Search for Truth

Some cringe from the search for truth because they find it difficult to do. I also find it hard to think deeply about things, but maybe no more than the physical pain and weariness of working in the yard or working at the computer for long hours. Granted, the search for truth is hard work, but then again most worthwhile endeavors are.

One person wrote: “Regarding our varied beliefs, I notice that most folks have some searching early in adulthood give or take and then settle on a ‘truth’ that fits their experience. As long as this truth doesn't leave them disenchanted at some point they spend the rest of their life shoring up their belief in that truth as opposed to continuing to seek for a potentially conflicting truth.”

I can't argue the point about early searching, although I know people who did not feel they found what the were looking for until quite an advanced age, and some who never did. There must be a basic human need to discover some 'truth' that helps us make sense of the world around us, some coherent world view that gives meaning to our lives.

The danger, as he suggests, is that we can potentially become comfortable and complacent in our cozy little paradigms, thus reject any possibility of exploring outside of it, especially in areas that might put our 'truths' to the text or in doubt. As a Baha'i, for example, I have had to struggle with the tendency to assume that the basic principle of the "independent search for truth" only applies while you are yet a 'seeker', i.e., before you become a 'believer', which could lead to a stagnation of the seeking process.

May I emphasize that anything I say is merely out of my own current, limited understanding, and that I fully hope to eventually grow in understanding to the point where I can refute my earlier statements. However, having clarified that, I also do not think it is necessary to wait until my understanding is perfect (it never will be) before sharing where my thought is at now, much less fear potential rebuttals, as I personally find it a wonderfully enriching exercise to painstakingly write out my thoughts and then carefully think through any responses I receive. Talking doesn't usually require / develop that kind of mental discipline, although it does have its own advantages.

Someone wrote: "I know it is all belief... and that there are no 'rational, well-grounded arguments' in faith." This depends on how you define "faith", and a Bahá'í would define it as "certain (i.e. sure) knowledge of something, and the positive actions that arise as a consequence". The faith a physician's patients have in her is based on her academic background, years of experience, current position, etc. The faith they and she have in her prescriptions is based on long-time observations of predictable results given similar circumstances. Once they and she know these things, it is not necessary to question every little detail of every successive case, and healing comes more easily.

There is a certain trust and confidence established, which facilitates action, like the faith you have in the floor holding you up or the sun rising tomorrow. Likewise, my faith in Baha'u'llah's prescriptions for the individual and for humanity as a whole are based on my first having carefully scrutinized His "credentials" and then having seen the marvelous effects of His Teachings when put into practice throughout the world. Interestingly, the necessary relationship between faith, knowledge and action is leading more and more authors to write about the "faith of the scientist" and the "science of faith".

I agree that "the idea that you can use the writings of a religion to prove its validity is the ultimate in circuitous and therefore invalid arguments", unless your approach is to show how those writings have transformed individuals and societies for the better. In this case, the effect of the writings on the world would be one proof of the validity of a religion, which I find to have been the case throughout recorded history. The people's response to the holy books of the world's great revealed religions seems to have been the principal cause, whether directly or indirectly, of the rise of the great civilizations, and their forgetfulness of the spirit of those books, the cause of their downfall.

Yes, "Seekers seek till they have found" but I see my situation vis-à-vis the Baha'i Faith as similar to that of a student who enters a university as one stage of his search, but then the real search begins: to learn as much as possible. The wonderful thing about this "university" is that it not only allows but encourages the investigation of divergent / alternative approaches (as opposed to fundamentalism, which discourages / prohibits this). One is free and even urged to question former understandings, and there is no priesthood that is authorized to impose his/her own understanding on you. Nobody claims to "have the truth", but rather to be immersed in a never-ending process of discovering it.

In this "university", there is no one "right" answer and the rest "wrong", but rather many different angles from which to look at the same object of study - the more the better - as each adds to the wealth of understanding of all. Here, truth and reality are synonymous. The existence of an objective reality / truth is accepted, but not the notion that any individual or group of human beings has been able to grasp more than an infinitesimal part of it.

