-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
gives me A in this subject." The statement is just feeling; it can be just
wish of the speaker. This particular moment this proposition is neither true
nor false because the result is still in Future which carries the truth value
of the statement.[5]
Because of these unclear propositions, determining the truth is to be done in
various methods and it is classified in different criteria.
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 drama. Some time they
even believe that those people who are to receive the truth outside of Judeo Christian
circumference, sometimes they even do not know that they are Christians.[27] According
to the Christian soteriology, Belief in 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 is the one of the foregoing
advocate of this claim. This paper will present his hypothesis behind this
claim.[28]
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.
As a conclusion it is wise and good to say
that there is truth but not all one knows is neither absolute nor truth. With
in 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. Chronological and Thematic
Charts of Philosophies and Philosophers. Grand Rapids , Michigan :
Academie Books, 1986.
Leander S. Keyser , the Philosophy of Christianity Burlington , Iowa :
the Lutheran Literary Board, 1928, 51.
Runes, Dagobert D. ed. Dictionary of Philosophy.Totowa, New Jersey : Littlefied Adams
and co, 1962.
Touryan, Kenell
J. "Are Truth Claims in
Science Socially Constructed?" PSCF 51, (June 1999), 102-107
Trueblood, David
Elton . Philosophy of religion New York : Harper and
Brothers Publishers, 1957.
Young, James
O. "The Coherence Theory of
Truth," Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, 2002,
|
ENDNOTES
[1]Victoria Neufeldt
Ed. Webster 's 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 , "truth", The
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, MSN, from
http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz. htm; Internet; accessed November 8, 2003 .
[4]Ibid.
[5]Ibid.
[6]Milton D Hunnex , Chronological and Thematic Charts of Philosophies
and Philosophers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie Books, 1986) 7.
[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 , "Truth", The
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, MSN, from
http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz. htm; Internet; accessed November 8, 2003 .
[21]Casino, 12.
[22]C. Stephen Evans ,
Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics and Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove , Illinois :
IVP, 2002), 43.
[23] Kenell J.
Touryan "Are Truth
Claims in Science Socially Constructed?" PSCF 51, (June
1999), 102-107
[25]Ibid.
[26]Donald K. Mckim , Dictionary of Thelogical Terms, (Louisville,
Kentucky: Westminister john Knox press, 1996), 141.
[27]Casino, 15.
[28]John Hick , Philosophy of Religion,
4th ed. (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall,1990),
117.
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 and David Shatz
Ed. Contemporary
Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 299.
[31]David Steward , Exploring the
Philosophy of Religion (Engle wood cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1992), 343.
[32]James Strauss , “RELATIVISM AND THE
PROBLEM OF TRUTH CLAIMS”, MSN, from http://www.worldvieweyes.org/resources
/Strauss/RelatvismandTruthClaims.htm.; Internet; accessed 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 .