Is there such a thing as objective truth? Part II

[Antonio_B]

Dear friends, on the 6th of this month, I asked if you could help me explain to my students that indeed there is such a thing as “objective truth.” Several of you indeed help me and even other teachers joined the conversation. Of all the posts I have posted at Catholic Answers, that post had nothing but positive responses and I would like to think lurkers learned a lot from it. Well, I shared with my students your thoughts and now I want to share with you their questions:

Kid A wrote: If different people have different definitions of truth, why does Pope John Paul II disagree with this concept in Veritatis Splendor?

Kid B wrote: What authority in the Church determines what objective truths are?

With so many issues in the gray area, how does one know all truth?

Kid C wrote: What does Natural Law have to do with “objective truth?”

Kid D wrote: Is there an objective truth when it comes to politics and types of governments?

Kid F wrote: How does the theme of the Matrix conflict with objective truth?

Kid G wrote: Is the Church’s infallibility an opinion or objective truth?

Kid H wrote: Who is to decide what is objective truth?

Please, do answer any of these questions. They were asked by Juniors in my World Religions class.

When I asked today “Why do you think I have introduced this subject at the beginning of this course,” one of my students gave me this reply: “If there is objective truth, there has to be subjects that all religions agree on.”

Now, I was impressed by that statement from a kid. Are you? Why? Why not?

The kids’ questions is an example of how I, as a teacher, also learn from them.

Antonio

 

[Riley259]

God is truth and thus there has to be objective truth. We know that the Catholic church speaks objective truth when the Pope and the Magisterium make declarations about issues of faith and morals. Jesus Christ promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth so we can be confident that the successors to the apostles (the aforementioned Pope and Magesterium) are speaking objective truth.

 

[Antonio_B]

Riley259:

God is truth and thus there has to be objective truth. We know that the Catholic church speaks objective truth when the Pope and the Magisterium make declarations about issues of faith and morals. Jesus Christ promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth so we can be confident that the successors to the apostles (the aforementioned Pope and Magesterium) are speaking objective truth.

Thank you, but are you answering a question in particular or is your reply a general answer?

Antonio

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear Antonio B,

These are brilliant responses, and show some pretty serious thought. You must have a great time in that class!

I recently read a book called “My Search for Absolutes” by theologian Paul Tillich, which addressed this. I didn’t admit it earlier because I was new and too chicken to admit that I had been reading books that may not have been able to get an imprimatur!

I wish I still had this book to review the one part about sensory perception, but I’ll try to give it shot from my imperfect memory (and also my imperfect understanding – it was a complicated book for me to read) at answering kid F:
Antonio B:

Kid F wrote: How does the theme of the Matrix conflict with objective truth?

Oh, I wish I could remember it better. I can’t really tell you what Tillich said, but it was brilliant. It had to do with the relative or absolute reality of the existence of various sensory conditions such as “redness” or “smoothness.” I’ll have to go get that book again, or maybe you might want to check it out.

Meanwhile I’ll just make up some stuff myself.

The Matrix shows that your perception of reality can be entirely different than another person’s. One person might see himself in a dynamic situation, fighting and running, while another person sees him as lying still.

All you really know about the world “outside” of you is what you perceive. So the reality of the world as you perceive it is in your mind, not necessarily “out there” somewhere, and is an interpretation of what your brain receives from your nerves (such as the optic nerve) which may or may not represent anything actually in space before your eyes. On that note, how real is “real enough?” In the Matrix, when you believe you die, you die in “real life.” What does that say about faith? Also in the Matrix, one learns that if one can believe in miracles beyond their immediate perceptions, they can perform them. Isn’t “the One” analogous to a believer in Christ, a believer who is taught that faith as small as a mustard seed can move mountains?

Alan

 

[albert_cipriani]

If there is objective truth, there has to be subjects that all religions agree on.

I disagree.

If proof of objectivity were universal agreement, then there would exist today no “Flat Earth Society.” Furthermore, it is an objective fact that man walked on the moon yet there are those among us who think it was all a Hollywood production.

