-by Pabitra Mani Bhandari
INTRODUCTION
In a normal sense "Truth" is a sincerity and honesty; scientifically it is conformity with fact, but to the philosophers, truth is a reality and an actual existence.[1] People have been seeking for the truth in their own way, and for their own need. Truth is religious matter to follow, and it is a scientific matter to prove and study about, but it is a philosophical matter to find out and define the reality. There is philosophy behind all kinds of religious belief and scientific explanations. With out truth, the religious believes (even science) would be "evil."[2] The truths we seek and find out in general term, i.e. true friend, true identities etc, are the derivatives of the philosophical truths. Truth is predicable indirectly of sentences or symbols which expresses true meanings.
The Necessities and Problems of Truth
People take many things as granted truth. Before analyzing someone's statement is true or not, "truth" itself must be defined. To understand the "truth", the truth value behind it should be cleared. Truth value is asking whether a sentence is true or not which is often bore by the statements, assertions, utterances, beliefs, doctrines. Sentences express the "truth values."[3] Proposition of the sentences which are also the bearer of the truth values does not depend upon the space or time. Philosophers also believe that all propositions has truth value but a proposition is either true or false but it is never truth and false. For example: God exists. This proposition is either true or false. But it is never true and false both.[4]
A proposition of a statement is not clear all the time. Even some sentences do not have propositions. i.e. "Go out." The proposition of this sentence is not clear. "Timothy will go to home on Monday." How do we know now which truth value lies behind the proposition of this sentence? Some of the sentences which express the feelings, opinions, and values of the speaker, can not be said true or false. For example: "I think Dr. Casino
CHAPTER 2
THE CRITERIA OF TRUTH
The nature of the truth varies according to the proposition or sometimes the sentences. Truth can be an adjective while the statement or proposition is describing something. i.e. "snow is white." This particular moment the proposition white is describing the subject of the statement and the truth value behind "snow is white" is giving the characteristic of snow. But in other cases truth can be adverb, noun and even verb. For examples following examples shows the different natures of the "truth." "God loves you very much." In this sentence truth values explains how God love you. "God is truth" this statement answers us that What is truth. "Jesus lived a sinless life." This sentence shows Jesus ' action on the truth.[6]Depending of the various nature of the truth, they viewed in different perspectives which usually can be classified into three, i.e. Correspondence theory, coherence theory, and pragmatic theory.[7]
Correspondence Theory
This theory is traced back to Aristotle who said, “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true.”[8] According to this theory the proposition is only true if the truth fact is present or if it expresses what the case is. i.e. "I have five million dollars." This is true only if I have five million dollars now.[9] This theory answers the question that what is the truth as "the relationship that holds between a proposition and its corresponding fact." And it can be achieved by "an analysis of the relationship will reveal what all the truths have in common."[10]
This theory is applicable to science etc; however it can not be applied all the domains. i.e. the domain of the moral facts, because it differs in different periods of time and in different cultures.[11]Another objection is that "how do I know that my ideas correspond to its object even if in fact it does."[12]
Coherence Theory
"The idea or proposition is true which "fits in" or is consistent with or is necessitated by the totality of truth of which it is a part."[13] Coherence theory and correspondence theory collides each other in two points. According to one the relation with its proponent is coherent and according to another the relation is correspondence. In Coherence theory truth consists in other proposition while in correspondence theory truth relies on the objective features of the world.[14] The strength of this view is taken by philosophical idealists and rationalists that a single theory is approved as a part of a network of theories.[15]
To the objection of this theory, it is said that there may be more than one internally coherent set of theories in a given domain. Therefore reality seems to be less logical and paradoxical.[16] Russell pointed out that the coherency can be the test of the truth rather than truth in itself.[17] According to this theory, for one theory to be truth first a true set has to be known for a particular idea. An error on the set would bring universal chaos. Therefore it can not be the final criterion of truth.[18]
Pragmatic Theory
This criterion is decided by the usefulness of the idea, rather than its coherency and correspondency. Rather than asking the question "what is truth?" or "How can we say it is true?" etc, they ask the questions like: "does it work?" "Is this idea beneficial?" etc.[19]Religious teachings comes under the pragmatic theory, i.e. teachings of Buddhism give good guidelines to live a life by not hurting somebody, not lying, not deceiving anyone. A truth should bring a good pragmatic outcome but it doesn't mean that it is an absolute way to attain truth.
