It is not uncommon for discussions about various religious matters on our forums to revolve around this concept called "truth." We owe this, perhaps, to the dominance of certain religions that profess to have "the" truth in Western culture. And yet, from time to time, it might be a good idea to step back and recognize that "truth" is a complicated creature, particularly when it comes to religious issues.
John Halstead wrote a thought-provoking essay on this topic over at Patheos the other day, and I'd like to share a few excerpts from it to prompt a discussion of our own (I'd encourage you to give the whole article a gander if you have the time and inclination):
While Halsted doesn't draw this connection, we might observe that those who operate based on simple models of truth have a "fundamentalist" mindset. That is to say, things are either-or, black-or-white, and there is no quarter given for interpretation or complexity. The religions in our culture most concerned with "the" truth (as if it were a simple matter or a singular thing) are those which are fundamentalist, yes? But what do you think? Do you regard truth as being mostly a simple thing? Mostly a complex thing? Is simple truth models a characteristic of fundamentalism?
There's another thread from Halsted's essay that I'd like to throw in here:
What do you guys think about this suggestion? Do you think he's on the mark here, or way off?
John Halstead wrote a thought-provoking essay on this topic over at Patheos the other day, and I'd like to share a few excerpts from it to prompt a discussion of our own (I'd encourage you to give the whole article a gander if you have the time and inclination):
"... I think there are simple truths and there are complex truths — or simple and complex ways of framing any given “truth”. Take for example, the question of whether you have money in the bank. One a simplistic level, you either do have money in the bank or you don’t.
....
On the other hand, the question of whether you “have money in the bank” really is not that simple. Does your neighborhood bank actually have your money? Or any of our money? Well, they are required by law to have a certain percentage of it. But then there’s a loophole that allows them to borrow money at the end of the day from another bank if they don’t. Does this mean there is actually money — bills and coins — that are moved to their vault? No. It’s just electronic ones and zeros that are being moved around virtual networks. And then what is “money” anyway. Is it really the bills and coins that you care about? No. Because the value of those markers goes up and down. Is it the virtual ones and zeros? Is it the fungible symbol of labor or goods? So the question of whether you have “money” “in the bank” is a complicated one.
....
On the other hand, the question of whether you “have money in the bank” really is not that simple. Does your neighborhood bank actually have your money? Or any of our money? Well, they are required by law to have a certain percentage of it. But then there’s a loophole that allows them to borrow money at the end of the day from another bank if they don’t. Does this mean there is actually money — bills and coins — that are moved to their vault? No. It’s just electronic ones and zeros that are being moved around virtual networks. And then what is “money” anyway. Is it really the bills and coins that you care about? No. Because the value of those markers goes up and down. Is it the virtual ones and zeros? Is it the fungible symbol of labor or goods? So the question of whether you have “money” “in the bank” is a complicated one.
While Halsted doesn't draw this connection, we might observe that those who operate based on simple models of truth have a "fundamentalist" mindset. That is to say, things are either-or, black-or-white, and there is no quarter given for interpretation or complexity. The religions in our culture most concerned with "the" truth (as if it were a simple matter or a singular thing) are those which are fundamentalist, yes? But what do you think? Do you regard truth as being mostly a simple thing? Mostly a complex thing? Is simple truth models a characteristic of fundamentalism?
There's another thread from Halsted's essay that I'd like to throw in here:
"And as far as I can see, being right or having the “truth” does not necessarily make us better people, more moral people, or happier people. In fact, some of the people I know who profess great concern for “truth” are the biggest ********. I think concern about other people’s perceived lack of truth is often a cover for not dealing with our own **** — and, yes, I’m talking about myself here."
What do you guys think about this suggestion? Do you think he's on the mark here, or way off?