Boy! Before getting to know the truth, you would want to know what ‘truth’ is. Let’s begin with the definition of ‘truth’ then.
(1a) Definition of ‘truth’:
Correct information or knowledge about any ‘entity’.
(1b) The ‘entity’ can be:
An organism, an object, an event, a phenomenon, a process, a system, an institution or organization, etc.
(1c) These entities could be of the past, current/present, or the future.
(2) And we can ask two primary questions about these entities:
Question their existence or occurrence, and question their nature.
Example 1: A current person named Elon Musk the founder of Tesla, regarding whom we might ask whether the person actually exists or is just a fictional character, i.e.; ask about his existence. And also ask what his nature is like. We can also ask about the ‘events’ in his life, about their nature and their occurrence.
(3a) How do we ‘know’ about these? How do we arrive at the ‘truth’ (get the correct information or knowledge) about these?
There is only one way: observation or experience!
(3b) Observation(s) could either be direct (sensory) or indirect (through instruments or devices).
(3c) And then we draw ‘Inference(s)’ based upon our observations/ experiences.
Example 2: Millions of people have observed Elon Musk and his life events, directly or indirectly (through TV, radio, internet, etc.). Then some inferences are inevitably drawn from these observations, like: Elon must be smart and hard working as he has founded several ultra-successful companies.
This is an example of inference about the nature of an entity (a person), drawn from observation of the nature of other entities (successful companies).
One from Physics, example 3: The attraction or repulsion directly observed between pieces of magnets leads us to infer the existence of the Magnetic Force and hence the Magnetic Field through which the magnetic force acts!
This is an example of inference drawn about the existence of a physical phenomenon (force) and a physical entity (field) from the observation of another physical phenomenon (repulsion or attraction between magnets).
Take another example, from metaphysics, example 4: Incredibly intricate complexity of nature observed around us, directly or indirectly, leads us to infer the existence of a Master Planner-Creator (or God).
This is an example of inference drawn about a metaphysical entity (God) from the observation of physical entities (natural world and the universe).
Another one from Islamic philosophy, example 5: The seemingly ‘beyond-human’ nature of the Quran directly observed by us leads us to infer that it is from God.
This is an example of inference drawn about the source of an entity (a book) from the observed nature of the entity (the book).
(4a) Inference could either be Inductive or Deductive.
(4b) Inductive inferences are primary and provide us with our most fundamental premises or truths or facts.
(4c) Deductive inferences are secondary as they are derived (deduced) from fundamental premises.
Let’s try to understand points 4b and 4c through Example 2 used above. If it is always observed that successful people are those who are smart and hardworking by nature, then an inductive inference could be drawn that ‘all successful people are smart and hardworking’ or ‘only smart and hardworking people can become successful’. This inductively inferred result thus becomes an axiom or fact (or law) which we then use as a premise for our reasoning about Elon Musk, as follows:
All successful people are smart and hardworking :- Premise drawn through inductive inference upon observation.
Elon Musk is successful :- Another premise drawn upon observation.
Therefore, Elon Musk is smart and hardworking :- Deductive conclusion drawn from the above premises.
Although, instead of reasoning it out, we could have directly observed Elon’s smartness and hard work! Nevertheless, the example drives home the assertion made in 4b and 4c!
(5a) When a large number of people repeatedly observe and report the same thing, the truth of the matter becomes more established. Observations which repeatedly confirm previous observations, build our confidence in the correctness of our premises or facts. That is, if we keep observing that successful people are smart and hardworking, our confidence in our premise would keep growing until we observe someone different, i.e.; a person who is successful but not smart and hard working. This would then force us to modify or update our premise to: Almost all successful people are smart and hard working.
(5b) Thus, observations/experiences and then inferences drawn upon our observations, form the bases of our knowledge. There is no other way of knowing! This holds for both the existence and nature of current entities.
(5c) As regards past entities, we rely on historical accounts which are again based upon observations by people of a particular time or period of history. Accounts which are repeatedly concurrent get established as historical facts or truths. Example, the repeatedly concurrent accounts or reports regarding Aristotle make his existence an undeniable fact!
(5d) As regards our knowledge of future entities, we use relevant past and/or current facts and then make calculated predictions or estimations of the future.
(6) Time now to summarize our understanding so far into a table or a ‘matrix of epistemology’ as I like to call it!
| Foundational truths achieved from | Derived truths achieved from | |||
| Entity | Past | Existence/Occurrence | Historical accounts: induction upon observations reported repeatedly and concurrently | Deduction |
| Entity | Past | Nature | Historical accounts: induction upon observations reported repeatedly and concurrently | Deduction |
| Entity | Current | Existence/Occurrence | Induction upon observations reported repeatedly and concurrently | Deduction |
| Entity | Current | Nature | Induction upon observations reported repeatedly and concurrently | Deduction |
| Entity | Future | Existence/Occurrence | Estimations based upon past and/or current truths/facts | Deduction |
| Entity | Future | Nature | Estimations based upon past and/or current truths/facts | Deduction |
Thus our primary or first facts/truths are derived from observations and then induction, and then strengthened by repeated observations and concurrent reports. There’s no other way of knowing things first hand! The natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.), the social sciences (economics, politics, etc.), all work on this very principle. Point no. (5a) is thus essential in this regard and leads us to another important issue: the role of ‘universal consensus’ in the determination of truths.
