Children's Squabble

Matters of religious interest are central to the mission of this page, which is to question and evaluate our basic assumptions about life, the universe, and everything. This is a squirmy process, as I have recently been reminded.

I enjoyed this article in the Guardian on a new ITV documentary airing soon about the Muslim beliefs surrounding Christ. I think it's a great idea. Even as children we're taught that there are two sides to every story. We learn this the first time we get into a squabble with a sibling and our parents (if they're at all sensible) ask each child what happend before handing down a ruling.

Some stories seem to be exempt from this treatment. 'There is one side, once correct view, and it is mine,' seems to be the attitude. Shame, really. I think a lot of people would benefit from the discomfort of hearing the other side of their sacred story.


(And Random Thinker, I know exactly what you're going to say here. No, I am not contradicting my earlier statement about truth being objective regardless of perspective. There is a difference between a story and a fact: a story has multiple sides, a fact does not. In the case of the story of Jesus there are multiple sides (even within the Christian New Testament, where the gospels contradict each other all over the place), and then there is the truth of what actually happened, which nobody knows.)

Back to Basics

I'm going to return now to a variant on the question that inspired me to subject my my blog to a mitotic split and create this spin-off. I am deeply interested in the fundamental ways people perceive the world and how they interact in it. So here is my question:


How do you personally decide what is true or not true?


Should be simple enough.

You MUST watch this

Truthache

Sorry I havn't been around to respond to all the wonderful comments that have come in. For the past week my back has been in splitting pain, and it's been nearly impossible to sit at a computer for any length. I'm on a new course of chemical cocktails now, and for the moment it seems to be working. This is the first day in a week I havn't been in constant pain. The downside is that my brain is pretty fuzzy at the mo, tho. I just can't seem to clear the haze. Hopefully the effect will wear off in a few days as I adjust to things.

But down to business!

There's been a great debate taking place in the comments box. I thought it was a pretty straight-forward question. I wanted to define some basic terms so that as discussion proceeded and someone said "that's not true" we would all know what the statement meant.

It has been suggested that perhaps "What is truth?" should have been the last qestion on the blog, rather than the first. Becuase if we can answer that, we've figured everything else out. There may be some truth in that. (!) Perhaps it will be the first and last question, the alpha and the omega, and at some point we shall all come full circle. But not today.

Here is a synopsis of some of the responses:

• Lardy big bot listed some characteristics of truth, but did not put forth a definition
  
• Violet for the Moment suggests it is that which can be proven objectively with evidence
• Mangonel brings up the critical question of empiricism
• LBB than reminds us that there are different kinds of truth (physical, spiritual, etc.)
• Simon says that truth is what is real, but points out the difficulty in defining reality (at which piont my brain implodes like Neo in the Matrix)
• B, mathematical genius that he is, states that verbal languages are inherently ambiguous and it is therefore not possible to define truth in a language such as English, but that the language of mathematics is much more able to manage such topics.
• Simon counters that in any system your definition of truth depends on the rules that define your system (i think)
• First Nations is in the reality camp
• Homo Escapeons put forth "truth is something which can be tested under any conditions and always presents the same conclusions."
• Keith couldn't find my email address under the "Fine Print" heading at the bottom of the page, and feels that the question is irrelevant and worrying about it is making us unhappy and/or neurotic.
• Tim Footman feels that truth is little more than shared community values
• and Simon finally concludes that truth is faith.

A lot of things really struck me in this discussion, but the idea that surprised me most was how many people think truth is a relative concept, dependent upon the mind constructing it. I expected to see more words like "fact" and "proof," but these were conspicuous by their paucity. I was reminded of the line from 'Jesus Christ, Superstar' where Pontius Pilate sings "But what is truth? Is truth a changing law? We both have truths -- are mine the same as yours?"

Surely there must be some things which are objective, provable, factual truth? Our entire society is based upon it.

2+3=5 That is a fact. It is provable. It is regarded as truth.

Leaves are green because the chlorophyll in them reflects green light and absorbs all other wavelengths. This is a fact. It is proven. No one disputes it. It is regarded as truth.

Our criminal justice system provides me with a good analogy. It's whole set-up is designed to establish truth, and people's lives are deeply and irrevocably affected by the outcomes of the judicial system's tests of truth. As a society, we almost universally accept the decisions of the criminal justice system; true anarchists are very few few in number.

In America the criminal justice system is based around 2 fundamental precepts:
1. You are innocent until proven guilty, that is, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense
2. Proof of guilt is defined as that which is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I like this system. I like it a lot. The actual application of the criminal justice system leaves a lot to be desired, but the above named precepts are very sound to my mind. It all revolves around that word, "reasonable."

It leaves room for rediculous, outlandish alternative theories of a crime ("But it could have been shape-shifting aliens taking the form of my client; you can't prove it wasn't!") and at once dismisses them. It calls on people to use reason and judgement, to ask not what is possible (because shape-shifting aliens are theoretically possible), but what is likely. And we accept the rigorousness of this test. We accept it every day when we are willing to lock people up for their entire lives based on it.

So that is the definition of truth I propose for this blog:

Truth is that which is factually demonstrable beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is always doubt. For any given question one can always concoct some alternative scenario or explanation, but we must ask ourselves, is that alternative reasonable? If you take truth to be whatever you believe in your own mind, than there can be no agreement, no consensus, no action can be taken. If I say to you, "but I think it's this way, and since that's what I believe it's as true as what you believe," civilization comes to a grinding halt. That way madness lies.

First Question:

Let's start by defining our terms. We have already discussed, to some degree, the question of 'What is faith?' We will probably return to this question later, but right now I would like pose a parallel question:

What is truth?

By this I mean 'How do you define the concept of truth?'

I am not asking 'What particular things do you hold to be true?'


(Nothing quite like jumping in to the deep end on the first day, is there?)

Have fun, kiddies!

oh, ps: Don't make this harder or more complicated than it needs to be. Right now all we need to do is define our terms so that when we progress we'll be using words with a meaning that is understood, at least in our little community here. All I want to do is get a working definintion going.