What Is Truth?

Like Andrew, I'm withholding comment on Christopher Hitchens' anti-God broadside, since I have a review of it forthcoming in the next Claremont Review of Books. One thing I didn't get a chance to take up in the review, though, is the famous quote from Gotthold Lessing that Hitchens uses as an epigraph for one of his chapters, a quote that also serves as the epigraph for Andrew's entire book. It follows below:

The true value of a man is not determined by his possession, supposed or real, of Truth, but rather by his sincere exertion to get the Truth. It is not possession of the Truth, but rather the pursuit of Truth by which he extends his powers and in which his ever-growing perfectability is to be found. Possession makes one passive, indolent and proud. If God were to hold all truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left hand only the steady and diligent drive for Truth, albeit with the proviso that I would always and forever err in the process, and to offer me the choice, I would with all humility take the left hand, and say: Father, I will take this - the pure Truth is for You alone.

Now this sounds very high-minded and impressive, but it seems to me absolute hogwash. Of course one should not wish to possess a "supposed" truth that is not in fact the truth at all, and nor should one confuse the possession of a partial truth with a complete one, and thereby close off all paths of exploration and inquiry. But the idea that honest error might be preferable to Truth itself could only appeal to someone who doesn't believe that any such Truth exists to begin with. It's a windier way of saying "it's the journey, not the destination," which is likewise a cliche that crumbles upon close inspection. The journey is only better than the destination if the destination turns out to be a disappointment, and not the place you hoped to arrive at after all. Hunger may be preferable to a disappointing meal, but not to a delicious Thanksgiving dinner, and pursuing a beautiful woman is only better than marrying her if you discover, after the wedding, that she is not the woman that you believed her to be. Questing, hoping, searching, anticipating - all of these experiences have their virtues, but their virtues are dependent upon the thing that you're questing for turning out to be worthwhile, and if it does then only a fool would choose to keep it forever out of reach. The quest for the Double Helix was exciting and fun, by all accounts, but I sincerely doubt that James Watson and Francis Crick would have preferred to have had it continue on for their entire lives, with the truth about DNA permanently concealed in God's right hand.

Indeed, if you state at the outset of a journey that you don't want the destination, then you've essentially ruined your travels before taking a single step. Though if you're midway through the journey, uncertain where you're going and worried that you've been taking the wrong path, I suppose the Lessing line is as good a way as any to justify your wanderings, while looking down on those poor fools who claim to have reached a destination of some sort, and whom you might otherwise be tempted to envy. Better to accuse them of indolence and passivity, just as a bachelor who has been thwarted in love might persuade himself that his happily married friends are locked in prison, and he alone is free.

In Hitchens' case, of course, it's pure posturing, since his own much-trumpeted skepticism starts and ends with the truth claims of religion - and there, he's less a Lessingesque searcher than an old-fashioned dogmatic materialist - while his writings about science evince an almost (but not quite) charming naivete about the impossibly bright future that awaits humanity once we've slipped the shackles of superstition. It's not surprising, I suppose, but it was rather dispiriting, while reading God Is Not Great, to see the great contrarian and gimlet-eyed debunker turn out to be a just another techno-utopian after all.

Comments

Re: "The quest for the Double Helix was exciting and fun, by all accounts, but I sincerely doubt that James Watson and Francis Crick would have preferred to have had it continue on for their entire lives, with the truth about DNA permanently concealed in God's right hand."

This is true. On the other hand, I'm sure the discovery of the double helix was much more exciting for Watson and Crick than it is for high school or college students, hearing about it for the first time.

Posted by Jim W | May 3, 2007 2:21 PM

I'd agree that Lessing is wrong here; it would theoretically be much better to have "The Truth" that to continue searching for it aimlessly...

But I am prepared to endorse a weaker version of this claim. Given that Truth (of existence, morality, etc... The 'Big Questions') is clearly so controversial, shouldn't we be skeptical as to whether or not we've found it? This doesn't eliminate having an educated opinion, but I do thing we should fear someone's certainty.