‘Universal consensus’ as a criterion of truth
As already discussed, primary truths can be obtained only through induction upon observation and concurrent reporting. Often, repeated corroborative observations and concurrent reports become so large scale, they garner universal consensus. And, as long as there is universal consensus about the existence of observable entities, the truth of these matters cannot be disputed. We do not dispute the existence of Aristotle although we haven’t seen him, since his existence has been reported repeatedly and unanimously. Likewise, I accept the existence of places and things that I’ve never visited or seen, say, Brazil, or the Statue of Liberty, since their existence has been concurrently reported. Such things become the collective truth of a society or community, or humanity at large.
But there could be several aspects regarding Aristotle or Brazil which are not reported concurrently, consequently, there wouldn’t be consensus over these issues, thus their truth would be hard to ascertain. Lack of universal consensus leaves matters open to scepticism. But sometimes, even universal consensus doesn’t guarantee truth!
Repeated concurrent observations through our naked eyes that the Sun rises up from the East, goes up, and then comes down to set in the West, led to an inference that the Earth was the centre of the solar system, with the Sun and other planets going around the Earth, and interestingly, this was almost universally agreed upon for centuries (prior to the 15th century C.E.)! This model of the solar system, called ‘geocentrism’, was a near collective truth of humanity until further observations were made which proved this understanding to be false, leading to the new collective truth that the Earth and all other planets revolve around the Sun (a model of the solar system called ‘heliocentrism’).
Take another example, light being a wave or streams of particles. The particle nature of light was almost universally agreed upon during the 18th century C.E, for about a hundred years after Newton proposed it in 1675. But three new observations in the early 19th century C.E swayed the consensus in favour of the wave picture of light! Thus, universal truths could be impermanent and disproved with new observations. This is the reason why it is said that induction can provide probable truths only, not definite truths. We have already read this in my article on logic.
Inferences pertaining to the nature of entities, rather than the existence of entities, is more prone to suffer from this impermanence; for instance, the existence of the solar system is unlikely to be ever disputed, but the knowledge regarding the nature of the solar system being geocentric or heliocentric, was prone to be revised with new observations. Likewise, the existence of Elon Musk is improbable to be challenged, but aspects regarding his nature are susceptible to disagreements and revisions with time. Same for the nature of light which has been debated and disputed while the existence of light is a given!
Not to say that the knowledge regarding existence of entities can never suffer from this impermanence. For instance, a person vaguely observes some phenomena in a deep forest, vaguely due to some sensory obstacles, which he misinterprets to be due to a ‘monstrous cave man’. When he relays his interpretation to his people, his authority amongst his community might lead to all people agreeing with his misinterpretation and eventually this notion of a ‘monstrous cave man’ in the said forest would become an established truth of that community, despite being utterly false! Superstitions are generally grounded upon similar phenomena. Thus, not just the nature of entities, but also the existence of entities could be falsely agreed upon by communities, and sometimes even by humanity at large! Thus universal consensus is a probable evidence of truth, not a definite evidence. But, when ‘impermanent truths’ are built into a ‘theory’ which finds practical use, say in technology, then its truth value goes several notches up! Usefulness is thus another defining criterion of truth.
Sample this: it’s a universal observation that things left to fall come down to the ground. The existence of the force of gravity is inferred from this and innumerable other similar observations. The existence of gravity is universally agreed upon by scientists, but its nature has been debated as to whether it’s an action-at-a-distance force as suggested by Newton or is it simply an effect of the curvature of spacetime as suggested by Einstein. Notwithstanding the disagreement, the Newtonian theory of gravity as an action-at-a-distance force found useful application in the accurate explanation of planetary orbits and their motions, their periods of revolution, seasons, etc.; thus found further currency as an established truth which is still taught today in colleges at the undergraduate level, although challenged later by Einstein’s general theory of relativity at the graduate level! Thus, theories are analysed for their truth differently from individual entities. Hence, time now to understand what theories are and how to analyse their truth value.
Theories as wholesome bodies of knowledge
(7a) Once a finding gets established through repeated observations and concurrent reports, it can either remain as an individual truth/fact/law or other truths might be deduced from it to give a body of truths/facts/laws.
