CAN ANYTHING BE TRUE?!

INTRODUCTION

What is truth? Is there any such thing as an absolute truth? Can we ever know it? Is what is the truth reached by agreement within a community? In this post I wish to explore the Philosophical arguments and concepts concerning truth.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM OF TRUTH

So what is true? That which is a matter of opinion, something which corresponds to an external feature in the world, or the agreement within a community of what is wrong and what is right? This post will define and explore some of the concepts which drive the 'truth' debate. 

POST-MODERNISM

In examining 'Truth', two key positions must be understood. The first position is Post-Modernism. Social ideas, such as an acceptance of right and wrong, what is beauty and so on never remains consistent. Our attitudes and views towards people and life change as we learn more about the world and on the circumstances. Thus, whilst before the 1960's, using contraception was considered wrong, in most societies today the use of contraception is widely accepted.

According to the post-modernist, what we consider true or false, is widely dependant on our perception. Thus to speak of an ultimate truth is meaningless, for it is merely perspectival. An example of such thought is very clearly seen within art. 

The above position may also be termed relativism. This is opposed to objectivism, which believes there is a truth that exists regardless of opinion.

FUNDAMENTALISM

The term 'fundamentalist' is often associated with those religious believers who follower their scripture to the letter, believing it is the ultimate truth, the only truth and that it ought to be the truth of everyone.

Fundamentalism though is a much broader term. Someone is described as a fundamentalist if they believe there is an ultimate truth to be gained. Such a truth, however can only understood through a certain way of thinking or acceptance of certain facts.

To return to the example of religion, a Christian evangelist maybe described as fundamentalist if they believe that salvation can only be achieved through following the Bible and 'through the grace of Jesus Christ'. Peter Vardy in 'What is Truth?' uses the definition provided by scholar Felipe Fernandez Armesto: 'Fundamentalism means uncritical, literal acceptance of what are supposed to be the founding doctrines or documents of a tradition.'  

Peter Vardy, author of 'What is truth?'
For him, we must move beyond these
two positions. 

JUSTIFYING A CLAIM OF TRUTH

Having introduced two possible positions to take on the debate, it is also important to understand how truth claims are made. The first view is known as Realism.

Realism: This is a theory of truth that claims that a statement of truth must correspond to a state of world affairs. For this reason, it also known as correspondence theory of truth. Thus, if we claim that 'the cat sat on the mat', to the realist, this is true and only true if we saw that the cat was indeed sitting on the mat. Thus, if something is beautiful, it must be beautiful regardless of opinion. It affirms bivalence, that is something is either true or false regardless of opinion or circumstances. 

The second view is known as Anti-Realism.

Austrian Philosopher Ludwig
Wittgenstein, who proposed
the theory of language games.

Anti-Realism: This is the view that there is no correspondence theory. What we consider true or false is what coheres with other true statements within a form of life. 'A form of life' here is defined as a grouping such as religion, which use language and have beliefs which according to anti-realists is true within those players of 'a language game'.

Language games is a theory of language developed by Ludwig Wittgenstein that follows this coherence theory of truth. People use language and make claims which are only significant to those 'players' in that 'language game'. Thus, an anti-realist believes truth is what agreed within the community, depending on the rules of the 'language game', also known as its grammar. For instance, to speak of a soul may make sense to the Metaphysician, but none to the scientist. 

IMPLICATIONS

Let us explore these two theories further. In examining religious claims, adopting a realist view, or an anti-realist view will often spark debate. Religious believers who accept a correspondence theory of truth may hold, for example, that we can infer the laws of nature and establish the existence of the divine through reason. Such a position gives rise to what is popularly knows as 'Natural Theology'. In examining nature, we can at least say that we establish a probable existence of God. Aquinas's five ways, the Ontological argument and the cumulative argument (the idea that combining the various arguments makes it more probable than not that God exists) are some examples of arguments from Natural Theology. 

On the other hand, an anti-realist may accept the claims such as 'Jesus Christ is the son of God' or 'the archangel Gabriel appeared to the Prophet Muhammad' but will argue that none of these claims are objectively true. They are true only within the community that establishes them. The implication of such a view is that no one religion is more correct than another; but that what is true in one 'form of life' may not be true for another, it is down to the language game in which it exists, and to those who are 'players' in that language game.

CONCLUSION: THE TRUTH DILEMMA

The fact that things may be true or false raises more problems than we may realise. Can we be sure of the existence of an ultimate truth for example? Or is what is true merely a matter of opinion and is contingent upon the community which creates it?

Just some Philosophical food for thought! :) 

Sources: 'What is Truth?' by Peter Vardy

               'A2 Religious Studies' by Sarah Tyler and Gordon Reid