Discerning Truth

A few days ago I noted that I wanted to post on discerning truth. This topic has been bothering me for a while, and I wanted to share my frustration and thoughts about it.

When I say discerning truth, I mean determining what is true and what is not. We live in an information age, and we are bombarded daily with expert after expert making statements that make the truth claim. And yet with all of these can't be true at the same time, because many of them contradict each other. We have studies that suggest that gender is physical and others that suggest that gender is sociological. Which is right? Is it reasonable to expect that one of the choices must be right?

It seems to me that one needs to develop a great ability to accept change, because what is believed to be true today may not be tomorrow. At one time, the earth was thought to be the center of the solar system; now, the sun is believed to be the center. As scientific discoveries are made, some things are proven to be true, others are proven false, and still others are shown to be partially true or false.

In addition to further discoveries, this is great disagreement on what is accepted at true. One cannot prove or disprove evolution or creation. This statement might be met with much disagreement, but we simply do not have proven evidence that proves one or the other (by this I mean a definite repeatable experiment that shows that chance changed the actual species of a living organism, or that God created the world). And so great arguments arise because (at least in my view) people are arguing on different foundations. If I accept studies X, Y, and Z as true, and you accept studies A, B, and C as true, and neither of us agree with the other's accepted studies, an honest discussion is pointless, aside from debating for the fun of it.

So much of what we accept as truth is really theory, perhaps very good theory, but ultimately theory. And the basis for truth seems to change constantly because different people and groups have different standards for deciding that something is true. For example, after reading a book on the female brain, the author convinced me that gender is genetic, because I define it as a physical thing. But my basis is the sperm's chromosomes and the testosterone explosion that happens in the sixth week of gestation. Another person may define gender in terms of non-physical attributes, such as mental attitudes or leanings. Thus, an argument over gender is rather useless until some sort of common ground can be reached on what will be accepted as true.

Thus, I am left feeling very frustrated, because how is one to have an open, honest discussion? You come from your point of view and I come from mine. Until we each understand where the other is coming from and what basis the other person is coming from, what you certainly won't have is good discussion.

One final thought and I am done. It is a silly thing for Christians to demand that non-believers accept the Bible as the basis for truth. It isn't productive to begin at that place. It's like trying to sail a ship on land.