What is truth?

By Bernie Dehler
9-19-07

I was talking to a friend the other day.  He was saying that there are different kinds of truth.  I disagreed, saying there was only one truth... truth is not relative.  In further discussion, there was some clarification.

Statement 1:
"The earth rotates around the sun; the sun does not rotate around the earth"

Statement 2:
"Red is a prettier color than blue."

Statement 3:
"Bernie likes red better than blue."

Statement 1 is true.  There's no arguing it.  Is Statement 2 true?  This is where someone may say "it may be true for you, but not for me."  In this case, I think a better word than "truth" is "opinion."  It is not a fact that red is prettier; but it is an opinion.  Statement 3 can be true, but please note: the statement that "Bernie likes red better" is true, but it is not the same as saying that "red is better."  It is basically a true statement about Bernie's opinion.

Let's apply this to religion.

Statement 4: "Jesus Christ rose from the grave."

Some people believe this; some don't.  Regardless of what people believe, however, it really either did, or did not, happen in history.  The "truth" of this statement is not relative to whether if one believes it or not.  If Jesus really rose from the grave, he did it whether you believe it or not.  If He didn't, then He didn't regardless of whether you believe it or not.

In the same way, when reconciling religious and scientific issues, the truth is absolute, not relative or depending on whether it is believed by someone. 

The Bible says that God commanded Noah to build an ark, and that all living creatures died in that flood except those on the ark (just a few thousand years ago).  Either this really happened or not.  If it really happened, there should be evidence for it.  If it didn't happen, the evidence will not be there.  I'm currently, in my search, checking the issues in this debate, and encourage you readers to do the same.  If the flood really happened as the Bible literally says, then the story is accurate at face value.  If there is no evidence for the flood, then one can either assign a figurative meaning to the passage, or consider it a myth not based in reality.  Those are the consequences. 

Comments

[Aaron]

Thank you for the clarification Bernie.

I think where my misunderstanding occurred was how the original article stated the proof.

Step 1
If it really happened, there should be evidence for it.

Step 2
If it didn't happen, the evidence will not be there.

The step that you alluded to but was missing from the statement is:

Step 3
A lack of evidence does not mean that it did not happen

The flood could have happened exactly as stated in the Bible, however, I, like you, tend to believe that the flood did not occur globally. But I also agree that a flood happened in that area based on the accounts and folklore of neighboring cultures (Epic of Gilgamesh for one). The challenge with that I think for literalists (most of whom would readily agree that a the third party accounts validate the flood event) is that, if indeed Noah and his family were the only surviving human beings on earth how would we have obtained validation of the event through cultures that were their contemporaries.

In addition, for such a pivotal point in human history, it strikes me as odd that Noah is mentioned by name for his genealogy of 1 Chronicles (1:4), for his righteousness in Ezekiel (14:14 & 14:20) and only twice (in the same verse) outside of Genesis for the actual flood and his use by God as the Old Testament savior of mankind two times in one verse (Isaiah 54:9), and that was not for his service but as an illustration of God's love.

Surely, one would think that such a pivotal servant of God would be heralded at nearly a Mosaic level(60+ times after Joshua in the OT). But then again outside of Genesis, Adam himself is named even less (4 times) in the OT.

Anyway, enough of that rabbit trail. Thank you again for your clarification.

[Bernie of www.sciligion.org]

Aaron said: "Therefore, you identified a massive physical event that lacks evidence and identified it (through your quote) as the truth."

Aaron, you misunderstood me. Let me clarify. My point is either the global flood happened or not. I lean towards the argument that it did not happen. If it would have happened, there would have been evidence for it, but most Christian scientists, as I understand it, say there is no evidence for a global flood. You then asked if it could have been a local flood. My response was meant to say that a local flood is also out of the question, and gave the Bible verse as to why (150 days of floating in a boat, all life destroyed outside of the ark, etc.).

To make it clear, I lean towards the belief that the flood did not happen globally, and that it would be incorrect to say it was a local flood, as the Bible clearly indicates a global flood. But I'm still learning and open to new ideas.

...Bernie

[Aaron]

My original post was in reference to this:

Bernie wrote:
The Bible says that God commanded Noah to build an ark, and that all living creatures died in that flood except those on the ark (just a few thousand years ago). Either this really happened or not. If it really happened, there should be evidence for it. If it didn't happen, the evidence will not be there.

My understanding was that sciligion is a site dedicated to a broader discussion of scientific facts and theological truths. Understand my surprise when after writing:

"If it didn't happen, the evidence will not be there."

You then responded to my comment, which was genuinely seeking additional dialogue, with a Bible verse. That is exactly the kind of response that I would expect from the teacher you mention in the entropy article.

No hit on the site, it is very interesting and should really stir up some good discussion and I do not have any problem with the Bible being quoted copiously (that is a most excellent thing). It just seems to me that rather than supporting your argument that:

"If it didn't happen, the evidence will not be there."

by identifying the empirical evidence that the flood did indeed occur and cover the entire earth and specific evidence that Noah did build an ark (perhaps ancient cuneiform gopherwood billing statements) and that he and his family were the only individuals to survive the flood and finally the rafts that the kangaroos were forced to build and use to make it from Australia to the ark and back home (see loonyligion websites for that gem). You chose to recite a verse for which there is no specific evidence to support.

Therefore, you identified a massive physical event that lacks evidence and identified it (through your quote) as the truth.

That is a direct contradiction of your evidence litmus test of the truth.

For the record, because I'm all about complete disclosure, I believe that much of the early part of Genesis is didactic in nature and I am a follower (working on disciple) of Christ, I believe that God did create the universe and in complete control.

Your brother in Christ, Aaron.

[Bernie of www.Sciligion.org]

Hi Aaron,

The Bible says that the flood waters covered all the earth for 150 days. How could that possibly be a local flood?

Here's the passage:

Gen 7:
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

...Bernie

[Aaron]

Okay, I'll bite. If in fact the flood truly occurred, but did not in fact cover the entire earth, but only the expanse recognized by Noah as the world (his region). Is the flood in fact truth or not truth.

As to the possibility of locating evidence of the ark, I'm unsure that, due the nature of the construction material, it would be likely.

So the point being, if it cannot be empirically proven is it therefore untrue?