Truth or Lies?

I am probably the most unqualified person in the world to write an essay about how to seek the truth. Not only do I have no idea what is true anymore, but I've pretty much given up on ever finding it.

Having set you up for a rather dismal monologue, I'll do my best to work through my tangled, half-baked thoughts on the subject.

The fundamental question, "what is true?" Is built on the underlying question "what is real?" I feel as though reality, at its most basically understandable level, is physical: earth, air, fire, water, outer space, bacteria and molecules and atomic particles.

When I try to think about Truth (which isn't all that often these days, because I'm such a terrible escapist) I find myself thinking in terms of mystery movies and whodunnits; what we're trying to do is establish what really happened, because we know it did happen. I mean, someone knows what happened, but no one else knows, and it's theirs to find out. If a person is dead, there's no question about whether they're really dead or not; the questions are about how it happened, who and why.

This relates to a scientific perspective on Truth: that it exists in a factual, discoverable way. In the physical world, this is generally true: roses, pine trees, bees and birds and beavers and the composition of seawater are all easily learned about and classified. Some of my favorite subjects growing up were horticulture (my mom and I grew a wonderful garden) biology and chemistry. It was fascinating to learn how the world works and what everything is made of. I especially enjoyed meteorology, finding great satisfaction in identifying cloud formations and estimating the possibility of a storm.

At some point, as I grew older and engaged with different worldviews and attempted to reconcile conflicting beliefs, I grew disillusioned with modern science and yet also with religion. I began to pull away from choosing anything resembling a definitive truth claim, entertaining multiple perspectives without really believing any of them.

To answer the specific prompt question "how can the truth of a thing be explained?" I would say something is true if it exists in a verifiable way. We know a piece of fruit exists because we can do things with it: weigh it, measure it, slice it, cook it, eat it. It has modifiable physical and chemical properties, with an analyzable composition.

Facts can be determined to be true if they're conveyed by an honest, reliable source. If one can seek and verify primary sources for things which have been said, it becomes easier to determine whether one agrees with what has been said. Otherwise we have to filter through other people's worldviews and skewed perspectives as they report on issues.

Yet, this is only the physical reality. I would be missing the point of the prompt if I didn't admit there are fundamental nonphysical realities undergirding society: morals, boundaries, expectations, culture, etc. The validity of these metaphysical truth claims is much more difficult to evaluate than the scientific types of facts about the world.

I would suggest that the truth of a moral claim should be determined by the effects it has on people and families when it's put into practice. Studies have shown, for example, that a stable home life with a married father and mother provides the best outcomes for children.

Any aberrations of such, then (polygamy, divorce, single-parent households, etc) are not as good and are inherently less "true" or "valid" than the essential nuclear family. This doesn't mean we should judge those in such situations, but it should help guide economic policy decisions on a larger scale, and even how church members treat outsiders, on a smaller scale.

We can go down the list of hot issues in this way, doing our best to determine what would benefit the most people in the long run. And yet a purely humanistic or utilitarian method of determining these social "truths" also has its shortcomings. There should be an understanding of what humanity is "for," our larger purpose.

This larger purpose could be seen as merely a search for one's own truth, known as expressive individualism, or it could be seen as the ultimate truth defining society and humanity. Truth is either something you determine for yourself, or it's a discoverable entity deeply rooted in the fabric of reality.

I've done such a good job at making myself aware of multiple truth claims, that it's extremely difficult for me to determine the validity of each. The basic principles I appreciate most seem to be rooted in a Christian, even evangelical worldview—indeed, evangelical Christians seem to be the only ones who are concerned with examining their own worldviews. Liberals seem to accept what they believe like fish in water, without question, and any serious inquiry is met with accusations of bigotry or not fully embracing the humans behind the claims. And don't get me started on the things I appreciate about Islamic morality My sensibilities fall into no easy categories… which is enough to drive me mad, because I agree with everyone and no one simultaneously—an impossible position.

I don't like the idea of being a subjective, intellectual lightweight who picks and chooses what they like from each religion and/or worldview, believing them all of equal value—once you conclude all beliefs are equally valuable, they all become equally worthless at the same time—and yet it seems as though the most reasonable and realistic way to function, in a world demanding that we take sides and vilify whatever happens to fall outside of what we've decided on, is to appreciate the good that each belief system has to offer while rejecting what one believes to be flawed.

Each prepackaged belief system comes equipped with baggage rendering it unfit for blanket acceptance as truth. Yet, only someone brought up in a Western, Christian influenced worldview can see this clearly, which brings me to a sort of circular reasoning trap.

This is the point at which I simply give up trying to define truth and instead focus on merely getting by in life without committing to anything in particular. I like to talk about agreeable things that don't upset any of my broad diversity of friends: music, art, fiction craft. I know it's escapism, but I'm afraid to make a decision either way. I'm afraid to hurt any of my friends or cause them to misunderstand me if I try to discuss things with them. Even if I cite my sources… I can just imagine:

"You subscribe to Breakpoint?" Jeremy gasps. "You must be a fascist anti-trans homophobe!"

"You're a member of Ultraviolet?" Joey exclaims. "You must be a radical feminist rabble-rouser!"

Being aware of the arguments on both sides doesn't make me any of these things. It does make me severely confused.

Right or left… the sayings go "if you stay in the middle of the road, you'll be run over both ways" and "keep an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out." I'm afraid I can't tell you how to distinguish between truth and lies; I'm still figuring it out myself.

Words: 1196.
Written for "Grill a Christian" 
Prompt: What is Truth? How can the truth of a thing be explained? In a world of innumerable rival claims, how can we distinguish between between truth and lies?