What is the nature of truth? An ever pressing issue to the spiritual seeker and scientist alike is the question regarding the nature of truth. How do we define truth? How do we quantify truth, measure it? Is truth the same for everyone or is it possible to have entirely different, contradictory truths? One of the most important questions, is the subjective experience capable of finding truth? All of these questions have led to many differing views on the nature of truth.
A common and scary theme amongst the New Age Movement is the idea of the relativism of truth. There is a growing viewpoint that assumes that truth is entirely subjective and that there is no objective truth. This viewpoint is dangerous as it can lead one to be comfortable in delusion or stagnation. It does not satisfy the thirst for knowledge or the desire for deeper understanding. This relativism leaves so much open. The idea stems from a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics and physics. Often, modern scientific findings which set in concrete the importance of the observer have lead many New Agers to believe that since the observer ‘creates reality’ through perception that the observer’s subjective reality can somehow differ from the objective reality that we all share. This is not true. Yes, our perception most certainly ‘creates’ our daily reality. Take a person with multiple personality disorder for instance. To them, each and every one of the characters they alternate through are incredibly real. They store memories of each of them. Each of them has their own beliefs and opinions sometimes even varying drastically and even conflicting with one another. While they are ‘playing’ each and every character it is a very real, subjective experience. They become that person entirely. However, to the rest of us observers it would be easy to see that the person is not literally becoming these different people. It is easy to note that they probably have not lived through all of the experiences they have simulated in order to create memories and ideas. It is easy to recognize that this afflicted person cannot actually be a 5 year old child and a 40 year old adult at the same time. That subjective reality that they live in cannot be truth.
So then, how can relativism be a legitimate stance in regards to truth? It simply cannot. At some point things must be reduced or enlarged enough that objective truth can exist. There must be a point of truth from which all other truths stem. Even if all paths lead to the same destination, by default there will be a path that is the quickest. Then there will be a path that is the easiest or least obstructed. Then there will be a path that is the shortest distance. Also, there will be a path that is the most efficient. Which path is ‘best’ may be subjective but the existence of each of these previously mentioned paths is obvious. This is where the waters become muddied and the truth becomes hard to find. Once the paths are narrowed down and the quickest is named, the shortest is named, the easiest is named, and so on and so forth….one must then choose which of these paths is ‘the best’ path for them. This is the subjective nature of truth. Due to this subjective nature, it is extremely hard to be certain of truth. Is the quickest path the best even though it may be hard? Is the easiest path the best even though it may be longer? How is the best one determined? That is the hard part of this all and does leave room for the possibility of multiple truths. However, it DOES NOT leave room for the possibility of all paths being truth. Some paths may simply be mazes leading between this path and that path while never approaching the end destination. Some paths are harmful and may result in arriving at the destination in worse condition than when you started. Some paths may be exceedingly lengthy thus greatly reducing the chance of arriving at the destination without incident. In the end, at least a few paths can be named as ‘the best’ thus eliminating the possibility of all paths being ‘the best’.
Past identifying a group of ‘best paths’ or ‘likely truths’, how can we proceed to identifying objective truth? How can we be certain of legitimacy? That is where science and the scientific method comes in to save the day. We must evaluate ideas against known science and see if the ideas can withstand the test. If the ideas are past the realm of current science, then we must be creative. If the topic is one that modern science cannot satisfy, we can still ensure that the topic is at least grounded in some scientific ideas. By applying the Hermetic Principle of Correspondence (as above, so below), we can see if our ideas are rational and logical even if we cannot test them and ‘prove’ them. Science is the quantifying authority. Science is the measuring stick. This being the case, it is all the more depressing that modern science still denies the immaterial, the spiritual things of the universe. It is saddening that science has neglected to study consciousness thus far but it seems that physicists are beginning to make steps towards the study of the immaterial in a whole new way. However, we must not let the failure of science to catch up fully with spirituality dissuade us from using the scientific method and verified science to ground our truth.
