Experienced Truth Versus Absolute Truth

Once I delved a little into philosophy I came across several realizations that were difficult to both grasp and accept. Among these was the uncertainty that beleaguers all human knowledge.

Initially I wanted to accept absolute truth based on scientific observation. But I came to see that even when we repeatedly observe a phenomenon and our observations exhibit consistent results we still remain uncertain. This uncertainty stems from both the possibility that our observations will change in the future (who knows, gravity might not work tomorrow) and there is also the pesky possibility that our observations are not actually 'real'. For example, the apple that allegedly fell on Newton's head may have not been an apple and whatever it was may have not been falling. It's entirely possible that Newton was a brain floating in a gravity-less universe that was being fed an array of impulses which led him to believe he was actually standing on a planet with things called 'apples' falling around him. In other words, it can be argued that all our perceptions are in fact an illusion with no actual link to 'reality'. It is for this reason that philosophy at it's core has only one certainty, stated by Descartes, "I think, therefore I am". The only certainty anyone has is one's own existence.

However, as a practical matter, all of us go beyond that assertion to accept other 'truth'. We could go through life talking about apples and gravity as being potential illusions but it would certainly add excessive dialogue to our conversation. Such added talk might impede the progression in finding practical solutions to avoiding falling objects, apples or otherwise, as well as combating with the forces of gravity in flight and space travel. Just imagine you are warning your friend of a falling tree only to have your friend remind you, shortly before being crushed, that no one can be certain anything actually 'falls'. Real or not, accepting the theory of gravity as real adds real value to a person's life because even if gravity is not an absolute reality it is an experienced reality.

I have come to realize that most of the things people accept as true boil down to such practical value. Regardless of whether their conclusions reflect some 'absolute truth' accepting it as truth is beneficial because it reflects an 'experienced truth'. This extends to any theory whether gravity, electricity or the existence of Lady Gaga (I sincerely hope she exists because personally I'm a big fan;). The point is, anything beyond our own existence is not necessarily absolute truth since all perception of everything outside ourselves necessarily goes through our potentially flawed sensory tools. All knowledge is only experienced truth, or something we accept as true as a practical matter based on our experience.

I also have come to see how religious truth falls under this same 'experienced truth' category. I don't say this to degrade religious faith since as I mentioned scientific knowledge falls under experienced truth as well. Religion, like science, is a part of many people's lives in a way that is accepted as truth as a matter of practical value. Most people adopt religion for many of the same reasons people adopt science-because it works. People who adopt religious faith often find, regardless of whether religion represents an absolute cosmic truth about the universe, that it often fulfills it's stated promise of personal joy and peace and a community of security and friendship. However, it remains true that regardless of this functionality our perceptions of religious truth go through our senses, spiritual or otherwise, which may not reflect 'reality' and it is always possible the observations that seemed consistent may change or not be the same for one individual as they are for another. (It could also be argued that religious observations are in fact not 'consistent' at all but I won't get into that heated discussion right now).

However, one difference, and an important one, is that science generally couches it's language to reflect the actual uncertainty present in all it's knowledge while religion does not. Science, for example, relies on theory-which is stated as accepted knowledge that is open for revision pending future potential contradictions-even for the most accepted knowledge such as the theory of gravity. Religion, on the other hand, unequivocally makes claims of 'absolute truth'. This is troubling to me for many reasons but mostly because it discourages individuals for whom religion doesn't 'work' to feel free to explore other alternatives. While I am happy that many individuals find the fulfillment and peace they seek through religion I also hope for a world where individuals feel free, without the fear of eternal punishment made in connection to claims of absolute truth, to find fulfillment and peace elsewhere.