There are many objections to this theory too. A proposition which is useful to one person it may not be useful to another person, therefore it violates the law of non contradiction. Another criticism to this view points that there might be some useful propositions but false objectively. For example, to say, "I live in a world where everybody loves me." It might be useful but objectively it is false.[20]
The "truth" cannot be viewed by any of the principles mentioned above, because they all posses different weakness in their own field. Therefore "Truth" should be viewed from every expect of reality, it's correspondency, coherency and the practical outcome out of it, as quoted like below.
"The meaning of truth is correspondence with reality. But because reality is inaccessible to us the criteria of truth must include all four of the criteria mentioned above (i.e. agreement with data, coherence, scope, fertility)."[21]
There are different truths claims exist in the different religious Philosophy depending on their view on the truth and knowledge of truth. (i.e. exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism.
CHAPTER 3
VARIOUS TRUTH CLAIMS
Claims of truth depend on what people think of it rather than how they think it. It solely depends on whether one think truth is relative or absolute, which will be the final discussion of this paper. This chapter deals with the various claims (i.e. exclusivism, inclusivism, Pluralism).
Exclusivist
This is the view of those people who hold that Salvation is possible only for those who explicitly believe in Jesus Christ .[22] For them Bible is the final revelation and this view is founded in the historicity of the Christian belief. this view is founded on the solid ground of following evidences:[23]
(1) evidences from the physical universe;
(2) evidences from human nature;
(3) evidences from history and archeology;
(4) evidences from Scriptures;
(5) evidences from personal experience.
This position has been attacked to be too exclusive by other claims like inclusivist and pluralist, and has been greatly affected. Still many evangelicals defend their view presenting the difference in Truths and cultural morals. Different "moral truths" can be accepted as the cultural grounded. There might be different standard/value of morality in different cultural system. Which is evil in our culture, can be perfectly normal in another cultural setting. But it can be defended showing the exclusive moral standard in the universe.[24] For example, Corrie Ten Boom helped Jews to escape during the time of Nazi, which was immoral in the particular time and particular place. In doing so, Corrie Ten Boom was moral or immoral in doing so. Therefore God must be the source of morality and no other standards can replace God in that position.[25]
Inclusivist
This is also a Christian point of view toward the truth
that the centrality of truth is in the Bible alone but other religious people also acquire the truth and can receive the salvation as Christians do.[26] They do believe in single truth, but they allow bits of revelatory truth in places far removed from the Judeo Christian Judeo Christian Christ is the only way to receive truth and be saved. This claim seems to be contradicting in itself.
Pluralist
Pluralism gives away the centrality of truth in any particular religious system, instead it shares the access to the ultimate truth from every path. Truth lies behind every religion, is the summary of this claim. John Hick
1. There is no divine reality, the Truth (reality), which is the ultimate source of all religious experience and tradition.
2. No religious tradition has direct perception of the real.
3. Each religious tradition represents an authentic way in Which the real is conceived and experienced
4. The Real transcends all descriptions.
His Hypothesis seems to be able to answer the question of existence of various religious traditions but fails to answer the different truth claims with in those religious systems. It conflicts with the other religious truth concept in at least three parts.[29]
1. its historical facts,
2. matters of trans historical facts
3. Different conceptions of real.
Their opposition to the Christian truth claim is that basically they are too exclusive and ignore the experience of other religious tradition. But the pluralistic solution itself has many problems which is mainly the identification of the religious ultimate.[30]
CHAPTER 4
RELATIVE VS. ULTIMATE
Until now this paper dealt with the issue of theories finding “truth” and various claims of truth. But the major question always remain the same “Is there an ultimate truth?” If there is, “what is it?” This section on ward this paper deals with issue of ultimate reality. “Ultimate reality” can be taken as the philosophical term for God. because by definition God is said to be the Ultimate truth of everything “all-wise”, “all-good,” “all-powerful”.[31] All the theories mentioned above and the truth claims couldn’t show up what is the ultimate reality, in religious language what is God, the issue shouldn’t be the rational alone. “the issue should be the Truth of beliefs rather than its Rationality.”[32]The main opponent of ultimate is the relative, which gave birth to pluralism.
“Truth is no longer that which corresponds with reality. Truth emerges out of a specific community or culture.”[33] In the midst of postmodern relativity there is no such truth which correspondence truth. The fideism is also been lost somewhere because all the truth is counted by the usefulness and works of it. Followings are some example of major problems brought by relativism:[34]
Fideism is pragmatic, "Christianity is true because the Gospel produces faith" or "it is true because it works"
"I believe Christianity is true because the Holy Spirit has brought me to faith by the gospel." Or "it is my personal truth and it may not be true to others"
"Christianity is true" because "I have experienced it"
This way relativism rejects all the basis of faith and center core of the belief. Same way by focusing only on the feelings and experience, and embraces a personal, pragmatic spirituality it has denied science, rejected reason, scorned the philosophy. But there is evidence which is not pragmatic; it only supports the absolute truth. There are much evidence for the historicity of the Bible which must be believe whether one believe in Jesus or not; whether one experience salvation or not.[35] By all this we can say that relativitism is not only truth or a kind of truth but it can also be rejection of the truth. Following Table can give us full case against the relative.