So then, how can relativism be a legitimate stance in regards to truth? It simply cannot. At some point things must be reduced or enlarged enough that objective truth can exist. There must be a point of truth from which all other truths stem. Even if all paths lead to the same destination, by default there will be a path that is the quickest. Then there will be a path that is the easiest or least obstructed. Then there will be a path that is the shortest distance. Also, there will be a path that is the most efficient. Which path is ‘best’ may be subjective but the existence of each of these previously mentioned paths is obvious. This is where the waters become muddied and the truth becomes hard to find. Once the paths are narrowed down and the quickest is named, the shortest is named, the easiest is named, and so on and so forth….one must then choose which of these paths is ‘the best’ path for them. This is the subjective nature of truth. Due to this subjective nature, it is extremely hard to be certain of truth. Is the quickest path the best even though it may be hard? Is the easiest path the best even though it may be longer? How is the best one determined? That is the hard part of this all and does leave room for the possibility of multiple truths. However, it DOES NOT leave room for the possibility of all paths being truth. Some paths may simply be mazes leading between this path and that path while never approaching the end destination. Some paths are harmful and may result in arriving at the destination in worse condition than when you started. Some paths may be exceedingly lengthy thus greatly reducing the chance of arriving at the destination without incident. In the end, at least a few paths can be named as ‘the best’ thus eliminating the possibility of all paths being ‘the best’.
Past identifying a group of ‘best paths’ or ‘likely truths’, how can we proceed to identifying objective truth? How can we be certain of legitimacy? That is where science and the scientific method comes in to save the day. We must evaluate ideas against known science and see if the ideas can withstand the test. If the ideas are past the realm of current science, then we must be creative. If the topic is one that modern science cannot satisfy, we can still ensure that the topic is at least grounded in some scientific ideas. By applying the Hermetic Principle of Correspondence (as above, so below), we can see if our ideas are rational and logical even if we cannot test them and ‘prove’ them. Science is the quantifying authority. Science is the measuring stick. This being the case, it is all the more depressing that modern science still denies the immaterial, the spiritual things of the universe. It is saddening that science has neglected to study consciousness thus far but it seems that physicists are beginning to make steps towards the study of the immaterial in a whole new way. However, we must not let the failure of science to catch up fully with spirituality dissuade us from using the scientific method and verified science to ground our truth.
This, of course, means that no human can currently ‘know’ the most divine truth definitively. Science simply cannot prove such things. If you ask enough questions, you run out of the realm of the knowable and right into the realms of the unknowable. You can trace the paths out and identify many paths of truth but never THE path of truth with much assuredness. It is most likely that such an identification can never be realized by any human. Natural science has always obsessed with breaking matter down to its smallest particles. In modern times, the study of the quantum world has shown us that such a task is impossible. Once broken down far enough, matter becomes immaterial and the truth of its nature is revealed. There is no singular, smallest particle that makes up all of matter. There are many such particles that make up the smallest parts of matter together. As a collective, these particles make the existence of matter a possibility. If we apply the Principle of Correspondence as mentioned previously, we can see some rather intriguing things. Is it possible that the greatest Truth of the Universe cannot be boiled down to a singular thought but rather a group of thoughts that give rise to the entire Universe? Why yes, absolutely. This group of thoughts is known as many things. It is The Law of the Universe. The Laws of Physics. The Seven Hermetic Principles. Etc. There are many descriptive laws and principles that define what we currently know of the Universe. These laws and principles define our current understanding of The Truth. If anything does not adhere to these laws and principles, they cannot be a part of That Truth.
|
Science gives us an unprecedented ability to define truth. We can test these laws and principles. We can use the scientific method to put these laws and principles through the ringer. If they withstand the tests, they are true and we must try to understand them to the best of our ability lest we risk becoming deceived or misled. Currently, we have no way of knowing without a doubt what The Truth really is. However, it is our duty to help discover it by applying and reflecting against the laws and principles that we know to be a part of That Truth. Science has proven without a doubt that truth can be revealed and is knowable if we have the level of understanding required. The nature of truth is not malleability or flexibility. The nature of truth is, in fact, quantifiable. It can be defined. We may lack all of the truth that constitutes The Whole Truth but that lack should not indicate that Truth is nonexistent or subjective but rather that, at a certain level, truth becomes objective. This lack of certainty should drive us to use our current knowledge of truth to find more of it and better define it. We cannot afford to adhere to false ideology or vain philosophy. We cannot afford to allow truth to be considered subjective. Ask yourself, are your favorite ideas grounded in truth? If not….get new ideas