I'd certainly call myself a skeptic of religion. The religious types who think I'm wrong I have no quarrel with. But those who claim to know I'm wrong strike me as having an inflated opinion of their own ability as truth-seekers.

Posted by Phaedrus | May 3, 2007 2:28 PM

A person like Hitchens (or Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins, or, hell, Penn Teller) makes it very hard for me to want anything to do with atheism. I don't believe in God, I guess, and am deeply opposed to religion in government matters. But I am absolutely infuriated by the public face of atheism. I mean I simply don't understand why anyone who is advocating a minority position would work so strenuously to heap scorn and contempt on the people they are trying to convert. I can't imagine a worse advocate for his own beliefs than Richard Dawkins. But I suppose convincing other people isn't point. I suspect the pretensions to superiority and iconoclasm are themselves the point.

There's a book review of Dawkins latest book from the London review of books that expresses how I feel very well.

Posted by Freddie | May 3, 2007 4:06 PM

Dennett and Dawkins come across with a very different tone to me. I like both, although not having read Dawkins' latest stuf, I have been told by reliable people that he is over the top. The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype are still important contributions though.

Posted by theCoach | May 3, 2007 4:36 PM

This might be theoretically true, but most humans are hard-wired to appreciate the journey. It makes us more likely to do the journey.

Our brains receive difference endorphins when pursuing a woman than when living with her.

Posted by Tony V | May 3, 2007 5:51 PM

Actually, Dawkins and company are doing an important service. In an era of emerging theocracy around the world, we need voices to call out against irrational beliefs. For example, there seems to be a litmus test of belief for the US presidential candidates. They avoid issues that have real substance and talk about issues that appeals to the evangelicals who in turn use the rhetoric of religion to incite the base. In the meantime, polite people sit back and think that it will all blow over, it not being polite to point out just how irrational the beliefs are really. The problem is one of fighting for the base, convincing them that it's time to move on as a species. So if you have to rail against the most obnoxious of the beliefs and believers, so be it. As far as advocates go, who would you choose? Carl Sagan is no longer with us, and quite frankly I prefer Richard Dawkins to a Madaline Murray O'Hare type. If you listen or actually read Dawkins you might not think him the pretentious iconoclast you perceive him to be. The LBR by Terry Eagleton of The God Delusion was not a review of the book as much as it was a personal attack on Dawkins. Read the book and draw your own conclusions.

Posted by reboho | May 3, 2007 6:37 PM

Read the book and draw your own conclusions.

I did and I have.

Again-- I don't like theocracy (although I also don't like the hysterical way the word is thrown around on blogs). And, yes, on matters of policy, I'm almost certain to ally myself more with Dawkins and Dennett than with Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson. But that doesn't change the fact that I deeply loathe the public face of atheism that those men have created, or that I have enormous philosophical differences with them. I don't believe that I have to ally with people I abhor simply because the alternative that they suggest seems worse. You say "we need voices to call out against irrational beliefs." But in doing so you've already given up the game; you're instantly dismissing billions of people living and the enormous majority of human beings who have ever lived. You're not interested in anyone hearing the voice speaking out. You're just interested in heaping contempt on the people you're speaking about.

Posted by Freddie | May 3, 2007 6:47 PM

Now this sounds very high-minded and impressive, but it seems to me absolute hogwash.

Amen. We don't give A's for effort, it's the results that count.

Posted by TW Andrews | May 3, 2007 6:49 PM

what's so ridiculous about this is that Lessing was a religious thinker, a pantheist of sorts - not an orthodox believer of course but certainly not the sort of committed atheist that Hitchens seems to be.
While the above quotation is may be philosophically unconvincing it seems entirely consistent with the classic protestant emphasis on humility in the face of sin.

