There is hardly a more provocative word in our modern era than the word “truth.” The very idea of “truth,” objective “truth,” actual and factual “truth” nowadays is strictly the province of narrow minds, archaic and uninformed minds, ignorant and illegitimate minds, at least according to the modern paradigm for discovering truth.
For assertions of “truth” are no longer occasions for serious discussion and rational debate. Now, regardless of your personal intent, your sincere and respectful tone or even the benign nature of your particular assertion of truth, such assertions of truth inevitably convey a deliberate sense of arrogance, a strong sense of bigotry, a veiled sense of oppression and judgement, and even a subtle sense of stupidity.
Since the seventeenth century, the gradual and relentless assault on the very idea of “truth” and the assertions of particular truths themselves proceeded almost unimpeded in the West. From Europe’s elite intellectual circles, the deliberate demise of truth was driven by an explicit assault on the very nature of “truth” and by an implicit intent determined to weaken and then to destroy reason‘s power, while simultaneously promoting science as the dominant and sole definer of truth.
While this trend began with the elite, it has now infected educational institutions on all levels just as it has in the West’s general culture in many explicit and implicit ways. And, while some may take this assertion as exaggerated or erroneous, the evidence is all around us.
For example, consider what most people think is our real source of truth. For most the singular source of truth is science. The default source for any and all truth is empirical science, verified and replicated science, applied and pure science. Anything investigated outside of the empirical scientific methods, anything investigated by deductive reason can only attain a modicum of certainty and is typically relegated to the realm of normative truth or philosophic opinion, all of which are inferior compared to the pure and applied sciences. That is the West’s common conclusion, the dominant dogma about truth and how it is determined.
But, the truth about science and its singular power and sole source for finding truth is fundamentally flawed and demonstrably false And it is so obvious it’s hard to imagine how it ascended to its dominant position. Let’s just take a quick look at its misrepresentations, its deceptive dogma and its inherent contradictions.
First, the assertion that science is a discrete way of knowing truth is patently false. Science is not a discrete way of knowing. It is a composite way of discovering physical truths that relies on reason in every step of the empirical process. For the scientific methodology is grounded in and guided by reason, deductive and inductive reason. Also, empirical science sole application is in the physical world, discovering how the physical world operates.
Yet, validated and replicated science must meet rational criteria from its initial observations to its hypothesis development, from its decisions about how best to conduct experimental conditions and methods to its data collection, management and analysis, from experimental conclusions and implications for further study, as well as how best to apply this knowledge in the appropriate fields of applied science.
Science relies on reason in all its forms. As such, it validates reason’s use in guiding research, finding and validating truths about the physical world, as well as applying such scientific truths. Similarly, reason, not science, is the bedrock of mathematics. Mathematics is another rational use of deductive reason in the conduct of scientific research and application, as it is often a crucial component in data collection and analysis. When science claims its conclusions and applications are sound and certain, it implicitly asserts the power of reason in all its forms and uses.
So, why is reason remanded to the realm of sophistry and intellectual sleight-of-hand when it comes to purer forms of reason’s use in philosophy and theology, in morality and in metaphysics? Why do we disregard deductive proofs of God’s existence and nature when they are just as certain rationally as any scientific facts? Why do we not see the absolute necessity for an intangible and eternal God, when science indicates it is likely and when reason demonstrates it definitively?
Perhaps an example of deductive reasoning will help. In science the “law of cause and effect” is a bedrock principle of scientific inquiry. This law tells us, when we see an effect, it must have a prior cause. Experiments rely on this law.
Well, if we extrapolate the premise that every effect must have a prior cause back in time, sooner or later, we must get to an “uncaused causer,” something that exists without a prior cause, something beyond all space and time, all matter and energy. And, it is this necessary being, that we call “God.”
This deduction is a matter of fact, not a matter of sophistry or rhetorical manipulation. In the scientific realm the “big bang theory” of the universe’s origin has led for a search for the “god particle” as the cause of the “big bang.” But, what caused the “god particle?” Again, sooner or later reason requires an “uncaused causer.”
Predictably for scientific practitioners and scientific materialist philosophers, the problem of “cause and effect” and “the uncaused causer” disappears if we have an infinitely expanding and contracting universe (the “bouncing universe theory”) or an infinite number of universes (the “multiverse theory”).
These two alternative theories are founded on the premise of infinity, which eliminates the whole question of cause and effect. But is there a way to scientifically investigate “infinity’? Isn’t infinity a concept and conclusion without scientific proof or truth, a concept accepted as an axiom without proof and in defiance of the scientific law of “cause and effect.”
To make the case for reason’s primacy even clearer, the case for science’s dominance is an exercise in rational deduction; for accepting science as the sole source of truth can only be made by employing rational deductive argumentation. Yet, science is inherently an inductive form of reason. It is a form of developing truth about the physical world from observation and manipulation. That is why scientific facts change sometimes because of new information or deeper study. That is what inductive reason is.
When science claims its empirical findings are truth is flawed because it is based on inductive reasoning. But, deductive reason proves things definitively. Inductive reason asserts truths of the physical world; yet it is still open to new information and more sophisticated knowledge should it be discovered scientifically. Science can only defend its alleged validity by appealing to rational deduction. And that is a fatal contradiction given the premise that science is the only path to actual truth. For such a claim can only be made deductively and science is an inductive process.
Science is a composite form of inquiry that uses deductive and inductive reason and provides us factual knowledge about the physical world. In that it has proven effective and powerful. But to extend science’s power and ability beyond that realm is to violate the nature of science and to falsify the philosophy guiding real science.
Eliminating deductive reason and all other forms of rational inquiry as paths to truths of a metaphysical and a moral nature, a theological and a cosmological nature is an act of philosophical ignorance or a form of cultural manipulation. Teaching error and falsehoods regarding the power of science and the weakness of deductive reason is a pernicious practice of our schools and colleges, our culture and our media.
Overstating the power of science as the sole source of all truth, while simultaneously destroying the power of reason as the primary path to truth are the two great sins of our time. Rectifying the nature of knowledge and restoring the depth and breadth of truth are our key challenges and crucial tasks.
For the profound errors and prolific sins of our present culture and time rest on these falsities, which provide their impetus and justification. If these two issues are won, the nihilism immersing us will be banished and our culture and our minds will be born anew in the light of truth, truth beyond just our knowledge of our physical realities.
