Note: The below was written originally (I believe) for a job application for a teaching position at a univeristy. One of the requirements was for a brief essay on how the potential instructor understood the pursuit of “truth.” Since this was a secular institution, I had to find a way to convey my Christian presuppositions without raising too many materialist objections - hence the following. Whether I succeeded or not I will leave for the reader - but this was my attempt to undermine the humanist worldview. Oh, and I did not get the job!

“What is truth?”(Pontius Pilate, Circa 30 AD)

Pontius Pilate was a pragmatic man. Responsible for governing a minor yet difficult province of the Roman Empire, he had little time for idle philosophical speculation. The “truth” of a matter was simply irrelevant to the greater issues of maintaining political stability and ensuring the unimpeded flow of taxes back to the Imperial City. Hence, when an obscure religious dispute broke out in his domains, he refused to be drawn into an academic debate. After all, he had his mark to make in the world; keeping the peace could well mean promotion to a more prestigious governorship in a more important province maybe even a position in the Imperial Senate. Therefore, for the greater “good” he would sentence an innocent man to death.

And Pontus Pilate did indeed “make his mark;” even though the average person today would find it difficult to name the Roman Emperor he served (Tiberius), they remember who Pilate was - and what he did. His choice of pragmatism over truth earned him a place not just in history, but in infamy.

And one must wonder whether history will judge post-modern culture as it has Pontius Pilate? It is commonly affirmed that the only “truth” is that “there is no absolute truth” - just personal ones- the “truths” that one finds or adopts for one’s self. Like Pilate’s cynical query, this view (besides being an arbitrary assertion and a logical contradiction), makes the “truth” of something secondary to a political agenda, a personal conviction or an individual moral choice.

Yet, we all recognize that there are some things that are “true” for all people, in all ages, regardless of whether someone accepts them or not. For example, gravity is “true” for all of us regardless of our personal beliefs about it. I recall a discussion with a friend years ago, who insisted that the physical world was a product of his imagination that he himself determined “truth” by an act of his own will. We happily debated and discussed the nature of existence (as only young men can with too much free time and too little formal education); until I challenged him to prove his assertion by walking through a wall. At the time, he declined; but later on that evening when I went to the men’s room, I heard a curious “thumping” sound coming from one of the stalls. Concerned that someone might be sick or injured I knocked on the door and asked if anyone needed any help. My friend’s voice came from within, shyly admitting that he was putting my challenge to the test by trying to walk through the door without opening it and finding the material world amazingly resistant to his philosophical theories.

Clearly then, there is an objective reality; something, outside of our own thoughts and ideas, for we are forced to live within its confines, every moment of our lives. Those who attempt to live contrary to the “truth” of the “real” world find that life is frustrating, disappointing and even disastrous. And if there is an objective “other,” then that which is consistent with that “other” is “true” - while that which is inconsistent is “false.”

Reason, Logic and Philosophy

In the past, we trusted in the wisdom of the philosophers to help us find “truth;” and to a degree, all of us still “do” philosophy in one way or another. But we also ought to remember that after twenty-five hundred years of philosophical speculation, we have not yet resolved any of the original issues.

Part of the problem has to do with the nature of reason itself. “Reason” is a method of ensuring that our conclusions flow “correctly” from the premises. However, reason alone cannot establish whether the premises themselves are “true.” If we start from false premises, then no matter how logical our conclusion, it will still be counter to “fact.” For example, IF the world is flat and IF we sail due West, THEN eventually we will sail off the end of the earth; the syllogism is valid; but most of us would agree that the conclusion is wrong because one of the premises is “untrue.”

Thus the question arises, “How many of the ‘truths’ do we take for granted today as being “reasonable” and “logical” are based on flawed premises?” Or perhaps even more challenging, how many conclusions from the past have been rejected because the presuppositions have changed so that old “truths” now seem, “unreasonable?”

The Scientific Method

Where earlier generations looked to philosophical speculation or divine revelation, now it is commonly accepted that at least some “truth” can be found in the Scientists’ laboratories. And in many respects they have done a remarkable job, curing diseases, creating new industries and contributing significantly to human health and happiness. Granted, at the same time, the Scientist (and the Engineer) also gave us the technology that could send us right back to the Stone Age.

Either way, the “scientific method” resulted in discovering many “truths” about the natural world; but it is limited in what questions it can answer. Science, strictly speaking, is simply a method of observation using statistical analysis to determine whether what we THINK we “see,” can be independently and repeatedly “seen” by others. “The sole arbiter of scientific truth is repeatable experiment” (Richard Feynman). One of the challenges though is that the physical world is often so complex that we cannot always isolate the variables we need to find out the “truth” of a matter. Furthermore, science is a process - not necessarily a destination what was once thought to be scientific “truth” can sometimes turn out to be “untrue” after further research, new discoveries or even a paradigm shift in a given field.

