Is there such a thing as "objective" Truth?

[Antonio_B]

Dear friends,

The other day I asked my high school students what they understand by truth. basically, I got three answers from them. a) Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Whatever I think “truth” is, that is what it is. b) Whatever the majority of society claims “truth” is, that is what it is. c) Truth is merely a matter of opinion. Were these kids, in their great majority “Catholic,” aware that their position is contrary to Church teaching, and especially contrary to the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor?” No, they were not aware of it at all and neither their parents nor their confirmation teachers EVER touched this subject with them. It came as a “surprise” to them that there is such a thing as “objective truth” and that there is such a thing as “natural law” and that without objective truth, standards of morality, particularly the ones the Church teaches, are simply useless to guide us in our moral life.

Now, my question here is, if you were to find yourself in the situation I found myself with young students, how would you have explained the existence of “objective” truth?

I told my students that 2000 years ago Pontius Pilate asked Christ, “What is truth?” and apparently they are still asking the same question.

Antonio

 

[Cherub]

This is very good to discuss. I have seen this similar phenomenon all around, in public schools and private colleges, in the general public and yes even among Catholics. The views of the secular world are readily available for all to inhale at every moment of the night and day but the teachings of the Church are not as prevalent. I know that there are some very dynamic parishes out there who are teaching what the Church means for all Catholics to know, and yet it seems to be far and wide between where it is being done. Some reason, people are not getting the message completely. It is disturbing. I wonder what the solution is.

So Antonio, this high school of yours is a Catholic one? Or a public one where most of the students happen to be Catholic? I am guessing this would not even be a question for you were it a Catholic school…so I would say, be cautious how you present the idea of objective truth to them if they are in a public school. It is hard to be light and salt in the world when you have been swept out the door.

 

[martino]

I would give them this to think about:

In maintaining that one opinion is as good as another, regardless of how much the various opinions differ from one another, the indifferentist makes an asertion which is opposed to the very first principle of logic and common sense as well. It is a law of logic that contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time. If one statement is true, then all the statements which contradict it are false. Deny this principle of logic and you deny all possibility of correct human reasoning. Which, sadly, is exactly what many liberal advocates are aiming for.

Two fruits (among many) of this movement to abolish logical thought, 1) It is now a matter of opinion whether killing innocent people is murder and 2) It is also now a matter of opinion that men and women are not the same.

 

[Vincent]

This is how my philosophy professor explained it. He wrote on the board:

“It is objectively true that there is no objective truth.” “True or False?”

If true, then that presupposes the existence of objective truth for the statement to be objectively true at all. To assert the statement is to make a self-referential inconsistency. It’s intellectually sawing off the very branch one is sitting on, like yelling out loud, “I am not speaking!”

If false, then there is objective truth.

 

[Antonio_B]

Cherub:

This is very good to discuss. I have seen this similar phenomenon all around, in public schools and private colleges, in the general public and yes even among Catholics. The views of the secular world are readily available for all to inhale at every moment of the night and day but the teachings of the Church are not as prevalent. I know that there are some very dynamic parishes out there who are teaching what the Church means for all Catholics to know, and yet it seems to be far and wide between where it is being done. Some reason, people are not getting the message completely. It is disturbing. I wonder what the solution is.

So Antonio, this high school of yours is a Catholic one? Or a public one where most of the students happen to be Catholic? I am guessing this would not even be a question for you were it a Catholic school…so I would say, be cautious how you present the idea of objective truth to them if they are in a public school. It is hard to be light and salt in the world when you have been swept out the door.

The school is a private Catholic school so I’m free to discuss the matter, especially because I’m doing so in a course entitled “Religions of the World.” Some Catholic parents worry that their sons may begin to convert to other religions if I don’t make clear what truth is and how truth is related to Christianity. That’s why when I begin the course I need to establish from the word “go” that “one religion is not as good as another” and that as Christians we believe in an objective truth. Well, the kids have been so brain-washed by the culture around them where truth is simply an opinion, that it is hard for them to realize there is such a thing as objective truth.

How would you have approached the subject with them?

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

martino:

I would give them this to think about:

In maintaining that one opinion is as good as another, regardless of how much the various opinions differ from one another, the indifferentist makes an asertion which is opposed to the very first principle of logic and common sense as well. It is a law of logic that contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time. If one statement is true, then all the statements which contradict it are false. Deny this principle of logic and you deny all possibility of correct human reasoning. Which, sadly, is exactly what many liberal advocates are aiming for.

