"What is truth?" Pontius Pilate uttered those words to Jesus Christ not long before Jesus' death. (John 18:38) It was, of course, common in Roman culture to hear of and debate about many different philosophies and ideas. So Pilate's attitude was merely a reflection of his background. Truth, as we all know, can at times be subjective, rather than objective.
A recent article in Scientific American highlighted the danger of what is known as confirmation bias--interpreting results of one's investigation to support one's own preconceived hypothesis. In short, one can believe what one wants to believe and even go so far as interpreting any evidence through one's own assumptions rather than examining matters with a sense of detachment from what we want to believe. I think we get closer to truth the more we let go of our personal opinions and previously held ideas. Maybe we were told certain things and we interpreted the world around us based on such things. As we become more objective, though, the risk of confirmation bias decreases.
Christianity is founded upon the belief that the truth is embodied in one person--the Lord Jesus Christ. He said, after all, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) Jesus taught his apostles this vital lesson just before his death. However, as the message about Jesus spread throughout the world, all manner of differing ideas surfaced. The letters to various congregations that are found in the Bible make clear references to some of the different teachings.
1 Corinthians 15:12 shows that some were saying 'there is no resurrection of the dead'. 2 Thessalonians 2:2 shows that some were forging letters from the apostles to deceive people in the congregation and claiming that the 'day of Jehovah is here'. 2 Timothy 2:18 shows that some were 'saying that the resurrection has already occurred'. 2 John 7 even shows that some were 'not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh'. The decision of the apostles and older men in Jerusalem as found in Acts 15, and the letter to the Galatians both indicate that many felt people should obey the Law of Moses in order to be saved. Clearly, the simple truth found in Jesus quickly became complicated.
The solution to this might seem to be a simple matter of the apostles using their authority as eyewitnesses of Jesus to clamp down on any sort of dissenting ideas. But rather than merely relying on their authority as apostles, they relied on a greater source of authority--the truth, as found in Jesus Christ. The truth for a Christian was simple: Jesus, the Son of God, the Christ, was killed, and on the third day was resurrected, and now sits at God's right hand. If we put faith in his name, our sins are forgiven and we can be free to live in Him, in the love God the Father has shown us through Him. If we do that, death has no meaning anymore, as we will be raised to life during Jesus' coming day of judgment, in which he will return to judge the living and the dead for the things done through the body. (2 Cor. 5:10)
Galatians 1:8 shows the humble attitude Paul had about the limits of his authority: "However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed." Here he reminds the Galatians that even if he himself taught something that went beyond the original message of the good news, even he would lose his authority to teach them. This in itself says a lot, not merely in what it says, but also in what it does not say, what is implied. In order for anyone to hold Paul or whoever accountable for the message they teach, they need to examine the messenger's words critically, and, regardless of that person's assumed position or authority, if they are not teaching the truth, they do not have authority, period.
This can be a guiding principle for all. Truth itself is the authority; truth is never derived from the strength of authority alone. The strength of authority is derived only from the strength of truth. No authority exists where falsehood thrives.
For a Christian, Jesus himself gives the standard for one's responsibility to the truth: "Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice." (John 18:37) Listening to Jesus' voice, not anyone else's, is the key to upholding one's responsibility to the truth. Truth is not the sole possession of any person or group of people, no matter how sincere they may be, no matter how proudly they proclaim their authority to teach truth.
Clearly, the original message of Christianity in all its detail cannot be found today, but the core message of the good news is found in the Bible. For a Christian, the Bible is the final authority.
Of course, some may choose not to believe that Jesus is the Son of God or that his words have meaning today. That's their choice, and no one should judge them for that. Our responsibility to truth also requires us to consider that even Christianity may not be all that is true or all that there is to know about our purpose here on earth. We weren't there to see Jesus or what he said. So he may not have said any of it, for all we know. If you're not a Christian, you might feel that way. Some who were not Christians or believers in God at all have changed their mind about their perception of truth, and vice versa. Time and experiences can change our perceptions; that is human nature.
But in pondering other schools of religious thought recently, I was reading the Sayings of Confucius. One of the oft-repeated teachings of his was to honor your parents. It struck me, how similar that is to one of the Ten Commandments, to honor your father and your mother, which is repeated in the New Testament as well. It made me think. Is it objective or fair to assume that Confucius was misled by an evil spirit being to teach what he taught? What gain is there for Satan if we honor our parents? In itself, no wrong is done in that. It seems more objective to conclude that the various schools of religious thought all have some measure of truth and value in them. The problem, however, is that religions often do not examine each other, to see just how similar they really are. If they did, perhaps some of the religious barriers in today's world would be broken down.
Either way, objectivity also requires us to transcend religious thought of all sorts and ask ourselves: is this thought, or deed, or way of life beneficial to myself AND to others? If not, why not? Ultimately, our moral code--be it religiously, legally, or scientifically guided--is what impacts how we treat all the beings we can see, our fellow humans. Whatever the greater truth may be about the universe, what is most certainly true is what we can see with our own eyes. Each other. We see beauty and savagery, tragedy and triumph, hope and terror. That's all true, right in front of us.
In the end, perhaps the greatest question of all is: will our responsibility to truth cause us to be objective enough to finally resolve our differences as a species and ensure our mutual survival and prosperity? I suppose only time will tell.
--sd-7