What is "My Truth"

The purpose of this post is to explain my personal conception of what is "truth". I am partial to the hypothetical assumption that an objective reality exists, and that that objective reality is composed of both physical/material and metaphysical/spiritual components. I do not claim to know "the truth". I do not believe anyone (except God), can claim to know "the absolute truth". I am in part partial to the premise of relativism, the perspective that humans cannot arrive at absolute truths; only approximations to it. Ultimately, it is up to each person to determine for themselves what constitutes their truth. I accept that other persons conception of their "personal truth" may or may not be based on Christian values.

Wikipedia definition of the term "Truth": [Read full discussion HERE] "Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard. Truth may also often be used in modern contexts to refer to an idea of "truth to self," or authenticity." [Linguistically; in Old Norse trú meant, "faith, word of honor; religious faith, belief". In archaic English the word troth meant "loyalty, honesty, good faith". The modern English term Truth means "agreement with fact or reality."] In the Wikipedia article discussion, we find an interesting insight on the evolution of the Western concept of "Truth": "According to Martin Heidegger, the original meaning and essence of "Truth" in Ancient Greece was unconcealment, or the revealing or bringing of what was previously hidden into the open, as indicated by the original Greek term for truth, 'Aletheia.' On this view, the conception of truth as correctness is a later derivation from the concept's original essence, a development Heidegger traces to the Latin term 'Veritas'." From this insight I understand that contemporary Christian ideas about Orthodoxy (adherence to correct belief) are directly related to the methodology and language utilized to formulate doctrines. I find that the original Greek meaning of the term truth (Aletheia), is closer in spirit to the goal of achieving more refined understandings of spiritual and material reality.

My understanding of what is "true" (in the spiritual sense) is informed by my religious upbringing as a Christian. In denominational terms my Christian experience involved interaction with Roman Catholicism (15 years), Jehovah Witnesses (3 years), and the Swedish Equmeniakyrkan (6 years). The doctrinal positions of these three denominations are in disagreement, but from each I have derived insight into what constitutes "Christian truth" for me. While I am partial to the the historical-critical interpretation of the Biblical texts, I derive ethical and doctrinal insight from revealed exegesis, which considers that the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of the Biblical scriptural texts. This approach to exegesis is spiritually edifying and inspirational specially when reading New Testament Gospels and Wisdom literature (Proverbs, Psalms) found in the Old Testament. Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of Biblical literary criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts in order to understand the historical context in which a text was written, including facts about the author, the etymology of the terms in the text and the social circumstances of the time period the text was written. I do not believe (as do Jehovah Witnesses in particular and Christian Fundamentalists in general), that the historical-critical method of exegesis constitutes a danger to Christian faith. My interest in this method of exegesis derives from my interest in Restorationism, the belief that Christianity should be restored along the lines of what is known about the apostolic early church. Insofar as seeking truth constitutes seeking fidelity to an original or standard I believe Restorationism to be correct in intention.

My understanding of what is "true" (in the material and Historical sense) is informed by a basic understanding of the process of Scientific inquiry; the empirical investigation of natural (and spiritual) phenomena, which concerns the process of acquiring new knowledge, and progressively correcting and integrating previous knowledge. In this context I tend to view the construction of "truth" as a process, not as a final result. In my view only God has absolute knowledge of what is the complete truth. I tend to agree with attempts to harmonize Science and Biblical Faith with the goal of achieving "an evolutionary understanding of God's creation". I am not scared of Science, I do not believe that Science threatens my Christian Faith. On the other hand, I am critical and skeptic about conclusions derived from reductionist physicalism (the ideology that objective reality consists only of the physical world), and fundamentalist materialism (the philosophical perspective which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions). Insofar as I maintain that objective reality includes a spiritual/metaphysical component I am at odds with physicalism and materialism. 

