From my dear friend, the Atheist:
I don’t think you really understood me.
But perhaps it would be easier if we laid out my meaning through the points in your proposed counter-argument.
“The Truth will set us free… The Truth is ever-ancient, ever-new..”
Perhaps it would be better for our discussion if we stayed away from cliches, since they never really say anything productive. Their meaning is lost through relentless repetition by ages of people who don’t think about what they’re saying.
Truth with a capital T is taken to be a universal concept, what philosophers would call an “absolute”–something that is unchanging. It has little to do with Time and its ages and essentially, it is what it is. Being temporary, fallible, and in all respects, human, we can attempt to understand such a concept through description, but in actuality we cannot really grasp the concept in its entirety, as we have known nothing like it (i.e. we can only imagine). The result then, is that much as we try not to, we inevitably taint the concept with our biases, such that it becomes something we can better comprehend, something we can relate to.
In our case, for example, although we’d both like to think that we are in search of Truth, it is likely that we believe certain things about it, that would go against its absolute nature. According to your religion and your beliefs as I remember them, you believe your God to be all-powerful, all-knowing ( i.e. omnipotent and omniscient), and all-good. We can get into the logical problems of this assertion later, but insofar as you believe that, then it represents an absolute in itself.
Now then, given that you believe your God to be absolute in much the same way as Truth and Good (etc) are, it is conceivable that you would try to reach Truth through the other absolute that you believe you know–God. And that is the very point at which we deviate most strongly.
My inclination in terms of Truth relies heavily upon the idea that a belief in God, and pardon me, but particularly the Christian an/or Catholic God, is the very thing that pulls you further and further away from Truth, in that people kid themselves in thinking that they’re in search for Truth, when in reality they willingly and knowingly bury their heads in the sand.
I can’t see how a chosen path of ignorance can lead to Truth, but again, that’s based upon my inclined understanding of Truth. And that’s what I mean by the imposed relative nature of the absolute. We make it relative because we can’t truly understand it otherwise. And that’s how we end up with slightly different ideas of what it is to be Truth in its actual nature.
The Response:
It is critical that we understand each other. As I stated before, your positions are a mystery to me and I refuse to make any unnecessary assumptions about your present beliefs. Instead, I want only to understand your position. Your beliefs, experiences, and biases are important to me.
You are important to me.
Since you mean so much to me, it would be a tragedy to lose any part of you–especially your perspective on the world–because of my own ignorance. As such, please walk me through your beliefs and I promise to take good care of them as I ponder their Truth in my heart.
Speaking of Truth, let me see if I can understand your position so as to make a reasonable response. When you write that we can only “attempt to understand [concepts] through description” and, although we strive not to, “we inevitably taint the concept with our biases”
are you suggesting that there can be no objectivity and universality? If so, do you appeal solely to subjective belief; where knowledge becomes whatever we believe or feel at any given moment?
A subjective system of obtaining knowledge–based solely on highly personal and idiosyncratic perceptions–does not account for the empirical knowledge we have beyond our own personal experiences.
On the other hand, through the beliefs of a given community or culture, we can account for the manner in which we perceive the world. Further, using empirical knowledge, we can understand the private sensations and feelings of others as expressed in their statements. Also, empirical knowledge allows people to independently investigate and evaluate the worth of the general beliefs of a community.
Consider that even though the objects of our experience are transformed by us from mere stimuli to whole recognizable objects, this does not mean that we singlehandedly create our perceptual world or that we are always right in our designation of something as this or that.
Human inventiveness and imagination can be as destructive and “fallible” as they can be necessary and invaluable in coming to know the world. As such, even human ideas, investigations, judgment, and ultimate belief must always be subject to scrutiny and challenge.
Surely, you believe that beliefs should be scrutinized and people challenged: especially those who “willingly and knowingly bury their heads in the sand”–Christian or otherwise. Critical reflection must accompany judgment. The level of criticism, however, must be fairly apportioned and just.
When you write that we “believe certain things about [the Truth]” but those beliefs actually “would go against its absolute nature” I wonder how that applies to empirical data. For example, since we understand “concept[s] through description” but not, as you stated, in their “entirety,” it would seem that we can never fully grasp molecular theory.
That deduction, however, seems to cut against libraries full of facts about quantum mechanics. Even though we do not directly perceive the bonding of molecules to form objects such as chairs, we know that it happens. We can know how this rigidity comes about and we might marvel at how the bonding of seemingly fragile units, such as molecules, can produce strength and resistance. Even though we do not directly perceive rhythmic movements from rigid objects, we can think about the effect these objects have on us and how this effect is perceived by our sensory organs. In turn, we are led to a more metaphorical appreciation of the power and intensity of the world.
Regardless of our level of perception, and notwithstanding our use of metaphor, Truth exists: as in the preceding case, scientific truth can exist outside of ourselves.
Truth, or its “absolute” universality, does not fundamentally rest on the agreement of a community. If all humans believed the Earth was flat, it would still be “round”–regardless of our universal perception. Rather, agreement itself rests on the fact that one position can be shown to be preferable to another, one claim stronger than another, one belief more worthy than another.
Claims regarding knowledge fit into a hierarchy. Authority proceeds from validity. If a claim is verifiable and capable of offering us a reliable basis for action, it is said to be authoritative. Whether we like, approve, resent, or want to ignore this authority, we are obliged (but never compelled) to accept it on the basis of reason.
Thus, absolute Truth does not depend on agreement among people, nor their feelings. I agree that we should never taint the Truth; but absolute Truth can never be tainted in its essence because it exists independently outside of time. I am reminded of the opening verse from Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu:
TAO can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao.
Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name.
As the origin of heaven-and-earth, it is nameless:
As “the Mother” of all things, it is nameable.
So, as ever hidden, we should look at its inner essence:
As always manifest, we should look at its outer aspects.
These two flow from the same source, though differently
named; An
d both are called mysteries.
The Mystery of mysteries is the Door of all essence.
(Tao Te Ching, paragraph 1)
Correct me if I am wrong, but “Tao” literally means “Way” and its connotations are almost identical to the Greek philosophers’ “Logos” (i.e., word, reason). Like the Logos, Tao is the first principle or ordering pattern of the cosmos, of which ancient Greeks and Chinese had a similar view. Both the Greeks and Chinese refer to the first principle as a “mystery”–a universal absolute that cannot be fully understood, but can be arrived at using reason.
While subjective opinions and concerns may be instrumental in gathering evidence or arguing for or against a position, they cannot overrule the existence of objective knowledge, arrived at and preserved by reason.
With that I humbly suggest we continue our discussion in a spirit of friendship and respect. I have always enjoyed our conversations and I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Tags:
