Truth
What It Is, What It’s Not
By Greg Kelley
“It is tempting to believe that there exists an ultimate truth – an objective reality – that both science and religion alike are groping towards.” (Davies, 1983, p. 219) It is so tempting because everything we experience in the corporeal world tells us there is a truth waiting to be discovered. Is there any more milk? Let’s open the fridge and find out. 16 + 34 = what? 50. Will I eventually go bald? The answers to some questions are easy to find, others can only be discovered through cumbersome and complex processes, and there are those truths which we can never hope to know. The absolute truth about the universe exists nonetheless.
This concept of an absolute truth is so natural to most people. Scientific research has been more or less in pursuit of the knowledge of this truth. But science, since quantum theory, has lured mankind to peak behind the curtain of the empirical world, seeking to find the underpinnings of existence. The very idea of an absolute truth – an objective reality – is called into question by quantum theory. Quantum theory suggests that contradicting realities exist in a hybrid state until observed. So a thing can be a hybrid of true and false, not one or the other (or maybe both) until it is observed. Does it matter what the thing is until it is observed? Does it matter if Schrodinger’s cat is dead or alive in the box? To bring the mental experiment closer to home, let us consider the situation in the box something we must prepare for. Say we must live our lives in such a way that when the box is opened for all to see, we will have been preparing for it’s unveiling. How will each person, on an individual basis, know what to prepare for? According to quantum mechanics, they would have to have a personal witness of the contents of the box. A “witness” for the purpose of the mental experiment is some empirical evidence. If the supernatural realm – the great beyond – is the contents of the box, one would need either a visit to or a visitor from inside the box to observe it empirically. Many people have claimed to have had these experiences collapsing the wave function for themselves. The problem is their newfound “knowledge of truth” now becomes the content of the box. Other people may be told of the insider’s findings, but their understanding of the box’s contents must be labeled as belief. It is not based on a personal witness, but the believing in another’s witness. It is necessary for anyone searching to know truth, to have a personal witness of it.
The conflict between different religions and between religion and science many times is not a contention of truth, but a contention of perception. Many people may have a witness of the same truth, but each individual may then extrapolate a world of “facts” from it, stretching the empirical information beyond cohesion. To illustrate this, I will employ the popular analogy of the blind men and the elephant. It goes like this:
There are four blind men who discover an elephant. Since the men have never encountered an elephant, they grope about, seeking to understand and describe this new phenomenon. One grasps the trunk and concludes it is a snake. Another explores one of the elephant's legs and describes it as a tree. A third finds the elephant's tail and announces that it is a rope. And the fourth blind man, after discovering the elephant's side, concludes that it is, after all, a wall.
Each blind man in the story has a limited knowledge of the elephant’s true nature. The first blind man could have only concluded factually that he has found some roughly cylindrical object of course texture. Instead of describing his section of elephant accurately, he stretched the empirical experience to fit preconceived notions, to a fault.
Most religious people rely on the spiritual equivalent to “some roughly cylindrical object of course texture” for a foundation for their faith. If a person has a supernatural experience it is most common for that person to search for a bigger picture, and eventually believe in a “really real” universe that accommodates or even explains that experience. Many systems of belief exist in the religion market today, all serving that same purpose. And so many people will claim to know what is truly real, but when pressed, most of it boils down to belief, called faith. Whether faith or knowledge holds greater power is another subject all together. So for all its evangelizing, and declarations of truth, the message that should lace every religious communication is “find out for yourself.”
Science may not be in the truth declaring business. Theories, such as quantum theory, and general and special relativity, are considered models of the universe. Strictly speaking, they are not touted as how the universe is, only how we can describe it in a systematic way. Scientific research aims to develop theories that describe the universe more accurately. Niels Bohr said that physics tells what we can know about the universe, not how it is. (Davies, 1983, p. 219) Quantum theory can be understood to mean that the universe is not one certain way at all. Our reality is shaped according to our observations (e.g. Schrodinger’s Cat mental experiment). It must be remembered here that quantum theory is a theory, not meant to describe the way the universe is, but how we may model it in order to produce accurate predictions. One may train his/her mind to twist around the complex hybrid realities and many dimensions employed by quantum theory, but for all that mental and emotional investment, we must call it what it is – a working model. There is no precedent in place, as there is with religion, to gain an empirical witness of its truthfulness. If a scientist marries a theory which has not been proven, and says he/she knows it is true, the scientist is playing in the same ballpark with the religious evangelist.
It is against the nature of a theory to be declared as actually true or false. Science at times uses Bohr’s model of the atom with its solar-system-like structure to describe an atom when simplicity is the goal. The more complex quantum model of the atom is employed when accuracy is required. It is not a question of which is right or wrong. Considering this situation, Paul Davies wrote:
“Such a view, then, is diametrically opposite to that of religion, in which the adherent believes in an ultimate truth. A religious proposition is usually regarded as either right or wrong, not as some sort of model of our experiences” (Davies, 1983, p. 219)
A religion may declare what is true or false but that does not matter. The notable thing is that religion says there exists a right and wrong. Religion has no problem with theories by virtue of their abstinence from truth declaring. The analogy may be painted thusly: Say the reality of a situation is that one finds himself in an empty field with a hungry crocodile. The individual in danger may model the situation in any number of ways. Any good theory would conclude that he should run and predict that running may save his life. Other good theories may model the situation as a building falling on him, or a tidal wave approaching. Any of these theories provide a working model that will guide the individual appropriately; they do not define the reality of it.
Theories cannot be proven, but are working models of the universe. Other scientific understandings do define the world. Scientific studies show that hell is not in the center of the Earth, and the solar system is indeed heliocentric. A declaration contrary to these truths, regardless of its source, is a false declaration. Religion has reconciled with science on the aforementioned issues, and a religious person must constantly call into check beliefs for which he/she has no evidence.