Ergo, the fact that there are objective truths is in no way mitigated by the contrary reality that non-Catholic religions cannot agree with us as to what they are. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html

 

[AlanFromWichita]

AlanFromWichita:

The Matrix shows that your perception of reality can be entirely different than another person’s. One person might see himself in a dynamic situation, fighting and running, while another person sees him as lying still.

Whoa! I just got an idea!

Bilocation comes to mind. I remember reading of a saint who sat slumped in a chair in church for a couple days, and when he snapped out of it he said he had been in Rome helping the pope. There were witnesses in Rome that backed him up, and witnesses in the church who saw him in the chair, at the same time. Sorry I can’t remember what saint it is, but maybe someone more educated than me can help if you don’t already know.

Anyone who likes the movie Matrix would probably be really turned on to comparing to this bilocation story. If you haven’t seen the Matrix, a person lies down on his back with a probe plugged into the back of his neck and just lays there with his eyes closed, with occasional muscles jerking a bit due to reflexes. Meanwhile, in the person’s mind, they are somewhere else entirely doing a different thing. The whole concept of the Matrix movie could be patterned after bilocation. It wouldn’t surprise me, considering all the other religious themes in the movie.

Alan

 

[Antonio_B]

albert cipriani:

I disagree.

If proof of objectivity were universal agreement, then there would exist today no “Flat Earth Society.” Furthermore, it is an objective fact that man walked on the moon yet there are those among us who think it was all a Hollywood production.

Ergo, the fact that there are objective truths is in no way mitigated by the contrary reality that non-Catholic religions cannot agree with us as to what they are. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html

May I respectfully challenge your premise?

Let’s take rape, as an example of something which is universally agreed upon as being bad, evil, painful, and against the law. From China to Argentina, from the U.S. to Germany, rape is viewed by everyone as dead wrong even though many cultures and many religions are represented in all these different countries. Now, without “objective truth” how can all these folks agree it is an objective truth that rape is wrong?

Antonio

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Antonio B:

With so many issues in the gray area, how does one know all truth?

One cannot know “all truth” if for no other reason than simply because of the constraints of time. If you consider “truth” as everything that is known and that happens everywhere, a human mind knows no code to receive that much information in one lifetime, much less ponder it in a mentally verbal way.

With so many issues in the gray area, this shows us that not all truths are absolute. Here by “truth” I mean philosophy, operating principle, natural law, etc. That said, the existence of relative truth does not effectively prove the nonexistence of absolute truth.

Kid C wrote: What does Natural Law have to do with “objective truth?”

I had a dynamics professor once who was asking for equations to describe the trajectory a steel ball would take after rolling down a track. He said, "the steel ball knows exactly where it’s going to go. If I do the experiment 10 times it will go the same way 10 times. If you don’t know where it’s going than you’re dumber than a steel ball.

That may not answer the question, but it illustrates there are physical laws that operate whether we understand them or not. Our knowledge of them may be flawed, but their operations do not depend on our knowledge of them so in a way those operations are absolute whether we believe it or not.

Kid D wrote: Is there an objective truth when it comes to politics and types of governments?

Probably not, unless you all come to agree with me.

Kid G wrote: Is the Church’s infallibility an opinion or objective truth?

Gee whiz. That’s a trick question. Well, silly, it’s an objective truth. We know that because it is an infallible opinion.

Kid H wrote: Who is to decide what is objective truth?

I do, as far as I’m concerned. What I believe that I know to be true is true. If I didn’t believe that, I would change my mind.

That doesn’t mean I know everything or that others don’t know truths I’m not aware of or don’t believe, but I decide what I believe and nobody else can make me. They can hurt me if they don’t think I’m playing the game right, but they can’t force me to believe anything without my implicitly or explicitly allowing it.

You cannot command somebody to believe something, because belief, IMO is not willful. One can want to believe and can convince oneself of something, or can look with tunnel vision, or study one side of an issue, or by various other methods convince oneself of the truth or fallacy of something, but I think that the “deep down in your heart” belief is beyond the ability of the will to control.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

albert cipriani:

Furthermore, it is an objective fact that man walked on the moon yet there are those among us who think it was all a Hollywood production.

What? You mean it WASN’T from Hollywood? :crying:

Alan

 

[albert_cipriani]

Antonio B:

May I respectfully challenge your premise?

Be my guest.

