|
truth
by
john o'keefe
i
am amazed at most peoples understanding of truth. for many,
"truth" is defined as what they believe to be true - if they
believe it is "true" then it is truth for all people. "do
you swear to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth?"
"...truth, justice and the american way!" it seems that
when ever we turn around someone want's to tell us the
"truth," which is actually their truth, but not
"The Truth." truth!
what is truth? is truth subjective, or objective? are there
absolute truths? is all truth equal and right? must we tell
the truth at all times? is not telling the truth acceptable if we
know it will harm another? if there is an absolute truth can any
human know that truth? hard questions. in searching for
a starting point i decided to start with the basics, then move to
answering many of the other questions later on in life. so, let us begin.
the
basics, what is truth?
according
to the american heritage dictionary truth is defined as, 1.
accordance with fact or actuality (a story with the appearance of
truth), 2. a statement proven to be, or accepted as true (scientific
truth), 3. reality, actuality (at appomattox the civil was
was in truth over). so, truth can be understood as, "a
reality in accordance with fact, or actuality, that has been proven or
accepted to be true." if we look at the definition we
naturally move to the next set of questions dealing with concepts of
"proven" and "acceptable."
subjective,
objective and absolute:
all
truth is based on a limited objective truth; it is our understanding of that
limited truth that is subjective and gives birth to what
we believe as true. the subjectivity of the facts, does not alter the
objectivity of the truth, yet we can never truly say that we know that
objective truth. let me give you an example. if we
were to placed individuals around an accident and after the accident asked them what
happened, we would get the subjective truths, and some could differ very
much from others. now, does the subjective
truth of one person discount the limited truth of the reality? (an
accident) of
course not. nor does the limited objective truth of the accident
discount the subjective truth of the viewers. let's
change the players and say the subjective truth of the sate and the jury
has convicted a man for murder and placed upon him the pain of death,
but a newly found subjective truth can set him free, do we? why,
isn't the subjective truth of the sate equal to the subjective truth of
the new information? of course not, because when we see things in
subjective ways no all truth is
equal. proving that all truth is subjective,
let's
look at it in a theological setting. jesus is the son of God, God
incarnate, this is an objective truth (some may think it is a subjective
truth, but there is a great amount of evidence to prove this statement
as objective, but keep in mind we will discuss "absolute"
truths soon), but how you see jesus in that objective truth becomes your
individual subjective truth. the subjective truth you hold is not
"wrong." it simply is your view of the situation, the
objective truth. another interesting thing happens about this time
in subjective truth, i call it "collective subjective
truth." collective subjective truth, in this case, can be
seen as denominations. but, no matter how large the collective the
fact is, it is based on subjective truth (i am certain that many will
question my conclusion here, because they are part of a collective
claiming to have the absolute truth - they don't, no one does).
so, we know truth can be subjective and objective; no matter how
many people want it to be so, subjective truth does not effect the
reality of the objective truth; we like living in the subjective -
it makes "us" right. but the question still remains, is
truth absolute?
first,
let me start by saying that i believe objective truth and absolute truth
are different, yet very related. objective truth is simply one
part of an absolute truth, for example - God is an absolute truth,
jesus as the incarnation (an objective truth) is a part of that absolute
truth. absolute truth, as the definition of "absolute"
accords, is "total and complete." so, can there be
absolute truth?
i
have always found the statement, "there are no absolute truths"
on the money. i will not play on the " statement is an absolute, and if
there are no absolute truths, the statement would be false" logic
many like to toss around, because that is weak and holds little water. it's like
the questions spock gave to confuse the logical minds of a computer,
"i always lie." .......... if you always lie, then that
would be a lie, but then you would be telling the truth, but you cann't
tell the truth because you always lie, which is what you said so it must
be true and if it is true....................... my brain hurts (this is
usually the time when the machine blows up). there is absolute
truth, but no human can ever know that absolute truth.
absolute
truth is a reality, even if we do not like it to be, but no human can
explain it, define it or prove it is real. over my time of
explaining my point of view i have had many people try to expalin
"absolute" truths - one of my favs is, "darkness can not over power light." light is
stronger then darkness, because light is matter and darkness is the
absence of light matter - this is an absolute truth. well, at best
we can say "in this known universe...." there may be
places where none of our "absolutes" work - then there is the
question of the "black hole."
to
be an "absolute truth" it must be a complete and total understanding
of the reality. this is the hook; while there is absolute truth,
we may never truly understand it because of our desire to live in
subjective truth. you see, we do not like to know absolute, or
objective, truth because we may have to change our lifestyle. we
claim we desire it, but when it is placed in front of us we recoil, and
demand deeper evidence. another issue that surrounds the
understanding of an absolute truth is that God is an absolute truth, and
we will never understand God fully and completely. some believe
because we can never understand an absolute truth, absolute truth does
not exist. but if we base the existence of anything on our
understanding of it, man are we lost. absolute truth exists, just
because we desire to ignore it does not change the fact that it's real,
but i feel the need to stress that no one knows absolute truth. it
is impossible for humans to understand and express an absolute truth.
so,
we know what truth is, and is not. how do we use truth in our
daily lives? are we to tell the truth always? are we to
share the truth when we know it might hurt the feelings of
another? the answer to both is yes -
to
tell the truth:
we
know what truth is and the questions remains, "is there any time we
should lie?" no. truth must be spoken at all
times. it is the lies in our lives that get us in trouble and get
us confused about our walk in life. we must live in truth.
when we start to lie we open the door for more and more, bigger and
bigger lies. we need to learn to speak truth.
some
question this by asking, "what if the truth is painful?"
for some reason we
believe a little while lie will help ease the pain, why not?
because we need to ask the question - it the perceived pain on the part
of the person you are telling the truth to, or is it your pain of having
to be honest? a good example is the question all men dread
hearing, "honey, does this look good on me?" (i decided not to
use the "do i look fat" question due to my desire to live to a
ripe old age). we see this as catch 22. if you say
"yes," your dead - if you say "no," and her friend
tells her she looks silly later, your dead. we see it as death for
telling the truth and for lying - what to do, what to do? it's
simple - truth must always be connected with grace - grace on both ends,
but mostly on the part of the teller.
truth
must be spoken, it is not optional. we like to make truth optional,
because of our desire to live in the subjective truth. if given a
choice, lie to save feelings, yours or others, or to tell the truth with
grace - truth with grace must be selected.
going
against the flow:
the
world teaches that "little white lies" are alright; the world
teaches that absolute truth and objective truth does not exists; the
world teaches that telling the truth can be twisted to meet the needs of
the individual; the world teaches all truths are right and equal.
but we, as christians, are not to walk as the world walks. we are
called to "go against the flow" (romans 12:2) and seek the
truth in God and share that truth with the world. i have a friend
who is a buddhist monk. he and i have had a number of discussions
concerning truth. one day i took him to a minister gathering, he
walked out half way through the event. as we were walking out i
asked him why he had to leave, his statement was enlightening -
"everyone i met told me that my theology was right, my truth was
right. if that is the case, why are they not buddhist? i
want to talk to people who believe they are right and they walk in
truth. not people who seem to pander to me and in a 'politically
correct' way" (not an exact, but close, quote of his words.)
it is not that we must accept all truths as right, it is that we must
respect the differences people have, and stand firm in our beliefs.
closing:
it
is not how "they" or "we" see truth that counts - it
is that we understand that our understanding of truth is subjective, and
that we must not confuse our subjective truth with the objective and
absolute truths that are all around us. we need to be willing to
accept the objective truths and see a deep understandings of the absolute
truths that guide our lives.
|
