What is truth?   A common definition is ‘agreement with fact or reality’.   Religions claim to be able to provide truth about the universe.   But do religious people really understand the meaning of the word?

Sam Harris (author of The End Of Faith) and Andrew Sullivan (author of The Conservative Soul) have been having a debate about this (Part 1 and Part 2).  The question was  ‘Is Religion Built Upon Lies’? which is essentially probing the truth of religion (and Sullivan’s Christian religion in particular).  Throughout this discussion, I think Andrew Sullivan constantly misuses the word truth.  

In his first post, he speaks about fundamentalism and says to Harris, "You find it troubling, I think, purely because it upholds truths that cannot be proved empirically or even, in some respects, logically."   Yes, fundamentalism makes claims to truth.  However, the fact that we cannot prove them empirically or logically (and in fact, many of them we have zero evidence for, and even evidence against) means that these claims aren’t truth, they are just unsubstantiated truth-claims.

Later in the same post, Sullivan paraphrases the Pope in saying "I believe that God is truth and truth is, by definition, reasonable."  he goes on to say, "Science cannot disprove true faith; because true faith rests on the truth; and science cannot be in ultimate conflict with the truth."  I suppose he’s right that science cannot be in ultimate conflict with the truth.  Science is simply a process or method for discovering truth (the only reliable process for this that humanity has discovered).  

But what does it mean to say that ‘faith rests on the truth’?  Faith, in the sense that Sullivan and Harris are using it (Harris defined it in his first post) means belief in a proposition without sufficient evidence for doing so (sometimes even in spite of evidence to the contrary).  The phrase ‘faith rests on the truth’ is therefore nonsense.   ‘God is truth’ is equal nonsense.   

In his third post, Sullivan says "My response rests on an understanding of truth that is not exhausted by empiricism or materialism. I do not believe, in short, that all truth rests on scientific premises and can be ‘proven’ by empirical or scientific methods."   Further on he says, "… there may well be a higher truth beyond empirical inquiry or proof."  In other words, he is prepared to call ‘truth’ things which are not in agreement with fact or reality, things which by definition, are not truth.

In his most recent post, Sullivan says: "… God is love. … [This claim] can be reasoned about, but its truth itself is not reasonable or reachable through reason alone. But I believe it to be true – not as a fable or as a comfort or as a culture. As truth." (Italics in original.)  But merely proclaiming something as truth does not make it true.   And the statement that the truth of the claim cannot be ascertained through reason is just stupid.  That leaves what?  That the truth of the claim can only be reached by believing it?   Simply believing things is not a valid way to discover truth – the only valid way we know of is the scientific process.

Religious use of the word truth seems to be a kind of doublespeak.  Sullivan calls his religious beliefs ‘truth’, even though he admits "I know of no "proof" that could dissuade me of [the existence of God], since no "proof" ever persuaded me of it."   He seems fundamentally unable or unwilling to separate his hopes from reality.  In not separating fact from wishful thinking, he is blurring the line between the two and trying to cover it up with a grotesque twisting of the meaning of the word truth.  And he’s certainly not the only Christian I have seen doing this.

One of the things that has long puzzled me is that many religious people I have met don’t really seem to care about truth.  I know people who will freely admit that there is no evidence whatsoever for their religious beliefs (and even evidence against).  But they argue that they believe anyway because their religion provides comfort.  They don’t want to imagine the world existing without them, they don’t want to die, or they want to think they always have a friend to talk to (even if he’s invisible).   I can see how these ideas would be comforting.  I wouldn’t mind believing myself, but only if they are true.  I can’t see anything comforting about believing a delusion or a lie.

That’s probably why I’m an atheist.  I would rather know the truth, even if it’s not all love and peace, paradise and perfection.  If you don’t have truth, what do you have?