“Let’s take rape, as an example of something which is universally agreed upon as being bad, evil, painful, and against the law.”

Rape is not universally agreed upon as bad or against the law. Consider the Japanese use of “comfort women” during WWII. All perfectly legal and smiled upon by the military hierarchy. The Greek Bacchus (sp?) religion was a drunken excuse for orgies in which people were raped and killed.

“Rape is viewed by everyone as dead wrong…”

There are many rapists doing time right now who would easily pass a lie-detector test that confirmed their opinion to the contrary.

Fact is, tho there are objective absolute truths, fallen man is not infallibly lead to a recognition of all such absolute truths. This is one of the reasons why man is in need of an infallible Church to authoritatively lead him into such a recognition of all absolute truths. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

 

[Pax]

Objective truth is merely a factual description of “what is.” Ultimately, the author of all truth is the creator, and as the creator God decides “what is.” In some cases such as mathematics we have an excellent grasp of mathematical truth. Two and two equals four and that is something we can actually prove. There is no gray area.

In some aspects of life things are not so clear as they are in mathematics, but God is still the author. God has revealed many things to us through the scripture and the Church. God’s revelation is by definition the truth. Our perceptions can certainly distort things, and this is one of the reasons we cannot rely on our feelings and desires which frequently drag us into the arena of subjectivism.

Truth is not determined by consensus, but there can be consensus about certain truths. In order to find the truth we must first love the truth and seek it no matter what the cost. Subjectivism allows us to manufacture our own truth and avoids objective truth which is its enemy.

Five people sitting at a table may define the truth about something in five different ways. The truth may have eluded all of them, but they each have their subjective view. They merely have opinions but they do not have the truth. Other possibilities exist for this scenario. One of the parties may actually have the truth while the others are completely wrong. Or there may exist a situation where some or all of the parties have part of the truth but not all of it. In any event, none of their personal views change the facts. The facts are what they are.

 

[fix]

Antonio B:

Dear friends, on the 6th of this month, I asked if you could help me explain to my students that indeed there is such a thing as “objective truth.” Several of you indeed help me and even other teachers joined the conversation. Of all the posts I have posted at Catholic Answers, that post had nothing but positive responses and I would like to think lurkers learned a lot from it. Well, I shared with my students your thoughts and now I want to share with you their questions:

Kid A wrote: If different people have different definitions of truth, why does Pope John Paul II disagree with this concept in Veritatis Splendor?

Kid B wrote: What authority in the Church determines what objective truths are?

With so many issues in the gray area, how does one know all truth?

Kid C wrote: What does Natural Law have to do with “objective truth?”

Kid D wrote: Is there an objective truth when it comes to politics and types of governments?

Kid F wrote: How does the theme of the Matrix conflict with objective truth?

Kid G wrote: Is the Church’s infallibility an opinion or objective truth?

Kid H wrote: Who is to decide what is objective truth?

Please, do answer any of these questions. They were asked by Juniors in my World Religions class.

When I asked today “Why do you think I have introduced this subject at the beginning of this course,” one of my students gave me this reply: “If there is objective truth, there has to be subjects that all religions agree on.”

Now, I was impressed by that statement from a kid. Are you? Why? Why not?

The kids’ questions is an example of how I, as a teacher, also learn from them.

Antonio

All good questions. First, I would clarify we are talking of moral truth, not physical truth. Second, there are many ways to approach these questions, but as a Catholic the first thing that comes to mind is that Truth is a person, not a thing. Truth is Jesus Christ. All truth comes from Him.

Too often today, folks like scientists in healthcare, start out with a faulty premise. They think truth is relative and proceed from there. That is partly what gives us so many evils accepted as good. We should start from the point of accepting that truth is Christ and then proceed. That would lead to much better outcomes.

 

[Vincent]

On the Matrix:

The philosophy behind the Matrix asserts that objective truth is unknowable, if it exists at all. But to make that very assertion depends, not only on the very existence of objective truth, but also that objective truth is knowable. So the movie’s philosophy is one big self-referential inconsistency: it blows up in your face if you stare at it hard enough.

On Politics:

Politics can’t escape from interacting with “what is” about the community of human persons. Therefore, to be truly livable, politics must be an extension of ethics, which deals with the universal truths about human nature, which 's accessible to our intellects.

