If I close my eyes I can see it, I can smell it. An aroma like this comes from just one thing in the world: a fresh-out-of-the-oven New York pizza. I see the beautiful round pie of deliciousness cut into equal scrumptious wedges. Picking up one of the mouthwatering slices, the cheese pulls from the adjacent slices revealing the gooiness of the mozzarella, the slice easily folds down the middle in my hand, for the crust is the perfect thickness; not too thick as to be cake like, you know, the stuff they make in Chicago; nor is it so thin as to be as hard as cardboard or crumbly like a cracker. The pointed end bows down in submission to my appetite. Then you see it, two or three drops of liquid gold: perfect pizza grease!
Wait, give me a second . . . I was lingering in my dream, having a drooling issue!
Ok, I’m back. Many people like an excess of toppings. Me, I’m a minimalist. Whether sausage, pepperoni, or a perfectly prepared plain cheese pizza, it is the greatest delicacy on earth. Astonishingly, my father was the only one I knew who could ruin a New York pizza. My dad liked anchovies. It is hard to admit this, to write this. I loved him so I try not to hold it against him. But one can only go so far. The family would have tolerated it, if he would only put those things on his own separate pizza, but no, he wanted to put it on half of our pizza. As all educated and civilized persons know, you cannot put a single anchovy on a lone slice without contaminating the whole pie. The anchovy fishiness spreads to the whole.
Wait, I’m write this as if I were speaking of truth. Clearly, I am making statements of my taste. There is no objective truth in the goodness of a New York pizza or the evil of anchovies. Even if I really think every person who has ever had a legitimate New York pizza would agree with me about the glory of the best pizza or the dread of anchovies. This being a true sign of a cultured individual.
We live in a fantasy world if we are not living based on what is real, what is true. If we allow our feelings and desires to dictate what the world is like or how we should live in it, we will be blown about by every new wind of the current fad. Truth is bedrock deep. It is the anchor that holds us against the storms of the convoluted nature of pop culture. New York pizza is great, but we cannot base our lives on it.
Let’s clarify the two distinct kinds of statements about which we are talking. There are truth statements and taste statements. It is vital for understanding that whether the statement is correct or not—true or false—is not the issue at this point. A truth statement can be wrong. This is a truth statement not necessarily a true statement. Truth is the type or kind of statement; we then determine if it is true.
If I say the earth is a box, not a sphere, I have made a statement about the world: a truth statement. This, as we all know, is not true. We could say it is a false statement, but that is an evaluation of the statement not the kind of statement it is. To be precise we should say it is a truth statement that upon evaluation is determined to be wrong or false.
Truth statements are propositions expressing conditions related to reality. A statement is correct to the extent it is in line with how the world really is. A statement about how we would like the world to be or how we think it should be is not a truth statement but an assertion of our taste; our taste for the kind of world we would like. A truth statement is correct or incorrect based on its correlation to reality. I can’t say the way you would want the world to be is wrong, you are talking about your preference not reality. I can disagree and even try to convince you of my preference but can’t really say you are wrong.
How do we know a truth statement is correct or incorrect? We evaluate the evidence for it. A truth statement will have enough evidence to allow for a judgment of the statement’s correlation to reality. What is real or valid in the cosmos is what is true. The quality and quantity of the evidence determines the extent to which we can make a definitive judgment about the statement.
A truth statement for which only limited facts or understanding exists for us to have sufficient certainty to make a definitive conclusion is still a truth statement, but one that we would have to hold making an assessment of its truth. We can make an estimate of the truth, such as an estimate of the time it would take to run five miles. An opinion or estimate about truth should come from a place of knowledge, experience, and study; not from a place of ignorance or wishful thinking.
What we are saying about these types of statements is a more technical way of speaking. As we normally are not very precise in how we express ourselves, we use “opinion” in ways that are confusing. We use it as synonymous with a statement of taste as in “chocolate, in my opinion, is the best flavor of ice-cream.” We also use it to speak about our opinion related to the legitimacy of a truth statement, as when we say, “In my opinion, Christianity is the most comprehensive faith, saying how the world truly is.”
In the first case, there are no facts to present in support the statement; the opinion is about my taste, my preference, for a flavor of ice-cream. Opinion and taste are used as synonyms. Taste statements are about my feelings, preferences, hopes and dreams. We would never do experiments to prove a taste type of statements. I may explain why I like chocolate or New York pizza. I may even have you try some to see if you would come to the same opinion I do, but we would not bring evidence or arguments to prove it.
