Truth Matters

                Growing up I acquired a value for truth. I was not only taught in my home that truth matters, but I also acquired a few tools in school for assessing the truth of a claim. It wasn’t until I began studying history in graduate school that I first encountered open despisers of truth. It was a school of thought, loosely called postmodernism, that emphasized the role that text plays in power relationships over truth. For these postmodernists power concerns so dominate everything that truth is not only unattainable, it is not even relevant except as a rhetorical device needing deconstruction. All that matters is the portrayal of truth by political and social actors. I quickly discovered that the postmodernist discussion of truth mires down in a morass of contextual equivocations and cultural relativism. For these thinkers, arriving at the truth of a claim often implies supporting the abuse of power and oppression. In this way they moralize truth to the margins of consideration. Truth does not matter to those in this school of thought.

                As some years passed, I came across another set of truth despisers. While going through a rather extensive and prolonged crisis of faith, I wrestled with the truth claims within the religion of my forefathers. These truth claims produced some difficult contradictions but they were indeed verifiable and falsifiable. I wanted them to be true, but the evidence came up short. As I struggled to reconcile such contradictions many a friend, relation, or church apologist would quip, “What does it matter? It makes me happy. Even if the entire gospel was proved wrong, I would still choose to believe it because it brings me joy.” These well-meaning individuals place a high value on the feelings and relationships that they associate with the truth claims I find to be false; so much so that, ultimately, the truth of such claims do not matter to them.

                Truth does matter. Choosing to believe something over and against the truth is not a virtue. Placing concerns for power or social relationships above the truth lays a weak foundation for further inquiry and produces a framework for potential abuse. Ignoring the truth or accepting falsified truth claims leads to all the pitfalls associated with using an inaccurate map on a backcountry expedition. A bad map can produce everything from minor inconveniences to deadly accidents. In this material world we pursue truth in the face of many obstacles. We access the reality around us with our senses and this leaves us in an epistemological box of sorts. We can overcome this limitation through combining our efforts in open inquiry where reason and evidence provide a basis for collaboration and argument concerning the truth.

                We live in a material world that requires us to interact with it appropriately or die. A set of varied conditions constrain us. Either we step carefully along the path by the cliff’s edge or we plummet to a sudden death. We work and cooperate with others and then we can eat, drink, and sleep indoors. We drive on the right side of the road in cooperation with oncoming traffic in order to avoid life threatening collisions. Since our lives and existence depend on a range of material needs and conditions, we must have an accurate understanding of our environment and its ever changing dynamic. Given this very real circumstance, collectively adopting an unverified or falsified map when other more accurate maps are available is just dangerous. A map is only as good as its correspondence and congruence to the terrain that it represents. If I were to take an expedition through a desert that I had not previously traversed, I would have a range of options. I could use a state of the art Global Positioning System (GPS) that relies on satellite communication to show my location on a digital map. Or, I could use a U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographical map produced by professional surveyors. Or, I could use a map my great-grandfather possessed that was drawn based on hearsay from those who heard the various accounts of people who went into that country (the actual methodology of early European map makers). To openly choose the latter map is obviously irresponsible and foolish. Moreover, given the material realities of our world, to select such an inaccurate map would prove dangerous and actually produce accidents. Making the decision to cross a desert based on the map’s represented size could turn deadly if the terrain in reality was two or three times larger causing one to not bring enough necessary supplies. Or, using such a faulty map to decide to take a particularly dangerous approach to a high mountain peak could bring the climber to an unseen drop off and a fatal accident. An inaccurate map is deadly and any benefits associated with its use come in spite of it, not because of it.

                Like a map, a system of ideas that claims to represent a seen world and its interaction with an unseen world can only be beneficial to the degree that it is accurate and congruent with reality. Religious views, scriptures, and even cultural traditions all make claims about how the material world operates.  I stumbled along with one such map in my young adult years. I received the knowledge from my parents and church leaders that a loving God governed everything that was and that He provided me with a map: the Holy Scriptures in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, I acquired a view that God gave me an unseen spirit to guide me: the gift of the Holy Ghost. For numerous years I used this fundamental paradigm to guide my every thought, question, and decision. I studied the scriptures regularly to find inspiration and understanding about the world and what God wanted me to do. I prayed to God in hopes that He would send me guidance and truth through the quiet whisperings of the Holy Ghost. Of course these whisperings were never audible but more akin to feelings and impressions on my mind. For quite some time this map seemed to work, but there were always outliers, exceptions to the rule. Over time, these incongruities, little failures in the story to represent reality, began to pile up.

