What is truth? What is the nature of truth? Is there even such a thing as truth? Some would argue that truth is relative, and that they are absolutely certain that we cannot be absolutely certain of any truth. As ridiculous as this statement sounds, the logic goes something like this. I perceive reality through a different lens or filter than does anyone else, and therefore, my reality is different than your reality. Those who subscribe to this school of thought claim that truth is relative - based upon perspective or perception. This relativism, known as subjectivism, states that absolute truth does not exist, and that reality is contingent upon the subject.
There is another side to this debate, however, and those on this side claim that we can be absolutely certain that there is absolute truth. This is called objectivism, and holds that truth is not determined by the subject, but rather is inherent in the object. In other words, this truth never changes - no matter who is looking at it or how. In the scientific realm, these objectivists believe that their theories do not provide just a better understanding of reality - as the relativists believe - but rather, that they are reality in themselves. Instead of agreeing with the relativists that theories help our perception of reality, they claim that their theories are reality - or absolutely true.
The problem with objectivism in science is that science alone simply cannot yield absolute certainty due to its inductive nature. Science observes clues about reality, and makes assumptions and conclusions about reality, based upon these clues. In essence, science starts at the bottom, and seeks to understand the truth at the top without a first-hand knowledge of reality. Their perception is limited to their theories. Though science can give us a good idea of reality, or reasonable certainty, only God's Word can give absolute certainty. A detective cannot be absolutely certain of what took place based upon the clues alone. Though he can formulate a good theory and be reasonably certain his theory is correct, this cannot be compared to the absolute certainty that comes from a first-hand account such as viewing security camera footage of the event in question. So while science is important, it cannot be compared to the first-hand account recorded in Scripture. Absolute truth does exist. The Bible tells us "thy word is truth" (Jn 17:17b). Our foundation for absolute truth rests upon God's Word. All other ground is sinking sand.
1 comment:
http://jnwkthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/03/absolute-truth.html
It is true that many who quail at the prospect of human knowledge being finite and fallible turn to the perfection of God, as you do. Others remain entrenched in the (as you pointed out) nihilist absurdity of "I am certain nothing is certain" or "There absolutely are no absolutes."
Objectivists, on the other hand, do not blink when confronting the human condition. We do not presume God. We also do not deny the undeniable fact that there are indeed absolutes, starting with the fact of the existence of the person saying "There are no absolutes."
As a result of not presuming the existence of God, we only use the word "truth" with regard to human knowledge. There is no 'truth' intrinsic in a rock, or a child, or a comet; these things simply exist. They are metaphysically given. So, to remain consistent, we accept the method of cognition by which man knows the universe: Reason. Consciousness is the non-contradictory identification of the existents metaphysically given. This means: do not doubt the sensory information incoming; constantly improve the ability to process the information and thereby grasp the world. Do not pretend one can fake the terms of knowing the given by magical thinking. Take action based on sustaining life.
So, yes, you are correct: this is induction. Objectivists are not afraid to base confidence of truth on induction (followed by and inter-folded with deduction.) How can we tolerate the 'imperfection?' By accepting the imposition of context and bounds on cognition.
"Is it absolutely true perfect information guaranteed by God that eating this mushroom is good?" -- the Objectivist does not hope for this method of living. We set a context of 'sustaining my life in this finite moment, presented with this finite object' and given the bounds of 'I do not wish to die nor get seriously ill', we would say: "Given the human truth that some have died by eating mushrooms, I do not assume harmlessness; therefore I identify this particular mushroom using the evidence of my senses and the inducted prior truths about varieties of mushrooms. Since I have made an absolutely certain identification -- within my context -- that this is a variety that is not harmful, per human truth, I will eat it."
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
Post a Comment