Of the various theories of truth existent today; I am informed by the correspondence theory, the coherence theory and the social constructionist theories of truth. While the conclusions derived for these three theories are at odds with each other, I believe it is possible to harmonize insights from these three approaches in order to arrive at a logical understanding of the concept. 

"The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories emphasise that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle entirely by how it relates to "things", by whether it accurately describes those "things." An example of correspondence theory is the statement by the thirteenth century philosopher/theologian Thomas Aquinas: Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus ("Truth is the equation [or adequation] of things and intellect"), a statement which Aquinas attributed to the ninth century neoplatonist Isaac Israeli. Aquinas also restated the theory as: "A judgment is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality". Correspondence theory centers heavily around the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying what is known as "objective reality" and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols." (Definition quote from Wikipedia)

Representation and accurate description of material and spiritual reality must be directly demonstrated by observed and tested phenomena. So how do I know that descriptions of a spiritual dimension conform to objective reality? Beyond simple faith, for me the evidence provided by Near Death Experience studies that there is Life After Death and that consciousness survives the death of the biological brain is compelling. The transcendental (or survivalist) interpretation of the NDE phenomena contends that the experience is exactly what it appears to be to the persons having the experience. According to this interpretation, consciousness can become separated from the brain under certain conditions and glimpse the spiritual realm into which souls travel after death. I am aware of the Dying Brain Hypothesis proposed by skeptic Dr. Susan Blackmore on this subject, namely that the experiences might be hallucinations caused by hypoxia or the release of endorphins as the brain dies; but because her argument is premised upon reductionist physicalist assumptions I am suspect of it. (For a critique of the Dying Brain Hypothesis see: HERE.) A Scientific approach suggesting survival is associated with the hypothesis of Orchestrated Objective Reduction, which states that consciousness manifests in living things through quantum microtubules in the brain and that consciousness is actually a non-local property. According to this hypothesis consciousness in the brain originates from processes inside neurons, rather than from connections between neurons (the conventional view). According to this hypothesis, consciousness might survive the death of the brain through the processes of quantum superimposition and quantum entanglement. In general, the quantum mind or quantum consciousness group of hypotheses propose that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness. These group of hypothesis posit that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness. Physiological theories (based on physicalist assumptions), attempt to explain near death experience phenomena as a result of "normal or abnormal functions of the brain". Proponents of physiological theories point out that the evidence from brain imaging indicates that "all processes of the mind have physical correlates in brain function". However, such correlational studies cannot determine whether neural activity plays a causal role in the occurrence of these cognitive processes (correlation does not imply causation) and they cannot determine if the neural activity is either necessary or sufficient for such processes to occur.

 

There exist a set of comprehensive Christian arguments for the existence of an spiritual dimension that includes (1) the philosophical arguments for dualism and (2) arguments for the existence of God. 

Mind–body dualism, or duality, is a concept in the philosophy of mind that mental phenomena are non-physical, and that the mind and body are not identical. René Descartes (1596-1650), was an important proponent of dualism, he maintained that the mind is a nonphysical—and therefore, non-spatial—substance. Descartes identified the mind with consciousness and self-awareness and distinguished it from the brain as the seat of intelligence. Among the many philosophical arguments for dualism, I find the measurement argument most compelling. The brain (as a physical entity) can be measured using physical measurement instruments, yet humans possess mental qualities (thoughts, free will, desires and sensations), that can not be measured by physical measurement instruments. Therefore humans are more than just physical beings because there is a physically immeasurable dimension to our beings. We are more than just matter, we posses physically immeasurable souls. 