Posted by berger | May 3, 2007 6:50 PM

I think you have put you finger on the disconnect. I don't agree that calling out belief as irrational is holding people in contempt, only the belief. And speaking of heaping contempt, unbelievers have been on the receiving end for quite some time by those who would convert them. There is a difference between heaping contempt on irrational ideas and getting personal. That is why I think Dawkins, et al, is tarred with the pretentious iconoclast label. It's been awhile since I've read the book but I don't think he was ever trying to personally ridicule believers. I agree that it would not be a good strategy. But he has to step on toes in order to get his point across. For example, if someone you know announces that they belief in Zeus, you would think them crazy, but crazy as in crazy aunt in the basement or just plain not rational. It's not loathing, it's thinking that in this particular instance the elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor. You question their reasoning. You don't hate them, you just don't understand why they would worship a long dead god. As he has said repeatedly, he just goes one god further. I don't see it as loathing believers personally, although he does loath those who would manipulate their faith and rightly so. I think he listens and engages all sorts of believers and works really hard not to make it personal. Watch the "The Root of All Evil?" and his interview with Ted Haggard. The contempt is not coming from Dawkins and he restrains himself as Haggard tries to make it personal. Funny, I watch that now and the smirk on Haggards face has a completely different meaning than it did when I first watched the video. Anyway, the contempt that Haggard has for Dawkins far exceeds any contempt that Dawkins has ever displayed toward believers.

Posted by reboho | May 3, 2007 7:46 PM

Hmmm. You make some good points.

Posted by Freddie | May 3, 2007 8:52 PM

"Indeed, if you state at the outset of a journey that you don't want the destination, then you've essentially ruined your travels before taking a single step."

On the other hand, for less control-oriented folks, this is the definition of 'an adventure'.

Posted by scudbucket | May 3, 2007 9:51 PM

It's a windier way of saying "it's the journey, not the destination," which is likewise a cliche that crumbles upon close inspection.

Oh, Ross. You're smarter and wiser than me and the vast majority of other people in pretty much every other possible way, it's just kind of tragic that you can't see this one.

The destination may or may not be better than the journey. But the future is unknowable. You don't get to decide the destination--that is God's choice. But you do get to decide which journey you will take here in the present--and more importantly, how you will act as you follow the path, and whether you will hold love or bitterness in your heart as you follow the path. Yes, our journey may have some effect on our destination. But that effect is uncertain--that is why belief in God is called faith rather than knowledge. If I pursue heaven and I do not enter it, I have been deceived, but if I act with love I cannot be deceived because love is an end in and of itself.

If the destination was what matters, why didn't God just put us at the destination in the first place? The present must have some value to God, because otherwise God would have skipped right to the future.

It do agree that it's kind of weird for an atheist to be running around with that quote, though.

Posted by Consumatopia | May 3, 2007 10:56 PM

a

Posted by Richard Bartlett | October 9, 2007 7:24 AM

In response to the original post: I would agree that in reality, anybody given Gotthold Lessing's choice would take gods right hand due to the "the drive for Truth" already present within our nature. It is contradictory to claim that one would wish to keep an indefatigueable drive for something rather than aquire that for which one strives. To do so would undermine the very nature of such a drive.
However, I do not believe that this quote should be taken too literally. As you have mentioned already, it is a parable of the journey mentality. I would disagree with you on the idea that "the journey is only better than the destination if the destination turns out to be a disappointment". You learn more from the journey, and realise a greater degree of satisfaction striving for something (let us call it truth) than you do when such a truth is offered freely. Your delicious thanksgiving dinner is that much more delicious to a hungry homeless man than to someone with a full stomach, your beautiful woman, that much more appealing after the chase. Watson, Crick, Francis and Wilkins may not have wished the quest for the sructure of DNA to take a lifetime but the time spent pursuing it made the prize more worthwhile to them than it is to students handed this truth in a textbook years later. You say that the virtues of the journey are dependent upon the thing that you're questing for turning out to be worthwhile. I believe that the thing that you're questing for is worthwhile only because of the journey and the toils that led you to aquire it. We pursue our goals initially for the most whimsical of reasons, a woman may be beautiful but this does not justify marrying her. In her pursuit however, we appreciate her more and indeed desire her more than we ever could have without the pursuit. It is the same with truth, we desire it because it eludes us, the more difficult the journey, the greater the goal.

Posted by Richard Bartlett | October 9, 2007 8:17 AM