However, it gets even worse. Consider this “truth” from the psychology of learning; people tend to attune to data that confirms their beliefs and to devalue or dismiss data that would overturn their beliefs. Science does not occur in an intellectual vacuum; the beliefs, prejudices and culture of the researchers affect how they do their research; and what conclusions they find acceptable. Hence, it is highly possible to discount or reject even legitimate “scientific” results if they conflict with our own preconceived ideas of good and bad, right and wrong. Perhaps the problem then is not so much finding the “truth” but being willing to accept and act on that truth; especially when it would require us to acknowledge things we would rather not know.

There are also sociological factors that affect whether or not a given “scientific” conclusion is acceptable; whether we find something “credible.” For something to be “credible” simply means that we are willing to believe it to be potentially true. However, “credibility” is a sociological phenomenon, not a rational one. A thing is “credible” or “believable” to the degree that it “fits” within a pre-existing worldview. The idea that “germs” could cause disease was once thought to be “incredible” but is the basis of much of modern medicine. Interplanetary travel was once ridiculed as “science fiction” yet we now regularly send spacecraft to explore the Solar System. How often do we find certain ideas “incredible” not because they are actually contrary to fact, but because our friends, family and colleagues discount them?

The late science fiction legend Robert A. Heinlein made the wry observation that “man is not a rational animal, but a rationalizing animal.” In other words, we can use our intelligence not necessarily to arrive at the truth but rather to justify why we believe what we already believe.

Since the world is complex, all of us hold beliefs about some things that are contrary to fact; and sometimes we hold those false beliefs because they do not threaten our personal comfort zone; e.g., 75% of college students think they are “above average” Studies show that Americans in particular frequently overestimate their own intelligence, attractiveness and abilities.

And the scientific community is not above these problems; how does one ever obtain grant money to investigate a hypothesis that is “incredible” to one’s peers? How does a young visionary ever get his doctorate if his dissertation threatens to overturn the collective wisdom of his academic elders?

Thus, reason and evidence, whether from philosophy or the scientific method, are not infallible guides to determining “truth.” Personal agendas, social pressures or even just basic human stubbornness may find certain conclusions outrageous, unthinkable and therefore unacceptable, even if such are legitimate, logical and necessary given the stated premises.

Faith

Every attempt to determine “truth” is inherently religious because the search must begin with certain assumptions; and the “truth” of those assumptions cannot be determined by reason or investigation alone. Take for example two theories of the origin of the material universe. The “Materialist,” supported by much of modern scientific effort, begins with the assumption that the universe originated from “natural” mechanisms. The “Theist” begins with a “supernatural” cause in the form of a self-existent Deity who created “all things in heaven and earth.” However, since neither the “Materialist” nor the “Theist” was present to observe the formation of the universe both must begin a priori with a basic assumption and interpret the evidence in light of that assumption. The best the “Materialist” can do is reason back, based upon the accepted understanding of the best presently available evidence, to give us a consistent theory of how natural forces could account for observed phenomenon.

However, the fundamental problem for the “Materialist” is “How did something come out of nothing?” “Science” cannot prove this by an appeal to experimental verification; to explain it one must stop doing science and start doing metaphysics. The “Materialists” may reject the “Theists’” position that a deity created the universe; but both must begin with an arbitrary assertion based on their own preconceived beliefs.

Yet, there are also implications of both views; if in fact the cosmos has its origins in an impersonal naturalistic process, how do we account for human personality? If we are simply the product of time + chance + natural selection, how can there be anything “true” such as “good” or “evil” or “right” and “wrong?” Is love just the result of naturally occurring biochemical processes? Is human consciousness merely an accidental by-product of random neurons firing in an organic computer? At its finest, science can tell us the how; but something else is needed to show us the “why.”

In the end, perhaps the real key to determining truth requires nothing less than a basic character quality much undervalued in modern culture; humility. The world is much greater than any individual can ever personally know or experience. Life is complex, often difficult with much pain and the ever present Sword of Damocles hanging over each of us. Humility not only forces us to take a long, hard honest look at ourselves, deep down inside, often where we would prefer not too look, but also makes us kinder, gentler, and more charitable towards one another; especially with those with whom we disagree.

Yet, when we watch a golden sunset, or gaze at a field of stars on a warm summer’s night, when we hike in rugged mountains or when we spend a few moments in quiet contemplation, do we not “know” that there is something, a Someone “out” there? And if “Someone” is there, there is Truth; truth that can be found only if we are humble enough to acknowledge it and willing to search for it. And as we speculate together, and reason together and acknowledge what stares us in the face every moment of every day, we can find “truth.”

“For my hand made all these things, thus all these things came into being, declares the Lord. But to this one I will look; to him who is humble and contrite of spirit and who trembles at my word” Isaiah 66:2