God, which is a light for humans, instructing them how to live.”
6. The possibility of knowing truth and its accessibility to people.
(a) “Only God knows truth, but it sometimes hard for people to find it. Truth is the one which is worthy of seeking for and necessary to find.”
There were a number of arguable and even erroneous judgments.
(a) “Everybody has their own truth. What is essential for one group of people is not necessarily essential for others.”
(b) “Everyone understands truth in his own way.”
(c) “It seems to me, that everybody defines truth himself.”
(d) “For different generations the notion of truth is different, even every one of us defined it in our own way. So we cannot say what truth is.”
This group of statements emphasizes the subjective character of truth (dependence on an observer, on a person) in opposition to the objectivity of truth (independency from observer). This is the position of subjective idealism: reality (truth, fact) exists only in the minds of people; it is not real. Subjective idealists believe, “As soon as I close my eyes the external world disappears, because it disappears for me.” I argue, because we can be persuaded of the existence of objective reality through our own and other people’s sensory perception, by means of coinciding of reports, through checking out ideas in practice. That is why the opinion that truth is subjective is erroneous.
Now let us discuss arguable aspects. Here they are:
1. Invariability of truth:
(a) “Truth is unchangeable, eternal, stable.”
(b) “Real things will always be truthful, they do not change.”
Eternity (invariability) and truthfulness are two different characteristics, though they have overlapping spheres. There are many eternal true things (God, His Word, love, light, space, time). At the same time there are a lot of temporary true objects, for example, you and I, the fact of our existence is truth for today. We are still alive. This is a fact. However, we are temporary and can die. Another example. The judgment that “Today is Monday” is true only once a week, on Mondays, and at the rest of the time, it is a lie.
2. The definition of truth is limited to only philosophical or religious discussions:
(a) “Truth is just a philosophical term.”
(b) “truth is the Biblical truth, which was given to people by God.”
However truth exists not only in philosophy or the Bible, but in all the spheres of life, for instance, in nature, in judicial systems, in chemistry, in psychology, in everyday human interaction etc.. We do not want to be cheated by receiving false banknotes, do we? Is not it because there are genuine, true bills? Or let’s say, the law of gravity exists, it is true. Are these things (bills, gravity) philosophical or religious? No.
3. Truth allegedly cannot be doubted, it is allegedly unquestioned, i.e. we cannot argue it and even cannot ponder over it.
(a) “Truth is an absolute, which is not subject to objection and discussion.”
(b) “Truth cannot be challenged.”
Here is an example of the necessity to question truth. Mr. X. committed a murder. It happened in reality. The fact of him committing the murder is truth. But what if Mr. X. will be convicted without investigation and trial? If detectives, lawyers and judges will not question this fact and will believe his accusers, do not question the evidence and subject him to a lynching will that be right?
Another example. The right to doubt is allowed by God. God gave the devil the freedom to doubt the truthfulness of God’s authority and to rebel. Truth and God will withstand testing and win. Truth will endure any test, that’s why people who stand for truth and are confident in it are not afraid of testing and doubts. If an idea or opinion is not discussed, not objected to, not analysed, how can we know for sure that it is not false? On the other hand, a plot, a falsification, and people involved in them are afraid of examination and doubts. Truth does not stop being truth because of somebody’s doubts and arguments, it is able to withstand the most severe scrutiny and the most demanding critique and testing, but falsehood and lies will not.
Do you know, that the Bible says, that God will be on trial? He will provide an opportunity for people to be convinced of the justice of His decisions. “Let God be true… as it is written, That Thou mightest be justified in Thy sayings, and mightest overcome when Thou art judged” (Romans 3:4).
4. Incomprehensibility by people.
(a) “I think that only God has the answer.”
(b) “Truth, in my opinion, does not have an answer.”
Really? Often we can identify truth. For example, in court while determining somebody’s culpability? If truth is impossible to find out then why do scholars spend sleepless nights, digging in archives, spending time and effort performing scrupulous research? The subtext of that kind of statement is this: since only God has truth, then people cannot have it and people allegedly never will be able to establish the truthfulness or falsehood of anything (money, at least).