Two fruits (among many) of this movement to abolish logical thought, 1) It is now a matter of opinion whether killing innocent people is murder and 2) It is also now a matter of opinion that men and women are not the same.

Thank you very much. This is really helpful and something I had not tried!

To those that told me the truth is what the majority of people says it is, I challenged them with this idea. Before 1865 most people in this country thought slavery was O.K., so, did that make it O.K.? The kids said “No” Well, I said, didn’t you just tell me the “truth” is what the majority think the truth is? Do we say today slavery is evil because the majority says so, or because indeed slavery is evil and and that is an objective truth.

Antonio

 

[BayCityRickL]

Vincent’s post above beat me to it. That’s sort of how I would explain it.

People like Allan Dershowitz (Harvard Professor of law, OJ dream
team, tv personality) had a debate with Allen Keyes. (I used both spellings of Allen but I don’t know which is correct here.)

Dershowitz’ particular position was that there are no absolutes. Now, an absolute statement like that is an absolute in itself. So there. But, he was not deterred by this contradiction. He said he didn’t know of any absolutes, but he thought there might be some someplace.

Some scientists are skeptical about absolutes, because scientific laws only work well up to a point. Then, something else happens. A few of those folks go so far as to say that there are, in face, no laws. Every phenomenon is unrelated and there are no mystical connections to abstract laws. So, strictly speaking, if you throw up a ball and it comes back down, that’s fine. but, it may behave differently at some time in the future.

I read a book within the last year titled EVERYTHING AND MORE, THE QUEST FOR INFINITY (or something very close to that). There was a debate originating in ancient times about the existence of infinity. I seem to recall that Aristotle was on one side and Euclid may have been on the other side of the debate.
It wasn’t until the late 18th century, as I recall, that some guy (who was a high school teacher, by the way) proved that infinity exists.

So, the point is, truth may be an intangible or abstract commodity, such as an assertion. I think we ordinarily start by looking for things that are true, and go on from there. So, some people failing to grasp the abstraction, convince themselves that there is no truth. I think it’s a case of poor vocabulary: one must define one’s terms.

The sun is shining, whether it happens to be night time or raining in a particular locale.

 

[Antonio_B]

Vincent:

This is how my philosophy professor explained it. He wrote on the board:

“It is objectively true that there is no objective truth.” “True or False?”

If true, then that presupposes the existence of objective truth for the statement to be objectively true at all. To assert the statement is to make a self-referential inconsistency. It’s intellectually sawing off the very branch one is sitting on, like yelling out loud, “I am not speaking!”

If false, then there is objective truth.

Thank you very much. So far all of you have been very helpful. A Catholic forum should be in existence precisely to help all of us grow in our understanding of the faith and so we can discuss this type of questions. I may just decide to take the kids to the computer lab and get on line and see all of your answers, print them, and then bring them to class for an open discussion.

It will help them to see that other Catholics very much agree with what their teacher is trying to convey to them.

Antonio

 

[martino]

Yea, slavery is actually a very good example. You could also parellel the slavery argument with abortion. It is evil no matter what most people believe and irregardless of whether it is legal or not.

 

[Antonio_B]

BayCityRickL:

Vincent’s post above beat me to it. That’s sort of how I would explain it.

People like Allan Dershowitz (Harvard Professor of law, OJ dream
team, tv personality) had a debate with Allen Keyes. (I used both spellings of Allen but I don’t know which is correct here.)

Dershowitz’ particular position was that there are no absolutes. Now, an absolute statement like that is an absolute in itself. So there. But, he was not deterred by this contradiction. He said he didn’t know of any absolutes, but he thought there might be some someplace.

Some scientists are skeptical about absolutes, because scientific laws only work well up to a point. Then, something else happens. A few of those folks go so far as to say that there are, in face, no laws. Every phenomenon is unrelated and there are no mystical connections to abstract laws. So, strictly speaking, if you throw up a ball and it comes back down, that’s fine. but, it may behave differently at some time in the future.

I read a book within the last year titled EVERYTHING AND MORE, THE QUEST FOR INFINITY (or something very close to that). There was a debate originating in ancient times about the existence of infinity. I seem to recall that Aristotle was on one side and Euclid may have been on the other side of the debate.
It wasn’t until the late 18th century, as I recall, that some guy (who was a high school teacher, by the way) proved that infinity exists.

So, the point is, truth may be an intangible or abstract commodity, such as an assertion. I think we ordinarily start by looking for things that are true, and go on from there. So, some people failing to grasp the abstraction, convince themselves that there is no truth. I think it’s a case of poor vocabulary: one must define one’s terms.