 

[JimG]

AlanFromWichita:

I had a dynamics professor once who was asking for equations to describe the trajectory a steel ball would take after rolling down a track. He said, "the steel ball knows exactly where it’s going to go. If I do the experiment 10 times it will go the same way 10 times. If you don’t know where it’s going than you’re dumber than a steel ball.

Exactly! What we call objective truth is simply our best attempt to describe reality. If there is no underlying reality, there is no point in these kids going to school at all. Can the students make the flat statement “I exist” and know that it is true? If not, they are way too far gone into subjectivism.

 

[Antonio_B]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear Antonio B,

These are brilliant responses, and show some pretty serious thought. You must have a great time in that class!

Sometimes is wonderful, sometimes it’s not, depending on the type of kids one has in a classroom. There are classrooms where kids are truly alive because they are intellectually-oriented and care about the subject, World Religions. In other classes asking them to think is like pulling teeth.

I recently read a book called “My Search for Absolutes” by theologian Paul Tillich, which addressed this. I didn’t admit it earlier because I was new and too chicken to admit that I had been reading books that may not have been able to get an imprimatur!

I see

I wish I still had this book to review the one part about sensory perception, but I’ll try to give it shot from my imperfect memory (and also my imperfect understanding – it was a complicated book for me to read) at answering kid F:

I haven’t read it!

Oh, I wish I could remember it better. I can’t really tell you what Tillich said, but it was brilliant. It had to do with the relative or absolute reality of the existence of various sensory conditions such as “redness” or “smoothness.” I’ll have to go get that book again, or maybe you might want to check it out.

Tillich is difficult to read unless one has a strong background in philosophy and theology.

Meanwhile I’ll just make up some stuff myself.

The Matrix shows that your perception of reality can be entirely different than another person’s. One person might see himself in a dynamic situation, fighting and running, while another person sees him as lying still.

All you really know about the world “outside” of you is what you perceive. So the reality of the world as you perceive it is in your mind, not necessarily “out there” somewhere, and is an interpretation of what your brain receives from your nerves (such as the optic nerve) which may or may not represent anything actually in space before your eyes. On that note, how real is “real enough?” In the Matrix, when you believe you die, you die in “real life.” What does that say about faith? Also in the Matrix, one learns that if one can believe in miracles beyond their immediate perceptions, they can perform them. Isn’t “the One” analogous to a believer in Christ, a believer who is taught that faith as small as a mustard seed can move mountains?

Alan

I saw the movie and never got that far. I simply could not take the violence. I gave my DVD to my niece who likes that type of movies. Consequently, I never understood its main theme. Let’s see if my student grasps your reply. Thank you.

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

fix:

All good questions. First, I would clarify we are talking of moral truth, not physical truth.

The kids already know that. It is difficult for them to comprehend there are truths that can’t be empirically proven.

Second, there are many ways to approach these questions, but as a Catholic the first thing that comes to mind is that Truth is a person, not a thing. Truth is Jesus Christ. All truth comes from Him.

Correct, and that’s why I reminded them of Jesus’ words to his disciples, “I am the Way, Truth, and Life.”

Too often today, folks like scientists in healthcare, start out with a faulty premise. They think truth is relative and proceed from there. That is partly what gives us so many evils accepted as good. We should start from the point of accepting that truth is Christ and then proceed. That would lead to much better outcomes.

False premises can lead us to error but many do not understand they are beginning with a false premise to beign with.

If you can, try to answer one of the kid’s questions specifically. The kids are waiting for replies.

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

On the Matrix:

The philosophy behind the Matrix asserts that objective truth is unknowable, if it exists at all. But to make that very assertion depends, not only on the very existence of objective truth, but also that objective truth is knowable. So the movie’s philosophy is one big self-referential inconsistency: it blows up in your face if you stare at it hard enough.

Wow, if you are correct in your interpretation of the Matrix, that’s scary because I’m sure the kids saw it and it probably affirmed in their minds the idea that objective truth is unknowable which is precisely what our relativistic society holds.

