How Can We Know Truth?

Philosophers have debated this question for centuries. The World Book Encyclopedia states: "The nature of truth has baffled people since ancient times, partly because people so often use the term true for ideas they find congenial and want to believe, and also because people so often disagree about which ideas are true."

Some people, including people I love, debate whether there is such a thing as objective truth. What's true for one person may not be true for another, they say. They believe what they believe because it works for them. Who cares if it's objectively true? Others say that although truth may exist, there is no way to know it with our limited human faculties.

I have no doubt that there is truth and there are lies. Furthermore, there are intentional and unintentional lies. An example I use is O.J. Simpson. There is an objective truth. Either he did what he was accused of doing or he did not. Objective truth exists independently of our opinion or our ability to discover it.

Truth can be proved to any of the following levels:

Beyond a doubt.
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Preponderance of evidence.
More likely than not.

There is no way to prove O.J. Simpson's guilt or innocence beyond a doubt. That would only be possible if a large number of people witnessed the crime and he was arrested on the spot.

Criminal trials require that an allegation be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury hears all evidence and arguments from both sides and tries to make this determination. Many people believe that O.J. Simpson was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but the jury did not think so. The jury heard all the available evidence before making their determination. Most people base their opinions on less evidence than that.

A preponderance of evidence is required in a civil trial. It is a less stringent test and explains why people who are acquitted of criminal charges may lose civil trials related to the same incident.

Sometimes an event is said to be "more likely than not". This is a very low level of proof.

To the greatest extent possible, information used in making a judgment as to whether something is true must be factual. Most human judgment is colored by opinions and preconceptions. One must be vigilant in the attempt to consider evidence objectively from all angles and guard against seeing only the information that supports one's preconceptions while dismissing information that does not.

It has been said that, "There is none so blind as he who will not see." It is impossible to convince someone who has closed his mind and does not want to consider evidence that contradicts his opinions. I'm writing this not to convince skeptics, but to assist those who, like me, are open to discovering unexpected truths and find blind faith insufficient.

Most of what any of us "know" is based on authority. For example, I have never been to China. I believe there is such a place as China based on authority. I've spoken with people who've been there. I've seen photos and films. I've seen it on the map. For the most part, I believe the authorities who have told me about China. Although it is possible that there is no such place as China and the authorities have bamboozled me, it seems highly unlikely. I fully expect that if I were to get on a plane bound for China, I would arrive in a real place.

I do not believe just anyone or anything based on authority. There are thousands of competing claims to truth in the world today. I test the authorities. If they conflict or don't make sense, I dig deeper. It isn't until I'm convinced that an authority is reliable that I believe it. Even after that, further factual evidence can persuade me I'm wrong.

For years, I believed Darwin's theory of evolution was true. That has changed. For years, I did not think the Bible was true. That has also changed.