January 24, 2003

• Burden of Truth -

  
  

  I've written before about the variables that go into deciding whether or not a propostion is true.  I've even written a blog or two on what it means to say that anything is true.  Usually when I talk about truth I'm talking about spiritual, moral, or philosophical Truth.  You know the Truth with the really really big T on the front.

  
  

  Most of the time we don't deal with Truth, we deal with truth.  Truth with a little t is the value we assign to a proposition we think is likely to be true, so we act as though it's true even though we can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt.  When I was studying business law, my professor explained the difference between Truth, and the two types of legal truth.  Truth happens when you get the ball all the way into the endzone.  (I'm talking American football here.)  You've battled your way through all opposition and the barriers have all dropped behind as you sprint before the cheering crowd, cross the line and spike the ball.

  
  

  In legal truth, criminal cases, a jury is asked to decide if a defendant is truly guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Reasonable doubt means that the prosecutor has moved the ball to the point where the endzone can be seen.  Obstacles remain, there are questions unanswered, but from this position the ball could be kicked between the posts for a fieldgoal.  In civil cases, truth is decided by preponderance of the evidence.  This type of truth is literally decided by which ever side has even the slightest edge at the end of presentation.  If the ball is on the 49 yard line - that's sufficient "proof" to assign guilt and assess penalties.

  
  

  My sense of justice is frequently offended by the difficulty of obtaining proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  I've watched more than one case in which the prosecutor whould have been able to get a conviction but missed the one critical (to jurors) question that blocked the kick at the last minute.  But, I've also breathed a sigh of relief that in cases were there wasn't a smoking gun a conviction could be obtained on the basis of strong circumstantial evidence.  The circumstantial nature of evidence isn't enough to cause a jury to disregard it.  Barring a confession or a videotape, all evidence is to one degree or another "circumstantial."  A fingerprint may prove that the defendant handled the gun, but doesn't prove that he fired it.  DNA evidence sould prove that the defendant was in the house, but can't prove she was there on the night in question.

  
  

  My sense of proportion is offended when I meet someone who demands (or claims) the standard of Philosophical Truth for a proposition upon which one must eventually act one way or the other.  Only a being with complete, infinite, all-encompassing, universal awareness and the complete, infinite, all-encompassing, universal ability to understand all the implications of any given proposition could ever claim to possess the Truth.  All the rest of us live to one degree or another in that shadow of doubt. 

  
  

  Refusing to decide for because the Truth cannot be proven is the same thing as deciding against even if the shadow is faint.  I've done this a time or two when I didn't want to face the implications of the evidence before me.  But, in the end, my cowardice didn't make it untrue, it just led me to make foolish choices, mostly leaving me with the consequences of denial and self-deception. 

  
  

  There have been times that I ran ahead of the evidence and made a decision before all the facts were gathered.  In this "rush to judgment," I've found that there is plenty of time later to regret the poor construction, the fine print, or the sly disclaimer.  My laziness up front means I usually have to work twice as hard in the end to cleam up the mess from the first go 'round and then do it right.

  
  

  Claiming possession of the Truth is the same as claiming that you are in fact God.  This is one I've been accused of once or twice.  Invariably my accuser is someone who either has less information than I used to make my choice and assumes that I've taken a "leap of faith."  Or my accuser has made a different decision based on the same information and considers my choice to be an affront to their own.  (In other words, I've known a couple people who took it personally that I didn't agree with them.)  On the other hand, acknowledging that I don't have the Truth in my possession isn't the same thing as admitting total ignorance.  But, I've also experienced the occasional situation in which a person who really wanted the Truth felt that my failure to offer it was the same as a denial that it even exists.

  
  

  Last weekend, I picked up a copy of Christianity Today magazine because the cover featured a author/teacher I particularly appreciate.  In the interview he discussed his feelings and reaction to a charge of heresy levied against him some years back.  I nodded and smiled in understanding of his position and tsked over the actions of his accusers.  I find it extremely distasteful that at any time members of any religious affliation find time and energy to worry about whether all their constituent members toe the party line.  Throughout history all attempts to squelch heresy have led to serious offenses on the part of the prosecutors whether they were Christian, Islamic, Hindustani or members of the first church of Purple Cowdom.

  
  

  Also in the current issue of Christianity Today there is notice that a group of very well known and respected contemporary theologians (Open Theists) are facing charges of heresy from the Evangelical Theological Society.   The works of these men are well known to me, and I was surprised, a bit outraged, and then finally sad when I read of this action lodged against them.  I am also familiar with the works of some of the members who voted to launch the "inquiry."  I've read books written by the accusing men promoting theological positions based more on traditional church doctrine than on Biblical texts.  However, the charges they have written claim that the men in question undermine the "inerrancy" of scripture by teaching and publishing conclusions that diverge from the traditional position of the church.  {0-o}* 
  
  So I'm led through my knowledge of both sides to conclude that in this case the accusers feel threatened by an alternative vision of truth.  There is an old saying among lawyers, "when the facts are against you, argue the law; when the law is against you, argue the facts; when both are against you, call the other side names."  How sad that we've come so far and yet have not come far enough to leave behind this reprehensible practice.

  
  

  From the cowardice that rejects new truth,
  From the laziness that accepts half-truth,
  From the arrogance that claims all truth,
  Deliver me, O Lord of TRUTH.

  
  

  
  

  Ancient Prayer

  
  

  
  

   

  
  

  
  

   

  
  

  
  

  *(I love the little eyebrow guy that Lucky uses - it's entirely possible that I've written this whole blog just so I could put him in.)

  • 11:11 am
  • 18 Comments