The second case, the validity of Christianity is not a matter of taste but truth. Either Christianity is the correct system of belief to view the world, or it is not. My preference for or against Christianity is not an issue in this statement. When I use the word opinion in this statement, it is not an expression of taste, nor does it add any weight to the truth of it unless I am giving an expert judgment. I can present facts and arguments in support of the validity of Christianity. This is not a matter of taste. To say otherwise is to misunderstand the claims of Christianity and the nature of truth. Note again, we are not saying that the truth statement is correct; it may very well be false. The issue here, at this point is the kind of statement it is: a statement about reality.
Even when we lack complete information, it is not just a “maybe” statement with no evidence at all to support it. Having ideas of possible worlds with different chemical elements makes for good science fiction but are not to be confused with statements of truth on any level. They are just ideas. There is nothing wrong with speculative ideas, but we cannot base our worldview on unsubstantiated ideas or theories.
Another issue which can be confusing is making truth statements about one’s taste, such as “My kids loved peas growing up.” Loving peas is a matter of taste, but this statement is not a statement of taste but a truth statement. I am not saying peas are great but asserting my children’s preference for peas. It is a statement about my kids and peas. For the record, this is way wrong; none of my kids loved peas growing up.
If I said “peas are a great tasting vegetable” or “peas are the best” those would be statements of taste. We would all decide their suitability for ourselves without an issue of its truthfulness. It would be a matter of whether we agreed or disagreed with how they tasted, not whether it is correct or incorrect. The only issue related to truth here is whether I am being honest about my preference. I could be lying.
This is not the same for a truth statement. The accuracy of a truth statement has no relationship to what I feel about it, or whether I agree with it or not. The only issue is does it agree with reality. Gravity will drop you to the ground without a greater force to counteract it. This is true for all people, at all times, and in all places. No matter how strongly, sincerely, or loudly you disagree, jump off the roof and you will hit the ground.
“God exists.”
What kind of statement is it? Can’t be a question of taste. God’s existence is not based on my preference. Either He exists, or He doesn’t exist. If it is “my truth” with no concern for reality, He is at best a personal fantasy. But, we know this is not the truth this statement is making. Keep in mind calling this a truth statement is not the same as saying it is correct or true. That is the next step we take with the statement. First, we make a claim about the universe: a truth statement, then we work to determine if it is correct. True or correct not based on our preference for God’s existence, but on proofs and arguments.
Even if we question the presence of enough evidence to prove God’s existence, it would still be a statement of truth. It is a valid statement if there is enough evidence to make it at least plausible judgment more evidence is available to make a full determination. We can only make a judgment based on evidence in existence to date, with it being revisited as further evidence is available.
Even if the statement is wrong—God, in reality, does not exist—it is still a truth statement: an incorrect or wrong statement of truth. It is still a truth statement even if it is wrong or the person making the assertion is mistaken. This can be confusing, but a truth statement is a kind or type of statement. The truth of the statement is an evaluation of the statement. Two vastly different issues.
For the record, God does exist; Christ’s return will be all the evidence needed to end the discussion!
How do we distinguish between a statement of truth and of taste? We need to ask: what is the nature of the issue? If it is not a matter of my preferences, feelings, or desires, but a matter of facts, it is a truth statement. If it is a claim about reality, again it is a truth statement as in the fact that I love New York pizza. Be careful here; I am not saying anything about pizza but about what I think of pizza. This is the same as saying “I grew up in New York.” Both are statements about reality. The statement of my growing up in New York is not about my preference. I actually preferred living in Florida, but I can’t say I never lived in New York because I liked Florida better.
Note that nowhere has it been stated that truth statements are limited to the physical world. Truth statements also include those of a spiritual nature, as in the statement about God’s existence. The miraculous is not rejected out of hand. The test for their validity is different than things we can touch or see, but they can be evaluated. As Hamlet said: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
On the other hand, does the statement deal with what I prefer? Do my feelings about it have a bearing on it? Is it related to something that cannot be proved even with more evidence? These would be indicators of a statement of taste as in to opening paragraphs about the wonder of a New York pizza. No matter how long someone’s list of the virtues of a Chicago pizza is, it will not move me from the supremacy of a New York pizza. You will have to decide your preference for pizza yourself. This is your choice, no right or wrong here.
Wow, that was a lot to deal with. Fantastic job getting though this post. It got a bit philosophical there, but you did it. You may need to read it again. It is ok if it takes a few times to genuinely get it. If you are struggling, that is good; we grow through our struggles.
In a subsequent post, we will look deeper into the concept of opinion. What they can and cannot claim. There is such a thing as an invalid opinion. You can like whatever food you like but unlike taste, opinions about truth can be wrong and invalid.
Until the next time we see you here at CultivatingFaith.org, God Bless! #CultivatingFaithOrg
Photo By: Alessio Orrù #390599490