The sun is shining, whether it happens to be night time or raining in a particular locale.

Thank you for your contribution. Another idea about truth that I failed to mention, is the popular notion that many in our society hold. Many folks think that if one cannot prove, empirically, that something exists, then, it doesn’t exist. Well, I told my students that one can’t possibly go to a scientific lab and test to see if human “dignity” exists so we can “prove” it as an empirical fact. Yes, we all know that there are many truths, in the areas of philosophy and religion that can’t be proven empirically, yet we all know those truths are as real as provable scientific truths.

Thank you for your contribution and now I’m hoping for someone to tell me the opposite of what all of you have written, so we can all see the other side of the coin.

BTW, I find it strange that no one, so far, has mentioned Veritatis Splendor and how this issue is connected to it.

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

martino:

Yea, slavery is actually a very good example. You could also parellel the slavery argument with abortion. It is evil no matter what most people believe and irregardless of whether it is legal or not.

I have also used the example of procured abortion being evil always, at all times, in any culture, regardless of what “majority” opinion might be.

In the process of the discussion, I also want the kids to use “critical thinking,” rather than just accepting what I said just because I’m their theology teacher. I also want them to challenge much of what society and the culture is saying to them, especially in the area of truth.

Antonio

 

[Arrowood]

I teach moral theology at a Catholic school, and I begin my semester with this question. I don’t consider my approach anything genius, but it seems to work.

I begin with the obvious examples of objective truth. “If I believe strongly enough that this wall exists, can I walk through it?” It often helps the interest factor if you actually try to walk through it. Usually I will get one or two “sticklers” who persist in insisting that what we consider “reality” could be a collective illusion (thank you, “Matrix”!).

I then move on to the question, “who has the burden of proof, those who believe objective reality exists or those who don’t?” We examine the logical consequences of each presumption. What would happen if we lived as if objective reality did not exist? Could we function? If we live by the presumption that moral law is all subjective, then it must be ok for me to come into your home and take what I want because it is not against my moral code to do so. Does this seem ok to you? Is there proof that objective reality does not exist (as has already been shown by other posts to this thread, this is impossible to prove)?

By the end, I usually have fairly good agreement that it is necessary to live as if objective reality really does exist. Even if I need to concede to a couple of students that we could all be the subjects of someone’s dream (which would also be impossible to prove or disprove), we cannot live with that assumption.

Finally, I tell students that empirical evidence is not the only way to know objective truth. Most of human nature cannot be examined through empirical evidence, despite what modern psychology claims. Can you prove empirically that you love someone? I examine with them three ways to know objective truth: science, philosophy, and faith. I show them why each holds a valid claim to objective truth.

This method seems to work. I don’t have any arguments for the rest of the semester about objective morality. From here I go on to examining natural law and the objective reasons for its existence.

What can we share to improve on this?

 

[martino]

Gosh we need more teachers like you guys!!!

 

[Matt16_18]

Antonio B:

… the kids have been so brain-washed by the culture around them where truth is simply an opinion, that it is hard for them to realize there is such a thing as objective truth. How would you have approached the subject with them?

I would get out my copy *Mere Christianity * and begin to use the arguments that C.S. Lewis developed in his little masterpiece.

 

[Antonio_B]

martino:

Gosh we need more teachers like you guys!!!

Thank you!

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

Matt16_18:

I would get out my copy *Mere Christianity *and begin to use the arguments that C.S. Lewis developed in his little masterpiece.

Good idea, but CS Lewis might be too deep for some of these kids and I don’t want to lose them before we even begin to atempt to understand the matter at hand. I also could ask them to read “Veritates Splendor” but the encyclical would be too much for a teenager.

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

Arrowood:

I teach moral theology at a Catholic school, and I begin my semester with this question. I don’t consider my approach anything genius, but it seems to work.

I begin with the obvious examples of objective truth. “If I believe strongly enough that this wall exists, can I walk through it?” It often helps the interest factor if you actually try to walk through it. Usually I will get one or two “sticklers” who persist in insisting that what we consider “reality” could be a collective illusion (thank you, “Matrix”!).

I then move on to the question, “who has the burden of proof, those who believe objective reality exists or those who don’t?” We examine the logical consequences of each presumption. What would happen if we lived as if objective reality did not exist? Could we function? If we live by the presumption that moral law is all subjective, then it must be ok for me to come into your home and take what I want because it is not against my moral code to do so. Does this seem ok to you? Is there proof that objective reality does not exist (as has already been shown by other posts to this thread, this is impossible to prove)?