On Politics:

Politics can’t escape from interacting with “what is” about the community of human persons. Therefore, to be truly livable, politics must be an extension of ethics, which deals with the universal truths about human nature, which 's accessible to our intellects.

Given how dirty this political campaign has gotten, I find it refreshing that you would say that “politics must be an extension of ethics.” I think what makes it difficult for people to find truth in politics, is the passions that people have for the subject. We tend to obscure the truth, almost without wanting to do so, because our partisanship gets in the way of finding truth. I hope you understand what I’m saying.

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

Pax:

Objective truth is merely a factual description of “what is.” Ultimately, the author of all truth is the creator, and as the creator God decides “what is.” In some cases such as mathematics we have an excellent grasp of mathematical truth. Two and two equals four and that is something we can actually prove. There is no gray area.

I agree.

In some aspects of life things are not so clear as they are in mathematics, but God is still the author. God has revealed many things to us through the scripture and the Church. God’s revelation is by definition the truth. Our perceptions can certainly distort things, and this is one of the reasons we cannot rely on our feelings and desires which frequently drag us into the arena of subjectivism.

Correct, and I would add that perception sometimes is reality, sometimes it is not!

Truth is not determined by consensus, but there can be consensus about certain truths.

Correct, and I explained to the kids that if tomorrow most people were to decide that stealing is O.K. that would not make that true or a moral act. The truth is objective, outside of us, and all we can do is adhere ourselves to it with humility.

In order to find the truth we must first love the truth and seek it no matter what the cost. Subjectivism allows us to manufacture our own truth and avoids objective truth which is its enemy.

Wow, this is so true.

Five people sitting at a table may define the truth about something in five different ways. The truth may have eluded all of them, but they each have their subjective view. They merely have opinions but they do not have the truth. Other possibilities exist for this scenario. One of the parties may actually have the truth while the others are completely wrong. Or there may exist a situation where some or all of the parties have part of the truth but not all of it. In any event, none of their personal views change the facts. The facts are what they are.

Your understanding of truth runs counter to the culture of our times where so many people believe truth is just an opinion.Thank you very much. You should be teaching my students.

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

albert cipriani:

Be my guest.

Rape is not universally agreed upon as bad or against the law. Consider the Japanese use of “comfort women” during WWII. All perfectly legal and smiled upon by the military hierarchy. The Greek Bacchus (sp?) religion was a drunken excuse for orgies in which people were raped and killed.

I disagree. Look, rape is a universally rejected as being wrong. Now, that doesn’t mean that certain individuals like the Japanese soldiers who committed atrocities against the Koreans, were willing to acknowledge the truth that rape is wrong. In every society theft is acknowledge to be wrong, yet there are always people who are thiefs, right?
BTW, what I told you about universal principles of behavior, truth, etc, has to do with natural law and with the Church’s understanding of what truth is, so, as a Catholic, why are you denying this understanding?

There are many rapists doing time right now who would easily pass a lie-detector test that confirmed their opinion to the contrary.

True, but that is because they would manage to fool the lie detector, but the objective truth of what they did remains!

Fact is, tho there are objective absolute truths, fallen man is not infallibly lead to a recognition of all such absolute truths.

True, we agree on this one.

This is one of the reasons why man is in need of an infallible Church to authoritatively lead him into such a recognition of all absolute truths. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

No disagreement with the latter statement.

Antonio

 

[jennstall]

On the Matrix:

The philosophy behind the Matrix asserts that objective truth is unknowable, if it exists at all. But to make that very assertion depends, not only on the very existence of objective truth, but also that objective truth is knowable. So the movie’s philosophy is one big self-referential inconsistency: it blows up in your face if you stare at it hard enough.

I don’t agree with this. The Matrix illustrates that the objective truth in the story world is that everyone is asleep and being used as a human battery. The false premise that needs to be exposed in order to understand this objective truth is the premise “I am awake.”’

The other false premise that needs to be exposed is the belief that the Matrix is a physical reality. Neo is The One who can rip out the roots of this false premise to reveal the objective truth to us and once he does he can no longer be killed within The Matrix.

I think one of the false premises that we need to root out when considering the movie philosophically is the false premise that the filmmakers knew exactly what they were trying to achieve. This false premise is easily exposed for a falsehood by watching the the rest of the trilogy.