One particular difficulty arose in the expectations this map gave me. The stories I read in the scriptures described great men of faith who performed many miracles and received profound truths about the universe and God. I understood that if I had that kind of faith, if I was obedient to that degree, I could expect similar results. The map indicated that it would be so. Over time, as I used this map to make my way through this world I did not experience those expectations. I did try to impose and project these supposed results on a number of mundane aspects of my life, yet, in the end, deep down, I knew that the outcomes imprinted on the map were not there. I realized the map was bad. It relied on hearsay from those who heard the various accounts of others who never stood accountable for their claims. The whisperings of the Holy Ghost were my own feelings and emotions powerfully marshaled to serve the claims of the scriptures and religious community promulgating the map. I also came to see that this map was layered with justifications designed to explain away and obscure its own failings. I then knew that years of my brief life were forever lost to bumbling around with a deficient and inaccurate map. Of course, my experience pales in comparison to friends who are homosexual where this same map describes them as abominations not worthy of recognition as people. Truth matters.

Herein lays the problem with embracing an untruth because it makes me happy. The given superstition or religious belief may bring a feeling of happiness for any number of reasons, but its untrue aspects make that happiness untenable and brings avoidable harm on others. Happiness based on something falsified or willfully unexamined is accidental. At some point, the believer necessarily brushes up against reality and then faces a dilemma: defend the inaccurate belief, modify it so that it conforms to reality, or abandon it. I grew up under the teaching that homosexual identity and behavior was sinful. Homosexuals did not deserve rights or protections under the law because their behavior was wrong. I accepted this and then met and got to know a few people who identified as homosexual. As I grew to appreciate these individuals, their lives contradicted my beliefs. Over time I could find nothing especially sinful in their behavior or existence. It caused me to question not only the belief but its source. I eventually abandoned the entire map because this was one of many inaccuracies I discovered.

I could have chosen to modify the belief in some way or just to defend the belief: homosexuals only seem to be happy or some such explanation. The pressure to defend it was connected to a state of happiness that I enjoyed. My family and community all embraced this belief and the religion it arose within. To reject the belief and map, of which it was a part, would make waves and cause unhappiness to myself and others. Also, there were other aspects of the religion I really enjoyed. Ultimately I refused to defend the belief because to defend it felt like an unethical act carried out only to justify a supposed good end: my happiness. To defend a falsehood in order to maintain my happiness just felt wrong. Truth makes one free—lies and bullshit just hide and obscure. Religious beliefs do not stay in the supernatural world, as such they cannot receive a free pass from scrutiny. God speaks and angels visit the earth with commands that affect real people. God’s word on homosexuals has brought about persecution, abuse, self-loathing, suicide, and murder. Defending such a belief because it makes me happy is just wrong. Truth matters.

A map is not the terrain it represents. As such, any map will fail in corresponding perfectly. A perfect map would be the ground itself and thus not of any use or value practically. Furthermore, our access to reality is necessarily mediated by our senses and mental constructions—what I call an epistemological box. These two factors alone create insurmountable difficulties in our quest for accurate representations of reality and perfect truth claims. As human beings our understandings are necessarily limited. Some face this reality and then claim that this creates an “anything goes” environment. Such thinkers assert that since perfection and absolute truth claims are unattainable all claims are equally valid and invalid. By analogy, this is as absurd as claiming since one cannot perfectly sterilize a room for surgery it does not matter where one performs a medical operation. Operating inside a septic tank is as good as a surgical room according to this line of reasoning. Another approach made to establish equivalency among all truth claims is the parable of the blind men who encounter an elephant. The blind man who feels the trunk describes the elephant as long and thin. Another describes the elephant as wide and flat like a wall. Another as thin and wispy based on encountering the tail. The fallacy in this parable lays in the presupposition that these blind men are incapable of collaborating or working together. It also assumes that their investigation stops with their initial inquiry. Through working together and exploring further over time, these blind men would be capable of acquiring a reliably accurate description or map for an elephant.

                Through coming together in an open inquiry we can reduce or outright overcome the limitations in knowing the truth of various claims about reality. The use of evidence derived from experiments and observations can serve as a foundation for such inquiries. Reasonable arguments and rules of critical thinking can refine the inquiry and help avoid common pitfalls of inaccurate thinking. Eliminating authoritarian dominance by embracing an open approach makes real progress toward truth possible. The use of reasonable argument and evidence must be available to any actor willing to participate in this collective inquiry if we are to arrive at any kind of accurate account of reality. To hold onto a belief simply because an authority pronounces it leads to the perpetuation of bad maps. The human brain, by its very structure and design, provides us with the ability to recognize patterns and relationships around us in order to make predictions—to anticipate circumstances prone to change and volatility. This singular feature of being human has contributed greatly to the success of our species. To circumvent this feature, to compromise it willingly to “be happy” or for any other reason leaves us bereft of the capacity and tools necessary to successfully navigate life and society. Truth matters.