To avoid the trouble of constantly reconciling what we think we know from science and what we think we know from religion, some compartmentalize their learning sources. In this way religion is restricted as to what kind of knowledge it can reveal, and science is too. Paul Kurtz puts it this way:
“The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise – science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains – for a great book tells us both that the truth can make us free, and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.” (Gould, 2003, p. 193)
This concept of nonoverlapping magisteria is very easy to adopt. It settles the matter for us, simply by putting religion and science in assigned and separate compartments. The fact of the matter is, though, that religion does at times claim to know what the world is, and so does science. If we are to take the supernatural seriously at all, we cannot ignore that it should be able to tell us something about reality that science cannot. The trouble is sifting through what religion has to tell us, amidst all the notions people have contrived loosely based on revealed truth. The same could be said for science. In the end, true science and true religion must overlap. But in order to achieve a pure trueness, one or the other or both must relinquish their majesty.
The idea of science and religion as occupying different space, serving different purposes is the foundation of Kurt Vonnegut’s fictional society of San Lorenzo in his book Cat’s Cradle. Here, Vonnegut paints a scene of dynamic tension between good and evil. The opposing forces of good and evil (Bokonon and “Papa” representing religion and the government respectively) sustain this tension not only in the larger social picture, but within the conscience of each individual member of the society. The dichotomy is valued more than its components. Bokonon would never want the government lead by “Papa” to go away. And the government seems to serve no other purpose than to resist the religion of Bokononism. One of the first tenants of Bokononism is that it is a pack of “foma” – harmless untruths (Vonnegut, 1963, p. III). In this respect one could say this made-up religion would have an ironic leg-up in the truth war between religions today. Bokononism knows exactly where it stands relative to truth, and is not afraid to call it what it is.
Of course, it is not really in the market with other religions. Competing religions in reality stake their legitimacy on the grounds that they are teaching a truer doctrine than their competition, or a better method for living based on a foundation of truths. They assume that people are truth seekers. Vonnegut’s island of San Lorenzo is peopled by those not given the option of truth, but instead provided with a purpose. That purpose is to defy the evil government and practice good Bokononism. In the end, though, that purpose did not provide a sufficient motivation to continue living amidst adversity. The fake religion provided everything a religion would except some notion of the really real, of absolute truth. Perceiving a difficult and pointless existence, one Bokononian prepared to kill herself saying about suicide “It’s all so simple…it solves so much for so many, so simply.” (Vonnegut, 1963, p. 274) This religion of lies only pacified the islanders; it malnourished their spirits.
It seems as though Vonnegut casts the world’s religions as reducing to something akin to Bokononism. The made-up religion of Cat’s Cradle seems to be a purposefully ridiculous exaggeration of Vonnegut’s perception of modern religion. It is a greatly oversimplified model, and it must be in order to capture many common traits between religions. Not many religions would be very important or have much to teach if there was not some kind of opposing force in society, and within individuals. Religion and its opposition may be compared to a kite flying high in a constant wind. The tension in the string keeps the kite steady and true. Cutting the string, annihilating that opposing force, would result in the kite’s flailing in the wind and eventually tumbling to the ground. So deflated would religion be without its tension in opposition to evil. This analogy suggests good is meaningless without evil. Even the memory of evil can keep the wind in the sails of goodness. Although Bokononism gives no credence to truth, we may extend this lesson to encompass principles of truth and fallacy. In our world, the threat of deception is everywhere. We are constantly taking in information from a myriad of media sources, through friends, peers, and leaders. Because we intuitively sense the tension between truth and fallacy, we are continually discerning what is worth consideration as truth, and what is disposable fallacy.
Vonnegut also presents his view of the silliness of a religious person living in a world of evil. At a patriotic assembly where President “Papa” is giving an address welcoming a foreign ambassador, the San Lorenzans march and sing to the national anthem (Vonnegut, 1963, pp. 136-140). The crowd of natives is completely dispassionate. They are there filling a role which their civil duty requires, but each one knows the capital punishment they would face by civil law if the truth of their religion were publicized. This vividly captures the hypocrisy rampant among religious people. A typical religion may teach that its practitioners must set themselves in opposition to social norms, yet some religious people live a type of dual lifestyle. They maintain a sort of schizophrenia of worldly and religious values, finding an easy place to settle not between the two extremes, but in them both at different times. According to Bokononism, this type of existence is necessary. It must be noted that in reality neither society nor religion value this type of lifestyle. It is a tribute to the innovation of the human mind and conscience – the ability to deceive even one’s self.
Both science and religion value honesty. If people seek to walk about this planet with honesty about themselves and the world around them, they must not be afraid of where truth may come from. They must constantly be discerning. This means admitting first to one’s self that he/she really knows for certain very little. In a world, and more specifically societies, where people have a very high level of insecurity, this is difficult. People want to be sure about the world they live in. They want to fill in the gaps between bits of knowledge with whatever, or deny the gaps exist at all, in order to form a coherent picture of their world. John H. Hick said, “One should be careful not to confuse absence of knowledge with knowledge of absence.” (Hick, 1983, p. 151) About knowledge, I suspect a truly wise person would say he/she knows very little at all. In light of there being so much that seems impossible to know, mankind might do well to concentrate more on being responsible stewards of the knowledge we have.
Works Cited
Davies, P. (1983). God & The New Physics. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
Gould, S. J. (2003). Nonoverlapping Magisteria. In P. Kurtz, Science and Religion. Are They Compatible? Amherst: Prometheus Books.
Hick, J. (1983). Philosophy of Religion. New Jersey: Prentice Hall PTR.
Vonnegut, K. (1963). Cat's Cradle. New York: Dell Publishing.