The best thing of all is that knowledge is not attained for its own sake, but rather as a tool to be more effective in learning how best to serve the advancement of society. Yes, I am comfortable in this "university", although it has a way of making me feel uncomfortable with what I have achieved so far, challenging me to question my basic assumptions and even to start my education all over again if necessary.

On the occasion of April Fool's Day, 2000, I received a graphic titled “Where is the Black Spot?”, which lead me to reflect on a trick that we, the human race, have played on ourselves for too long already. How strange that SCIENTIFIC POSITIVISM (a delusion that had such a powerful effect on the popular philosophy of the XX Century and still misleads many masses) should have placed such blind faith on our physical senses and the instruments that extend them, rejecting the validity of the other three sources of knowledge: logic or reason, revelation, and intuition.

True, logic and reason are limited by the basic assumptions that they part from. Otherwise they would not lead to such diverse and even contradictory conclusions. Revelation, too, depends on rational interpretation in order to become applicable, and thus has ended in sectarian division and conflict. And intuition is often hard to distinguish from imagination and/or desire, leading many astray. Yet the physical senses are also limited in power, and have often lead to illusions of reality, as the attached test demonstrates, and has been shown time and again throughout the history of science.

Only the confluence of these four rivers into the sea of knowledge can lead to true understanding. Their combination, and not their segregation, is what has contributed most to the true progress of civilization. Our passionate attachment to one or the other, in exclusion of the rest, has only lead to blindness and error.

So where is the black spot? This question, like so many others, can only be answered by one willing to approach the issue from different perspectives and piece together a response that satisfies the criteria of each.

I recognize that my words may be full of the "missionary zeal" that is characteristic of one who has found something so tremendously awesome and earth-shattering that they just can't keep quiet about it, as was the case with Socrates. But what true lover can be still and hold his tongue, having once gazed upon the ravishing countenance of his beloved? I say, more power to him!

It certainly is not my purpose to upset anybody, but rather to contribute a differing viewpoint to the general search to understand God's Word and Will for mankind. Because it is not a matter of not reading or not accepting His Word, but rather of seeking to understand it better every day. For what true believer can claim to have understood completely the full significance of even one phrase of what Jesus and others sent by God have taught?

I think the fact that many have actually made such a preposterous, vain, arrogant, haughty, proud, conceited, and pompous claim is why Religion has broken up into so many sects (i.e. divisions), each claiming to have a monopoly on Truth and blaming the rest of not being faithful to God's Covenant with humankind. These are the "false prophets", who are wolves in sheep's clothing that go about dividing up the flock. Let us not fall into that trap, for if anything is evil, that is. (It is interesting to note that the word "prophet" in the New Testament and Apocryphal Books is used to mean "teacher" or "predicator", which is quite different from the meaning commonly given the word nowadays.)

There seems to be a pattern of very vehemently defending those interpretations of the Bible that are literal, but being much more lenient about interpretations that are not. Why is that? For example, Christ said we must be baptized with water and fire. The fact that "fire" has been interpreted symbolically explains that fact that you don't see too many Christians going around with "baptismal burns" on their bodies.

My point is, how does one choose which passages to interpret literally and which not? Obviously there is no simple answer, or else all of Christianity would be united in their views. I believe that in order to do so, we need to make use of our God-given faculty of reason and the fruits of scientific study, and that in general terms, whatever literal interpretation does not stand this test needs to be studied more deeply.

Fortunately, it is not necessary to have all the information in order to make sense of the world, as data is not the same as understanding. Any understanding we have is necessarily limited with regard to our object of study, as the former is just a map or model of the latter. We may think that some maps are better than others, or that some are better for certain purposes than others, but in the end, a map is not the territory. Here is an interesting illustration of how incomplete or even incorrect info can lead to truth:

"I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid aoccdrnig to rsceearh at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."

(June 21, 2003)

Note: The opinions and views expressed in this article are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of VirtualBahai or any institution of the Baha’i Faith.