If objective truth does not exist, it is impossible to know it, why we should have a judiciary system? In order to demonstrate the absurdity of this position that truth is subjective, we will pose this question, “Why will we not declare that everyone has their own truth, dismiss our lawyers and court system (what an economy for the national budget!) and refuse completely to try to identify facts about who committed a crime? Moreover, why do we need police? Without them, we will have even greater savings! Let us close all research institutes since there is no difference in what scientists will discover. If everybody has his own truth, then we can believe anything! Why do we need physicians, if any diagnosis and any treatment will do?
Supporters of the subjectivity of truth do not have to complain about an inaccurate diagnosis (because any diagnosis is right in its own way!) There is no inappropriate treatment (doctors believed in it and it was their personal truth!). We can go even farther. Why do wee need schools? Why should children waste so many years behind desks, why pay salaries to teachers, if it does not matter whether the answer of a student matches the answer in a manual or not, if any spelling of a word will do, if any historic date is OK, you see all this is the subjective truth of those students! Bringing the position of subjectivity of truth to its logical end we cannot miss its absurdity. It remains only to wonder that there are people who support such a senseless position anyway. What do you think, why do they do it?
5. Universality of truth (its acceptance by everybody).
(a) “Truth is definitions that are known to everyone, they are not substantiated and not discussed because they are established in life.”
Often true knowledge is an axiom to the majority. However, the majority does not always accept many reliable true statements. This way was in middle ages denying the rotation of the earth around the sun. A modern example is the age of the earth. The majority advocate from the theory of evolution that it is not 6000 years, which numerous scientific facts testify7, but billions of years, though there are no reliable facts to support such an opinion. Honest supporters of evolution acknowledge that questionable and erroneous examples or methods (recapitulation theory or biogenetic law of evolution by Heckel8, dating of fossils by layers of geological column and dating layers of geological column by its fossils etc.) are kept in handbooks only because they do not have anything better to replace them with.
Thus, truth exists objectively, in reality, in the form of facts. Truth is always one (not many truths). In reality, what always happens is only something definite, only one thing. Though on the way to identifying truth and fact, different opinions and interpretations of this fact are admitted. Divergences in opinion testify not about absence of objective reality, but about different accuracy of reflecting of facts.
Abstract: problems of the existence of objective truth are considered. A cause of misunderstanding the definition of the truth is shown: confusion between opinion and fact. Two types of opinions are analysed: judgment (an idea which is based on facts) and preference (an idea distant from fact). Ways of receiving of facts, differences between direct (sensory) cognition and mediatory cognition are discussed. Some characteristics of truth are described: reality, corroboration by evidences; perfection, independency from an observer; moral value, possibility of knowing it.
References:
Tatyana Noel-Tsygulska © Copyright 2008
Оригинал на русском языке см. здесь Сколько правд на свете?
Russian language original is here: http://noelrt.com//?p=263
- Цигульська Т. Проблема вмінь критичного мислення. Вчені записки. Кіровоград, Кіровоградський державний педагогічний університет, том 54, стор. 125-128. [-]
- Ruggiero V.R. The Art of Thinking: a Guide to Critical and Creative Thought. - New York, Longman, 1998. 281 p. [-]
- Мозгов И.Е. Фармакология. - М.: Колос, 1979. - 416 с. [-]
- L. S. Vygotsky, S. Vygotsky, Vera John-Steiner (Editor) (2006). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press. [-]
- Webster’s Online Dictionary http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=truth&x=12&y=15 [-]
- Даль В. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка. Цитадель, Москва, 1998 г. [-]
- Опарин А.А. Древний мир и библейская хронология - Харьков, Факт, 1998. - 175 с. Уайт М. Сколько лет нашей планете? http://www.lipetsk.ru/~wyatt/creat_7.htm [-]
- Wolfrom G.W. Perpetuation of the Recapitulation Myth. Creation Research Society Quarterly. March 1975, pp. 198-201. [-]
July 20th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Многи в коментах пишут что мол отличный пост, полезная информация, но это все вода…. надоело уже честно..