Relative vs. Absolute[36]
| Relative | Absolute |
| All truth is relative | This very statement cannot be true because the statement "all truth is relative also will be relative. |
| There is no absolute truths | By saying this relativism is claiming an absolute statement, how do they know there is know absolute truths if one experience it. |
| What is true for you is not true for me | It means I can deny what you are saying right now. |
| No one can know anything for sure | If this is true, How do you know "no one can know anything for sure" |
| We all perceive what we want | Simply desiring truth is no proof you have it. You desire truth, what you get may not be the truth. |
| We are only perceiving different aspects of the same reality | Is truth self contradictory If one believes that "God exists" and another "God doesn't exists" how can it be different aspects of the same reality. |
| Relativism itself is excluded from the critique that it is absolute and self refuting. | Do you have any argument for it How do you claim it. |
By this what one can say is that all truth is not relative. If truth is not relative, there has to be absolute truth. But it doesn't mean that what one religion claims is the truth. And it also doesn't mean that while one's claim is not true there is not absolute truth any where.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
Truth has been sought for several centuries and couldn't be found by logic. But sad thing is that it cannot be denied though. One has to agree that there is absolute truth even though one fails to achieve it by his experience, logic and feelings. But absolutists also have to be careful with the assumption that what they think, and they have is all about the truth.
The weakness of the absolutism is that it can be used in areas that have no validity or back support for being absolute.[37] The controversies among the absolute and the absolutism rise in the religions. Among the religious claims, Christian claim might be the strongest one because they have a strong feeling of absolute truth of their religion. In Christianity there are many absolute truths such as: Ten Commandments, but same time there are many truth-claims which cannot be absolute. For example: "Proverbs 26:4-5 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes"(NIV). Within these two verses the claim contradicts each other, which one is absolute, the answer should be the relative and has to be decided contextually.
In conclusion, it is wise and good to say that there is truth but not all one knows is neither absolute nor truth. Within one system of thought/belief, there can be many absolutes as well as many relative truths.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Casino, Tereso C. Philosophy of Religion lecture. 28 October 2003 , TTGST, Seoul
Hunnex, Milton D. Grand Rapids , Michigan
Leander S. Keyser , the Philosophy of Christianity Burlington , Iowa
Runes, Dagobert D. ed. Dictionary of Philosophy.Totowa, New Jersey
Touryan, Kenell J.
Trueblood, David Elton New York
Young, James O. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002,
|
ENDNOTES
[1]Victoria Neufeldt Ed. Webster New World Dictionary (New York: Pocket Books, 1994) 634.
[2]David Elton Trueblood , Philosophy of religion (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1957), 33.
[3]Bardley Dowden November 8, 2003 .
[4]Ibid.
[5]Ibid.
[6]Milton D Hunnex
[7]Tereso C. Casino, Philosophy of Religion lecture, 28 October 2003 , TTGST, Seoul
[9]Dagobert D. Runes, ed. Dictionary of Philosophy, (Totowa, New Jersey: Littlefied Adams and co, 1962), 321.
[12]Hunnex, 7.
[13] Ibid.
[15]Casino, 12.
[16]Ibid.
[18]Leander S. Keyser , the Philosophy of Christianity (Burlington, Iowa: the Lutheran Literary Board, 1928), 51.
[19]Ibid,. 49.
[20]Bardley Dowden November 8, 2003 .
[21]Casino, 12.
[22]C. Stephen Evans Downers Grove , Illinois
[23] Kenell J. Touryan
[25]Ibid.
[26]Donald K. Mckim
[27]Casino, 15.
[28]John Hick
and the Problem of Conflicting Truth-Claims”, MSN, from http://wri.leaderu.com/theology/hick.html; Internet; accessed on November 8, 2003.
[30]Steven M.Cahn David Shatz Ed. Contemporary
[31]David Steward
[32]James Strauss November 8, 2003 .
[34]Ibid.
[35]Ibid.
[36]Refuting relativism, MSN, available from http://www.carm.org/relativism/relativism_refute.htm; internet; accessed on November 14, 2003 .
msn available from http://www.rocky.edu/~oakleyn/ paper. Html; internet; accessed November 14, 2003 .