Among the arguments for the existence of God, I find the first cause argument to be most compelling; the argument posits that nothing can come into existence unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing. Therefore there must be a supreme creator being outside of the universe that caused the universe to exist. A famous objection to this argument is that if this Creator were a being that exists in time and who at some point came into existence, then it too would have to have been created by something. Nothing comes from nothing, not even God. The reply is that the Creator must be a being that exists outside of time, an eternal being with neither beginning nor end. God is Holy; separate from, outside of Time-Space. This reply suggests the necessary existence of an spiritual realm outside of time within which God exists. Another argument for the existence of God that I am partial to, for ethical reasons, is derived from the philosophy of Christian neo-platonism; that Justice, Freedom and Mercy - as abstract forms- exist perfectly in God. Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo (whom I disagree with on the subject of "original sin"), concluded in part on the basis of neo-platonist reasoning that God is not material. (Citing neo-platonism is not a capitulation on my part to "pagan philosophy", it is simply an acknowledgement that the conclusions derived from it were of insight, in context of late antiquity, to the construction of an Christian ethics and theology). A third (modern) argument for the existence of God that I find interesting is that a Supreme Observer must exist for the universe to exist. According to Quantum mechanics something actually does not exist unless there is an observer to observe it. Since the universe exists; therefore there must be a supreme consciousness (outside time-space) observing the universe. To say that any object exists, implies that it is measurable. Without a supreme observer, the totality of the universe can not be measured because no-thing (in this space-time) can measure it from within. According to Max Planck, "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."  I am partial to the perspective that God - whom I believe to be omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent and omnipresent- is the conscious and intelligent mind suggested by Planck.

Although my perspective on "truth" is very much grounded on the correspondence theory, the relativistic understanding that humans cannot arrive at absolute truths obligates me to examine alternative theories. I do so in hopes of obtaining a more complete perspective. 

"The coherence theory of truth regards truth as coherence within some specified set of sentences, propositions or beliefs. There is no single set of such "logical universes", but rather an assortment of perspectives that are commonly discussed under this title. For coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical consistency; often there is a demand that the propositions in a coherent system lend mutual inferential support to each other. So, for example, the completeness and comprehensiveness of the underlying set of concepts is a critical factor in judging the validity and usefulness of a coherent system. A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only according to their coherence with the whole." (Definition quote from Wikipedia)

From the perspective of coherence theory, it would seem that modern Christian Theology does not constitute "truth" because there exist a wide variety of competing and contradictory doctrinal propositions coming from different denominations of the Christian religion. There exist additionally different methodologies for exegesis of sacred texts (historical-critical, historical-grammatical, revealed, and rational), which lead to different theological conclusions. This is where I return to the subjects of Restorationism and Ecumenism (the quest for Christian unity). There was a time - nominally in the early Church of the Apostles, and based on the original teachings of Jesus Christ - when different aspects of Christian belief (if seen as coherent system) did "lend mutual inferential support to each other". This initial coherence of Christian belief was lost in subsequent centuries as the Jesus movement split into a number of competing denominations (Roman Catholic, East Orthodox, Protestant). My belief is that if Christianity is to remain relevant to the modern world it must rediscover its original doctrines in context of "efforts towards the visible and organic unity of different Christian churches in some form".

"The social constructivist theory of truth holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community. Constructivism views all of our knowledge as "constructed," because it does not reflect any external "transcendent" realities. Rather, perceptions of truth are viewed as contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender, are socially constructed." (Definition quote from Wikipedia)

It is a fact that certain doctrines of Christianity, such as those of "original sin" and "hell", developed in the particular geographic-historical and cultural context of West European late antiquity and middle ages. Had Christianity developed in another geographical-historical context its doctrines today might be different. It is a fact that "power struggles within the community" influenced the history of Christian theological development. The historical construction of various competing Christian theologies and doctrines, is directly related to the social and historical experience of different actors in the christian spectrum. For example the The suppression of Gnosticism, the Arian controversy, the Great Schism between East and West, The Albigensian Crusade, The Protestant Reformation, the split between Conservative Evangelicals and Liberal Protestants today over the issue of Gay Marriage, etc. What is "correct doctrine" reflects the viewpoint of the victors in the various power struggles.  Some of those "power struggles" are still ongoing. 

Composed by Miguel Angel Torres, May 2017