What is the foundation upon
which one's truth paradigm is constructed? Is it solid enough that it cannot be destructed? If the foundation of one's truth paradigm is destructed, what will that do to the truth paradigm?
Overview: In this essay
attention will be devoted to introducing the discussion and looking at Open
System Truth Theory. If those who read
this first section would offer arguments for Closed System Truth Theory, they
are invited to send same to arobbfam@yahoo.com.
Part II in addition to looking at CSTT will include some concluding
thoughts.
Crumbling Walls and Sound Foundations
Growing up in the home of a
do-it-yourselfer had it benefits. One
day my Dad called me to yet one more of his projects. It was a retaining wall that I am sure at one
time seemed to be just fine. However,
now it was crumbling and in the final stages of failing. He broke off a piece of it and then told me
that there had been dirt in the sand and thus the concrete was unable to bond
and therefore the wall degraded and was falling apart.
Simply stated, the concrete had impurities that militated against its
integrity.
He then proceeded to build the
new wall by breaking up the old wall, digging a new footing, setting forms, pouring
a new footing (foundation). He then proceeded to build the new wall upon
that foundation.
In this story there are elements
germane to the discussion of truth. We
shall begin with two.
First, the foundation: How sound
is the foundation upon which one’s truth paradigm is constructed? Is the concrete pure, reinforced, and the
right size to support the truth structure to be built?
Second, the wall: How sound is the truth paradigm? One will never have a sound truth paradigm
without a sound foundation. However, one
can have a sound foundation but the truth paradigm built on that foundation may
not be all that sound. This will be discussed in a forthcoming essay.
Genuine Truth and Genuine Reality
Please note that the
following reference to truth includes reality.
Since genuine reality encapsulates genuine truth and since the
reverse is taken to be true, the use of one term includes the other. Rather than burden the reader with both
words, truth will be used as the catchall. Perhaps in a later essay such will be discussed.
Truth’s Foundation—Origin
There
is in the discussion of the origin and basis of truth basically one issue that
needs attention. It has been alluded to and
even briefly discussed in many of the previous essays. It is the question of whether truth finds it
origins within a closed system or from an open system. In the first there is a suggestion of an autonomous
system however, in the second such is not so.
Though one is provable and one is not, both will be referred to as
theory.
Limitation
As
you read the following please keep in mind the limitation of this essay is open
system and closed system. It
is beyond the purview of these thoughts to discuss the merits of theism or
atheism in their various forms. Again, its
focus is upon the question of open or closed systems of truth.
OPEN SYSTEM TRUTH
THEORY
Just what is Open
System Truth Theory (OSTT)?
Simply stated
it postulates that there is a non-material component involved in the existence
of truth. It holds that not all truth
can be measured or discovered by scientific method. It is not as some argue devoid of reason but
also is not bound by reason.
The one
holding OSTT makes way for the inclusion of the non-material realities in one’s
truth paradigm. This in its multivariate expressions has been the dominant
belief throughout recorded history. This
is supernaturalism[1] as
opposed to naturalism.
Argument from History
Any survey of recorded history (western, eastern, or oriental) will reveal an assumption of a supernatural or open system in
which God, gods, or spiritual entities and forces were involved in the affairs
of man. One example is Greek Mythology. Another example is the Japanese Festival
of Obon when one honors the spirits of dead ancestors.
If one cares to notice the vast
majority of the world populations from the beginning of recorded history have
believed in Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism, Islam, and the
list goes on and on.
Argument from Data
Even if one sets aside history
and looks only at the beliefs of the current population, one finds that of the
6.25 billion earth inhabitants, some 82.2 percent hold to the supernatural. Even those 1.1 billion who identify with
“Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist”[2]
belief, many times acknowledge that there is something beyond the physical (In
fairness to the position of this paper there are other sources that present
data which is much less kind to the secularist).
Argument from Experience
However,
know that it is not just historical formal proof that can be offered. There are those who have personal knowledge
and experiences with the supernatural. For
them poltergeist is not a fanciful movie but an actual, even frightening
experience. It is they that know that the
naturalist view cannot be accurately defended.
At best it is naïve and at worst an out and out deception.
The
example I offer is the multiple time when I have been called to a death scene. Whether it is traumatic
or natural, expected or unexpected, with rare exception some friend or member of the
family will make a statement such as, “He is in a better place.” Consider as well of the
almost 3,000 chaplain jobs advertised on a chaplain job search bulletin board the largest
share by far are in the area of palliative/hospice care.
Summary
Thought
The
point of the argument so far is very simply to offer that there is weighty
evidence to suggest that one must look beyond the view of the naturalist. The crucial and essential point is that to
eliminate the possibility of Open System Truth Theory then limits one’s view of
the supernatural. I suppose one could
plausibly argue that while the supernatural does exist, it find its existence
limited to fields beyond the natural.
Maybe so but such would a hard to sell to the shaman, witch doctor, faith
healer, those at death’s door, or the one having experienced a poltergeist.
Next Essay: Focus will be upon the Closed System Truth Theory view
with some concluding thoughts.
[1] Supernaturalism: early 15c. "above nature, transcending
nature, belonging to a higher realm," from M.L. supernaturalis
"above or beyond nature," from L. super
"above" (see super-) + natura
"nature" (see nature). Originally with more of a religious sense,
"of or given by God, divine; heavenly;" association with ghosts,
etc., has predominated since c.1799. definition
available at
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=s&p=76&allowed_in_frame=0
[2] Statistics available at
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
No comments:
Post a Comment