While all facts are true, it doesn’t
follow that are truths are fact. For
example, consider these three statements:
1. This book weighs two pounds.
2. No two snowflakes are the same.
3. Two plus two equals four.
4. Jesus will save you from your sins.
Are these
all facts?
I would say that the first proposition
is either true or false. If it is true, then we call it a fact. Everyone, no matter what their beliefs, must
come to the same conclusion based on the available evidence, in this case, a
scale that weighs the book. “A false
balance is an abomination to the Lord,” says Proverbs 11:1. “But a just weight is His delight.” In defending the veracity of objective
measurement, the Talmud required that merchants wipe their scales every two
weeks, their weight every week, and the pan after every weighing. The one caveat I would make is that it is a
mistake to suppose that facts by themselves are value neutral. The selection of those facts and the criteria
of what constitutes evidence all involve judgment and, in some cases, competing
ethical claims. I think it is possible
for a “false fact” to exist, as in the case when we are dreaming that we have
determined that the book weighs two pounds.
Thus, there are predicating assumptions to determining facts, such as
the state of our consciousness and whether or not the proposition is amendable
to some kind of an accurate third party evaluation.
The second statement is a high
probability, not a fact. We cannot state
with absolute certainty that this proposition is either true or false. There are, after all, a lot of snowflakes and
we accept as a given that no two roses are alike. There is, of course, a question as to what we
mean be the word "same".
The third statement isn’t a fact. It’s a deduction based on a closed system of
axiomatic mathematics. This will raise
protests from every kid in kindergarten.
Can’t you see, they argue, that if you put together two beads and two
more beads, you get four beads? I must
agree with them but only because we share an understanding of such words as
“two”, “four” and “put together.”
Equations are symbols that represent reality. The underlying reality doesn’t change,
although the notation may change, from base ten, say, to base eleven. The epistemological problem is that we don’t
know what that reality is unless we make certain quantitative predicating
assumptions, which are not facts.
However, it’s incorrect to say that axioms are expressions of faith or
belief. They are rather unprovable self-evident truths. An example is the parallel postulate of
geometry that “through a point not on a given line, one, and only one line may
be drawn that is parallel to the given line.”
An alternative non-Euclidean postulate will yield different but truthful
deductions.
I believe the fourth sentence is true
but it is not a fact. I cannot
demonstrate it to a Chinese atheist or to a Chinese Christian for that matter
in the same way that I can demonstrate the weight of my book. It is a statement of belief. Neither doubt nor belief are in themselves
either true or false. We can demonstrate
this by changing the third proposition to this statement: “!@# will save you
from your sins.” We have no basis for
evaluating the truth or falsehood of this statement. We cannot say it is true or false, and nor
can we suspend judgment in the absence of information, as there is nothing to
judge and no information to get. The
word “Jesus” is also a symbol but our culture fills with content. But I’m not sure that a symbol that is
devoid of content is any more or less meaningful than a symbol that cannot be
evaluated. While I think many or most
religious statements fall into this category, I cannot say that all such
statements are nonsense or meaningless.
Some people may invoke other utilitarian, mystical, or existential
criterion that justifies for them their belief in these statements.
Sometimes, the truth is more important
than facts and sometimes facts have little or nothing to do with truth. I think, for these reasons, we need to speak
or write with care when we use such words as “prove” and “fact”. These words have narrow meanings that doesn’t
necessarily equate to validity or truth.
How do we know the Bible is the Word of
God? The usual answer is: because the
Bible says so; it authenticates itself.
Such circularity, however, does little to advance the compelling claims
that are in the Bible. Nor can we rely
on the sincerity or ability of the expositor, as there are dishonest theists
and honest atheists as well theists that contradict each other, as in the case
of end-times events. We cannot rely on
the simple meaning of words, as many words have multiple or poetic meanings, or
meanings that change over time. There
are also many words that have become dogma that are not in the Bible. I search in vain for trinity and rapture as
well as attributes of God such as omniscient
and omnipresent. That is not to say that these are not valid
truths, but it is up to you to find for yourself that what preachers say is
true, to really think things through to separate what is true from what is
false, the wheat from the chaff. I think
archaeological discoveries, fulfilled prophecies, and miracles are never by
themselves sufficient to substantiate the Bible, although they can provide
context and greater understanding. I
consider conversion experiences to be worthless as validation for belief. Such experiences are common to all political
and religious faiths, and are all equally unreliable.
Thinking is hard work, especially when you
think for yourself. And, as T.S. Eliot
wrote, we may return to where we started-- what we find through years of study
might indeed be what we lisped as children in Sunday school, but it must be up
to us to start that exploration.
We shall not cease
from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive
where we started
And know the place for
the first time.