Church Militant and JimG:
When I first addressed CM’s point, I thought he had hit on the very essence of the difficulty around objective truth. He said:
"Objective truth: A truth (like gravity), that exists as a reality regardless of whether we believe in it, know about it, or not.
I believe that we have a moral obligation to seek it and once discovered, to obey objective truth."
That may well be as good a definition, at least if we keep it short, as one could provide. Basically, it sets up “objective” in contrast with “subjective”, or that which involves ones thoughts, feelings, etc. I’m not ready to spend the time on the term “truth” that it deserves; for now, let’s just go with “the way things really, really are”.
I not sure that I can prove, or more importantly, disprove, that there is such a thing as an “objective truth”, tho I think that there is, and (generally) live my life according to that assumption (i.e. there is a way things really, really are, whether I know or understand it or not).
That said, it’s the second part of what CM said that got me thinking. Trying to find objective truth, yes, that seems like the right thing to do. Not just moral, but just out of the normal preference to being an enlightened human instead of a satisfied pig.
Yet, I still see lots of problems with how we discover the truth, and then trust our discoveries (thus my question to CM: “how will you know when you’ve discovered it?”). Now, I don’t know much epistemology, and I’m sure lots of folks much smarter than I have spelled this all out better than I can. But essentially, the problem to me seems to be this (and this is assuming that there is, in fact, something out there that is really, really, real (i.e. truth):
- The Truth is out there (apologies to Agent Mulder), BUT
- We have to DETECT (i.e. senses, instrumentation, etc.) the truth, and
- Even if we detect it correctly, then comes the problem of INTERPRETATION of the events.
The common example cited by JimG and CM hit on this quite well. You know the truth (for example, gravity) as you hit the ground. Yet, how does this semblence of knowledge happen, but by sensory perception (subjective)? So, although my, and your, experience, and common sense, dictate that what goes up must come down, the way that we know these things is by our senses.
But our senses certainly can lead us astray. JimO mentioned the squeaking, hungry guinea pigs. Another great example. Even if 99.99% of the time when the guinea pigs squeak, it’s because their bodies need food, even they may be mistaken. Hunger is a perception. Even tho at first glance it seems like an objective phenomenon, really it’s subjective. For example, I could have snuck some antibiotics into the g. pigs’ water. (Didja know that guinea pigs are extremely susceptible to antibiotic-induced diarrhea and colitis? In fact, it’s often lethal.) Before I digress too much, anybody who’s been around young kids for too long will have heard “I’m hungry” right before a loud splat hits the floor, usually brand new carpet. My point is that what can be confused for one “objective reality” (the need for food) can be mistaken for another (I’m a fixin’ to hurl/have the squirts).
Now, where am I going with this, assuming anybody is actually still reading it? Basically, I’m still afraid there’s a tremendous void between the “really, really real”, and our attempts to discern and interpret that.
As far as objective truth and God, I don’t even know where to begin. I try very hard to trust it all, but, all things considered, I’d probably do a better job convincing a stranger about how antibiotics give guinea pigs diarrhea than “proving” the existence of God.