(7b) Multiple related truths/facts/laws, coupled with may be some estimations/predictions form a framework of knowledge called ‘theory’. Let’s take an example and understand what a ‘theory’ really looks like.
i. We know (through observation) that smart and hardworking people become successful (rich and famous) in life.
ii. But that’s not always the case as it’s also observed that sometimes even hardworking geniuses fail to make it big in life.
iii. Yet sometimes, observations attest to the irony that dumb sloths too get lucky and end up becoming rich and famous at some point(s) in their lives!
iv. Thus, being smart and hardworking are not the only factors which determine success or failure.
v. Right direction, right planning, right guidance, grit, determination, discipline, perseverance, ability to learn from mistakes and then rise up from failures, are some of the other factors which too influence the chances of success. Lacking any or some of these might just condemn even an intelligent slogger to mediocrity.
vi. Likewise, a stroke of luck by birth and family fortunes might just enable an idiot to be a celebrity millionaire!
We could possibly string together hundreds of such facts here in a big framework which can be called a ‘theory of success’. The parts of the theory all integrate and work together like the parts of a machine to get to a desired result or function. The desired function of a theory of success would be to explain the phenomena of success and failure. You get the point? A set of rules/laws/facts/ truths and/or some predictions/estimations, all combined in an integrated coherent whole to form a system/framework/body of knowledge called a ‘theory’.
(8a) Several theories can be constructed from the same set of facts, as inferences drawn from the primary facts also shape a theory. Different inferences drawn from the same facts and then put together or arranged differently would naturally produce different theories. Thus we could have several theories of success. Different motivational speakers do give you different theories of success!
(8b) Taken as a whole, the different theories would have differing levels of effectiveness, or might be equally effective but suitable differently to different people, times, places, scenarios, etc. This then leads to the next question: How do we judge the merit of a theory?
(9a) A ‘true’ theory would be:
(i) Correspondent (ii) Coherent (iii) Useful (iv) Robust (v) Advanced (vi) Predictive (vii) Elegant.
(9b) Correspondence: Testable things in a theory must be correct, that is, correspondent with external truths. Example: If a theory of success says that ‘discipline is necessary for success’, then for the theory to be reliable, this part of it must be proven to be true, and how do we test the truth of it? Through repeated observations and concurrent reports. We have already discussed that!
(9c) Coherence: All the parts of a theory must fit into the framework without any contradictions, like the parts of a machine working together in tandem without any mutual obstructions. This is in other words, parts corroborating the truth of each other. This is correspondence within, with internal truths!
(9d) Usefulness: A theory of success, for example, must have a positive impact in our lives. And a truly successful theory of success would be that which truly enables us to achieve success! A theory of the natural sciences is considered to be credible only if it is useful in explaining a plethora of observed phenomena. The better it fits the data, greater the explanatory scope it has, the more powerful is the theory considered to be. So that’s about the usefulness of theories.
(9e) Robustness: Must stand the test of time. When new observations come to light, a robust theory should be capable of explaining them all within its current framework or with minimum modifications to its existing structure. Like a powerful sponge, it should be able to soak in all that comes to it!
(9f) Advanced: This is about being ahead of time; being revolutionary, or ground breaking as you might call it! Super powerful theories have advanced features which make them jaw dropping. Like Einstein’s theory of special relativity, revealed in 1905, which caused a stir through its assertion that energy and mass are convertible or different forms of the same thing! Yes, you guessed it right, I’m referring to the most iconic formula of physics: E = mc2.
(9g) Predictive: This can also be taken under the usefulness part, (9d), as predictions could be considered to be a useful feature of a theory, enabling us to gauge plausible future findings, future state(s) of entities, future applications, etc. This can also be considered under (9f), as an aspect of an advanced theory, that is, a theory which makes predictions would be considered to be advanced. As an example, take again the special theory of relativity. Its prediction that mass can be converted to energy as per the relation E = mc2 was actually demonstrated to be useful for the production of nuclear energy. Take another prediction of the same theory, that time would dilate or slow down in a moving object, as compared to an object at rest. This was also proven to be useful in global navigation and thus finds application in the GPS. Now, besides being useful, these predictions can also be considered to be advanced features of the theory since they all were revolutionary ideas!
(9h) Elegance: Elegance, though not a necessary parameter of truth, is nevertheless a complementary parameter which enhances the appeal and probability of truth of a theory.
(10) Thus, a theory which has all the above features to the greatest extent, would be considered to be ‘more true’ than the others which lack one or more of these features. In the case of theories, it’s more about relative truth rather than absolute truth, as we talk about a ‘more correct’ theory or a ‘less correct’ theory, since rarely are elaborate theories proven to be ‘absolutely false’ or ‘totally false’. Thus we have multiple theories for the origin of the universe, and amongst the ones considered credible by physicists, the Big Bang theory is generally taken to be ‘more true’ than the others like the Multiverse theory and the Loop Quantum Cosmology which are taken to be ‘less true’! Determination of the truth of a theory is thus a multifarious enterprise and hence more difficult than ascertaining the truth of mere individual entities.
(11) Islam is a theory, a huge framework of knowledge which helps us to decipher our origins, place and purpose in the universe, and our end. It gives us spirituality, metaphysics, ethics, laws, social-economic-political outlook, and several other aspects, all knit together in a big structure, a theory, hence in our journey to determine whether Islam is true, we would approach it as a theory and thus analyse it in terms of the seven parameters elaborated above.