IF YOU THINK THAT "THE TRUTH" IN
ANY GIVEN FIELD OF INVESTIGATION
DOES NOT EXIST, WHAT POINT CAN
THE "SEARCH FOR TRUTH" HAVE?© 1998 by Orchid Land Publications
The writer has met people who have told him that "the truth" doesn't exist or isn't discoverable, say, in a given non-religious discipline; it is of course a frequently encountered view in discussions of religion. People with this point of view may just hold the unreality of the true as an unargued axiom; they may think that truth is relative; or they may think that the best we can aim at is what is useful--what works, what is productive, beneficial, or whatever. However that may be, the "search for the truth" is an empty phrase for such people.
Of course, there are philosophical theories of truth--lucidly and learnedly expounded in R. L. Kirham's Theories of truth: a critical introduction. Such works presuppose concern for what "the truth" is. At all events, those who have never experienced the thrill of resolivng a perplexing problem, of finding one answer false or less true than a new one they have come up with, or of just searching for answers to various mooted questions in the conviction that answers do exist . . . such individuals have missed the boat without necessarily realizing it.
Suppose you cannot prove that truth doesn't exist and consequently maintian that truth is rather a "product" of what one might like to believe, what do you do? Do you accept that you cannot find it, that you cannot reconcile the apparent contradictions one is faced with or the roadblocks to a simple and easy answer or resolution of each difficulty? It unfortunately appears that many can, without severe qualms, just give up, rest in this conviction, and get on with their lives fairly unperturbed by their stance.
Of course, many cannot. The matter partly hinges on your view of reason: Is reason able to solve problems (in contrast with mysteries)? Various philosophies reply "yay" or "nay." Traditional Christianity--believing, as it does, in the creation of the cosmos by the divine Logos ("Reason," God the Son) and in the creation of human beings in His Icon (Image), i.e. with reason and freewill--are among those who will not reject the search for truth, will not accept relativism in matters of truth, etc. Of course, there are unfathomable mysteries--something only a rationalist would want to deny. We cannot know the Essence of the transcendent God. But what it is necessary for us to know, we can, one way or another, attain to; and that includes evident operations of the immanent Energies of God in the cosmos, especially in the incarnate life of God the Son on earth, after His Birth from the most holy Mother of God (Luke 1:43).
Of course, followers of the Reformation believe that the Image of God was lost throught the sinning of Eve and Adam (and that we today somehow bear guilt for what they did) and that reason and freewill have been lost in the loss of the Image of God. Some of these say that humans are therefore totally depraved and capable through nature of no good. The Orthodox view things otherwise. What was lost was NOT our created essence, being createdin the Icon of God, though it was damaged: We inherit death, though not guilt, from our first ancestors. What got lost was rather the Likeness of God, which the Biblical account of creation speaks of. Receiving back this lost Likeness of God--the divine Energy of Grace that unites us to God, enables us to obey and please God, and the behold the Vision of uncreated Light and become partakers of the divine Nature (2 Pet. 1:4) and the true Glory--is the goal of the faithful Worshiper of the divine Majesty. This is no partaking of the unknowable Essence of the transcendent Godhead; it is receiving the Grace of the uncreated Energies of God that incorporate us into Christ. He took on our fallen, mortal (but not totally depraved) nature and never let it be stained with sin. It that nature was evil, then (far be it from the truth) Christ was evil; if He didn't take on our very nature, we don't suppose He can save our nature and us invidually. If our first ancestors partook directly of the Likeness and Energies of the Godhead, we now participate in them through ontological (not volitional, as the Reformers would have it) union with Christ's risen Body--His human nature married with His divine Nature in His one Person of the Logos.
We do this through partaking of the holy Mysteries--mainly through partaking in true belief (if we are sinful adults, not still sinless children) of holy Baptism and the m. h. eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ (John 3:5, 5:48-58); even children partake of the holy Mysteries (Sacraments) in the holy Orhtodox religion. Being united with Christ's Death, we become partakers of His bodily Resurrection, as St. Paul the Apostle says in Gal. 2:20 and Rom. 6:5--cf. Col. 3:1-3,10. He Who created the cosmos (John 1:3, Col. 1:16-18, Heb. 1:2) recreates us in His Likeness as ontological members of His Body--which is the holy Church, our Mother.
Although the literal senses of all of the New Testament passages cited above are rejected by most Denominationists--especialoly those who claim to accept the entire Bible literally--many of them nevertheless, somehow, believe in absolute truth. It is for them to explain their position to themselves. We Orthodox, however, believe that every possible interpretation of the disputed points of Holy Scripture has been mooted, that only one has survived (as the "fittest") in the test of time and become part of the holy tradition of the Fathers and Mothers of the Church; and that this tradition is superior to what a given individual (however sincere and pious and insightful) is ever able to come up with.
If even unbelivers can believe in truth and devote themselves to its pursuit, can we do less? But truth is not entirely an end in itself for us. It is rather a means of knowing how to worship God properly and how to serve Him with piety according to His will. Those who have alienated themselves from the pursuit of truth for one reason or another--or who fideistically accept what they will to be true as being true--seem destined, if they have any humanity and integrity, to be as disappointed with their position as that position seems tragic to us believers in the analogy been our reason and the Creator-Logos. If Denominationists believe that the Logos was a Word, that the Word, created the cosmos, and that the chief business of the Church is to speak the Word, preach the Word, spread the Word, we who know a little about Greek usage in the Apostolic age and the philosophy of the great Jewish thinker, Philo, know that it was the divine "Reason" or "Rationale," God the Son and Wisdom of God, that the Apostles attributed the creation to. It's not that we think preaching and spreading the word of truth areanything but of the highest importance. But the idea that a Word created all that is seems unacceptable or worse to us.
We don't see how you can claim to accept the Bible (whatever books you may on your own recognizance claim it to contain) literally and still claim to reject the literal senses of the passages cited above. But should your ever accept them along with the Grace of the uncreated Energies of God, then how can you say we are wrong? Apparently, only by rejecting the pursuit of truth--or by relativizing truth--or by resting content in your contradiction. For us, the holy tradition is superior to what you (however brilliant) or I (however insightful) may maintain in contradiction to it. The tradition is not static or dead; as more is learned about the universe and human physical and mental make-up, whatever is truth is able to maintain itself in the face of testing by those devoted to the search for truth will be incorporated into the on-going tradition--but only after it survives the test of time and provided it does no violence or despite to the Apostolic and Patristic teachings about God and humanity, about spirit and matter, about eternity and time.CLICK HERE FOR ANOTHER ESSAY ON THIS TOPIC
Hits
on this website since 11-22-98 