By the end, I usually have fairly good agreement that it is necessary to live as if objective reality really does exist. Even if I need to concede to a couple of students that we could all be the subjects of someone’s dream (which would also be impossible to prove or disprove), we cannot live with that assumption.

Finally, I tell students that empirical evidence is not the only way to know objective truth. Most of human nature cannot be examined through empirical evidence, despite what modern psychology claims. Can you prove empirically that you love someone? I examine with them three ways to know objective truth: science, philosophy, and faith. I show them why each holds a valid claim to objective truth.

This method seems to work. I don’t have any arguments for the rest of the semester about objective morality. From here I go on to examining natural law and the objective reasons for its existence.

What can we share to improve on this?

Last year their morality teacher taught them about natural law all year. Everytime I would pass his class I would hear him talking about natural law. Well, when I asked the same kids, “didn’t Father talk to you about natural law last year?” the kids told me “no, he didn’t!” I know for certain that he did but you know that some people hear something and it goes from one ear through the other.

Thank you for your suggestions!

Antonio

 

[Arrowood]

Antonio B:

Last year their morality teacher taught them about natural law all year. Everytime I would pass his class I would hear him talking about natural law. Well, when I asked the same kids, “didn’t Father talk to you about natural law last year?” the kids told me “no, he didn’t!” I know for certain that he did but you know that some people hear something and it goes from one ear through the other.

Thank you for your suggestions!

Antonio

I only spend one quarter on natural law specifically, but my students do the same thing! I am always dismayed to hear from the Spiritual Theology teacher (our senior class) that my students from the previous year are arguing as if they never took my class. I am making changes to try to ensure that doesn’t happen so much, but part of it is the nature of the teenager. I have found that a few things are sticking: intellect, will, appetite, definition of true freedom (from Veritatis Splendor), definition of true happiness (from Saint Thomas Aquinas) and the nature of sin as a choice of the will that misses the greatest good. Since these concepts can be put together to create a synopsis of what I wanted to teach them during the year, my teaching isn’t a complete waste of time I guess. However, they do still forget some very major concepts. Self-improvement never ends!!

I too struggle with what to have my students read. I find Veritatis Spendor, C.S. Lewis, and G.K. Chesterton are definitely above my students’ comprehension level. They are just not used to reading deep philosophy! I think on one hand that I should use them anyway in order to GET them used to it. However, when I have done so, students hated it and shut down. I think their inability to handle these writings as juniors in high school is a sign that our system as a whole is weak. I want them to be reading the Summa! As it is, I do short excerpts from the above writings, and more from the CCC, which they also find difficult. They can handle the concepts if I break them down for them (which I guess is the job of a teacher), but they can’t process the language.

I even had to write my own moral theology textbook because I couldn’t find any that fit my students. Most of the textbooks out there were actually too easy - with simplified concepts and simplified language. I found one, written by Dominicans, that was excellent as far as content, but WAY over my students’ heads as far a language. So, I wrote a textbook that used similar content but contained language that I thought was optimal for the reading level of my students. I wrote it in dialogue format - a teenager is writing letters to “Brother Thomas,” a Dominican Brother, who replies to her letters and answers her questions. The books has gotten pretty good feedback from my students. I admit that his is a pretty extreme measure, but it was all I could think to do.

 

[Strider]

As a former high school teacher and one who keeps in touch with high schoolers through pro-life discussions, I appreciate all the above suggestions and especially the difficulties.
How to get high school juniors and seniors who are “too cool” to be impressed by anything and yet so incapable of abstract thought, having been spoon-fed by TV, video games, the internet, etc, etc, etc. to face the problem seriously.
I found it’s always useful to begin with something simple and concrete that can be made real to them before jumping into the abstract.
Maybe have the students operate in pairs Either assign one student to be the “doubter” and the other as the “accepter,” or use a random selection method.
Explain that the doubter agrees with the majority opinion that there is no objective truth. Then have both students imagine they are on the top of the tallest building in town. Ask: “Who wants to jump? "
Simple? Unfortunately, yes, but at least it gets the students thinking in thr right direction. Then go to abortion, but assign different tasks (abortion doctor, mother, baby) to students in some random fashion. Well, you sound like a fine teacher; take it from there (whose truth is true?”)
God bless and good luck

 

[cabaret]

Surely the problem with “objective truth” isn’t the false dichotomy between “there exist objective truths” and “there are no objective truths” but, rather, “try to establish one”.