I just finished reading Speaking of Faith, by Krista Tippett, the host of the public radio program of the same title. A really excellent book–I would encourage everyone to get it and read it. I kept running across snippets of wisdom on which I thought I might compose a post for the blog, but was pulled to keep on reading instead.
A few quotes from it to whet your appetite:
-
“As a journalist I’m committed to drawing out the contours and depths of what I call “the vast middle”–left, right, and center between the poles of competing answers that have hardened our cultural discourse. In the vast middle, faith is as much about questioning as it is about certainties. It is possible to be a believer and a listener at the same time, to be both fervent and searching, to nurture a vital identity and to wonder at the identities of others.” (p.3)
-
“We are all theologians. We build our understanding of ultimate things through the raw materials of the lives we’ve been given.” (p. 19)
-
“If holiness is happening, it is happening in the thick of reality, not replacing the world we know, not banishing death, but defying it’s terror as the last word.” (p. 114)
-
“. . . time and space become more generous when we explore ultimate truths in the presence of others.” (p. 125)
-
“There is a profound difference between hearing someone say this is the truth and hearing someone say this is my truth.” (p. 134)
-
“. . .if I’ve learned anything, it is that goodness prevails not in the absence of reasons to despair, but in spite of them.” (p. 185)
There’s much, much more in the book. We need more books like this, more public discourse of this kind.
Addofio 
Good stuff! I particularly like the quote about holiness happening in the thick of reality.
On the other hand, I’ve never gotten comfortable with the phrase, “my truth”. Either it’s true or it isn’t. “This is what I believe to be true” — I can say that, knowing that I might be wrong. But I have a truth, and you have a truth, and they’re contradictory but nonetheless both true? It just seems disingenuous.
LikeLike
I, on the other hand, have become quite comfortable that often there may be different truths that are nonetheless both true. If one’s paradigm case is physical reality, one might argue that there’s only one truth, and if there appear to be contradictions, then we need to shift our perspective until we find a theoretical framework that encompasses both.
But consider social realities. Much less obvious that there is, or should be, one “objective” truth (remember, I think “intersubjective” is the better concept, even for physical truths), or point of view. For instance, suppose you have a heated discussion with your wife (which I’m sure rarely if ever happens, but pretend.) Perhaps you experinced this as a stimulating and invigorating exploration of opinions, but she experienced it as a disturbing conflict. Is there a single “truth” here? Is one of you right and the other wrong with regard to the nature of the discussion? I think a pretty good case can be made that you might each have your own truth that would be true for you, but not for the other. The larger picture might be to allow for that–for her to realize that you had neither intended nore experienced conflict, and for you to realize that she had nonetheless experienced it that way; but this larger picture acknowledges the validity of both “truths”, it doesn’t affirm one and say the other must be ipso facto incorrect.
Another reason I think there can be different truths that are nonetheless both true, is that all our truths are only models of reality, they are not reality itself. I think reality (whether ultimate or proximate) is much more complex than we can encompass into a single model, or a single mind. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try–we learn a lot in making the effort, and that’s how we get better and better models, understand more and more. But they’ll always still be only models, and therefore incomplete. One model will incorporate this aspect of reality, and leave out that. Another, the reverse. Both are “true”; neither is complete or absolute. Reality is infinitely complex; our minds, our entire beings, by comparison are finite. We understand some part of reality, but never the whole of it. Much as we might wish to.
LikeLike
We’re probably in agreement on the broad facts here, but we disagree over what language to use to describe the phenomenon.
MaryP and I do, from time to time, have disagreements. Often our perspectives differ: but that is the word I would use — not truth. She has a valid perspective, and I have a valid perspective. “Truth” for me would encompass both perspectives but be bigger than either of them.
In my view, we strip the word “truth” of its meaning if we say that two contradictory propositions can both be true. Truth is that point where all perspectives come into alignment with one another; where we are able to make sense of the whole and of each part within it.
LikeLike
Do you never see truth in paradox? Or coming in complementary pairs (e.g., “Absence makes the heart grow fonder” and “Out of sight, out of mind”)?
If truth only resides “where all perspectives come into alignment”, arguably only God (assuming such to exist) could truly know truth; it would be out of reach for each inidvidual human being.
You say truth is “where we are able to make sense of the whole and of each part within it”–we might feel as though we understand a given whole and all it’s parts–but I think most of the time, we don’t grasp quite all of that. Rather, we seem to be constructed to understand “well enough”–enough to get by, to survive. Nonetheless, I think we can legitimately aspire to some kind of truth. However, I think the pursuit of complete and total truth can be paralyzing.
I’m mostly putting these out there to see how you’ll respond, out of curiosity. Since I do think our perspectives have much in common, I’m intrigued by this area of difference.
LikeLike
• Do you never see truth … coming in complementary pairs (e.g., “Absence makes the heart grow fonder” and “Out of sight, out of mind”)?
Perhaps, but does this example really inform our understanding of truth, or merely our understanding of the human heart? Human beings are certainly capable of ambivalence.
• We might feel as though we understand a given whole and all it’s parts–but I think most of the time, we don’t grasp quite all of that.
Again, I agree with the statement but not the conclusion you draw from it.
I don’t claim that I’m capable of perfect understanding of even a very simple phenomenon. Again, this says much about me but little about the nature of truth.
I don’t find the pursuit of unattainable truth paralyzing. I feel the same way about this as I do about the moral realm.
“Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” says Jesus. I know that’s an impossible ideal, but I think it’s important that we assume that such a thing as righteousness exists, and strive for it (without being too hard on ourselves for our inevitable failures).
I would find relativism paralyzing. It implies (in my view) that there’s no possibility of progress, just an endless exchanging of one arbitrarily held opinion for another.
By the way, I’m certainly not taking any offence at our difference of opinion on this point. I’ve just read your Sharer’s Creed, and my response to it is a hearty Amen!
LikeLike