"Truth and the Authentic Life"

In recent months, there has been a growing interest in epistemology, how you know what you know. During polarized political times, there has been a challenge to the veracity of our leaders. Particularly significant have been the charges back and forth that one news source or another is “fake news” or propaganda. It has led to the average person asking, “how can I know what to know about the news?” As I have listened to comments back and forth, both on the media outlets and in private conversation, the critical question has been asked more pointedly: “how can you believe anything that you hear or read about the news?”

In times like these it is hard to think that the question of claims of truth and authenticity will be contained within the political and journalistic realm. Chances are that those questions will spill over into the religion and ethics. When we ask these questions, we are really asking questions of faith. You and I can probably believe what we see with our own eyes without a great deal of faith—except perhaps when you see an illusionist perform some feat. But what about anything that happens when you are not present? What about what we read in history, or in Scripture. It does take faith to believe the truth value of an historic event. It is also takes scholars to authenticate documents who testify to the truth value of an event to use the best techniques available to analyze the data. Ultimately, there will be an experiential component that will likely feed in to believing or not believing what is claimed to be true in documents. There will be knowledge of those who are adherents to the faith, including trusting that your family members and church leaders have been faithful to the original revelation that has been recorded in the religious documents.

These same methods are used in approaching how we should relate our faith to life. We ask, “what do our documents tell us to do?” We reflect on how people of our faith and/or our family have lived?” And even though we may depart from that for reasons of contemporaneity or other situations we have a good knowledge of how to live in civilized society and be true to our faith. We have a background in which to measure truth and authenticity when we see it, or when it is absent.

Perhaps it is this solid reference point that makes the situation so difficult today. There has always been yellow journalism—tabloids and pundits and hair-brained ideas all aimed to increase the profit of the “so-called journalists” who produce it. But by and large the phenomenon created by reality television and twitter and other instantaneous media of producing instant factoids have not driven the media, and have certainly not driven the world. Everything seems more up in the air, needing to be the subject of deliberation.

So, what do we do? We do what we have historically done. We establish the sources based on credible evidence of support from other sources. We use our experience to square what we are seeing and hearing with the truth claims. We discuss with family and friends what we are hearing and ask, “does it seem accurate? Does it seem to be true?” Ultimately, with input from varied sources of all kinds, we decide what seems to be true and authentic, and follow that path.

Not all sources are on the same level and have the same level of veracity. But the same criteria that we have always used can be applied to what we see and hear today. Above all, we do not forget to apply the twin criteria of reason and faith. Ultimately, we know for ourselves what we believe to be true and genuine. And we follow that route, even as Paul wrote to the Philippians: “Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of peace will be with you.”