Mark Vernon: Living truthfully

Mark Vernon, motivated by an article in the Guardian, has written a thoughtful piece on the nature of Truth:

"...Julian Baggini laments the denial of objectivity and truth. It appears to force people to be either out and out relativists, or in reaction, out and out dogmatists. He lists a couple of usual suspects as the key players in this collapse: Michel Foucault and Richard Rorty - though doesn’t propose any way out of the apparent bind these supposedly ‘postmodern’ figures have left us in.

...

I'm with Julian on the postmodern predicament and the importance of the debate about truth. But what is wrong with Julian’s piece, and what is wrong about the approach to truth of those who’d agree with him, is their model of truth. Essentially, truth must be reducible to some kind of statement that, in principle, is accessible to all, verifiable, and so necessarily demands assent. In short, for truth read scientific truth.

But I’m not sure truth is like this. Nor should it be. For the truth that matters in terms of living is the truth that makes all the difference to individuals and communities. As Kierkegaard put it, ‘the truth that you are willing to live and die for’. This is a subjective, ethical matter, that whilst using objectivity as one tool in searching for and committing to truth, does not say it is the final arbiter. Rather that should be a moral question."

I've written a number of posts about the nature of Truth and the relationship between scientific truth, theological truth and the Truth (Jesus). I'm still trying to find a formula that helps me be clear about the differences and the similarities. I've yet to find it - but I'm convinced that it makes a worthwhile quest.

Read the rest here: Living truthfully - markvernon.com - Philosophy and Life Blog - incorporating the philosophy of friendship blog

Comments

[*Christopher]

Fr. Nick,

Part of the problem in theological terms is the Truth revealed to us is personal, a Person, and hence, there is an intersubjectivity involved, a relationship, not so much that we can lay upon this Person our subjectivities and make out anything we want with him but that this Person reveals to us and lays upon us the claims of his Personhood and Subjectivity and way of relating and does in fact draw us into relationship that our subjectivity might become more fully a person in that image and likeness.

Though propositional or "fact" ways of naming this can preserve the core about who this is whom we worship, they tend lose the relationship, and in doing so, turn Truth into something defensible. For example, in the Sanctus up until the 6th century in the East, the preface would chant: "the angels and archangels sing out their theologies". This then became "doxologies". Theology and doxology must be held together or we lose either the who or the relationship. Our Creeds are both as well, not simply propositions to assent to but naming of Who this God is who has worked for us our salvation and the relationship of thanks and praise we have to this God. Perhaps chanting the Creeds illustrates this more fully?

I would add that in terms of the sciences, it would seem to me we're coming to understand that in fact our "facts" are relational as well.

I think in terms of Logos, Pattern, Reason, somewhere is the connection between scientifice and theological Truth, that at heart the Reason always at work to order Creation is not separable from the Reason revealed in Christ--both are the Logos, and our investigations can show us the how this works in the physical world, but perhaps our theology offers its ultimate meanings and relationship? Luther's understanding about Christ's ubiquitous presence is also a helpful start as he posits general presence in all of Creation, specific presence wherever named as promised, and particular presence in the Eucharist. You and Caelius would do us all a service in teasing that out more from a scientist/theologian point of view.

Just some thoughts.

[Nicholas Knisely]

Your point about truth and facts being inherently relational is well taken. I'm thinking particularly of Einstein's fundamental postulate of relativity - which implies that all observable facts must be shared by relating one observer to another.

Thanks!

[Chuck Blanchard]

Fr. Nicholas:

Father Richard of Mill Valley's Church of our Savior posted a comment on my blog that makes the same point about the relational nature of truth. Since only a small number of readers bother to look at comments, I went ahead and put his comment on the main blog page.

[Nicholas Knisely]

Thanks Chuck - I saw that... interesting point he makes as well.