Veritas?

It is said that Pilate, facing the soon to be crucified Christ, asked "What is truth?" He didn't stick around for an answer.

I've spend a couple of days thinking about what truth is and is not. It is obvious that mere facts do not constitute truth. Truth has more to do with choice than it does with accuracy. Indeed, a misunderstanding of the facts - a distortion based on honest perception - is no more a canard than it was to have said that the earth was the center of the universe. This statement was true, insofar as the context of human understanding certified them so to be. Never mind that it was ultimately incorrect. It was still truth.

Truth has to do with its context. This is significant to my thinking because it says that truth is not objective. It is the honest but subjective recounting of events free of any intention of distortion. The whole truth and nothing but the truth: to withhold or augment is to distort, to do so willingly is to create a canard. The facts can be accurate, but the deception remains real: hence a lie.

All of that is well and good, but what of eternal truth? Is there such a thing as an objective and absolute truth, one that is transcendent and universal? I don't believe that finite minds are capable of comprehending such a truth. So long as it cannot be observed and verified - no pun intended - it cannot be construed as universal. I would assume that such a truth must be singular: an absolute truth could not - by definition - allow for any other pretense to truth. It seems to be that the idea of truth is a penultimate ideal that cannot exist in eternal. Eternity is. Truth implies a duality, a lie or deception against which it is measured.

If truth is absolute, could it transcend itself? Could it be multiple and singular? I think of language as the metaphor for truth. Many languages describe the same idea; each language brings with it its own nuances and shades of meaning that set it apart from the rest. Each expression of truth falls short insofar as the nuances may illustrate one facet of that truth at the expense of another.

I think more basic is that there is no objective record or measure of truth: it is perceived by human minds that exist in the singular. They may be reflections of a universal mind but it remains to be seen if that mind is singular or diverse in expression. This raises serious questions for me as an orthodox Christian. We make absolute truth claims. The truth-claim is based on the presumption of specific and unique revelation of a truth (the incarnate logos). But this is subject to faith, to trusting the veracity of that revelation and it cannot be objectively proven. Fundamentalists be damned: the bible offers no proof that it is trustworthy. You accept it or you do not. That is an act of trust that is not based on any objective proof. If there were an objective proof faith would be unnecessary.

Ah, truth... there is no way of knowing. All ultimately is an act of agnostics seeking faith. We cannot know and thus are all unknowing. Are we fools because we believe? I think not; but it is prudent to leave open room for other expressions of God and the divine that differ from ours. We only see in part, and then only for a specific moment... and that moment is gone. All we have to rely upon is our memory and the memories of others that claim to have been touched by the hand of God.

Ah, but I am only a fool...