Facts are what there seem to be.

Truths are how they seem to me.

– V. V. Raman

One of the inspirations of philosophy is the urge to find for truth: that elusive entity on which, people and philosophers have been divergently prolific.

The commonsense notion of truth is that which accords with facts. This leads us to wonder what facts are. A fact may be defined as some aspect of the perceived world about which consensus among people endowed with normally functioning human brains can agree. Sitting in a room, for example, most people would agree on the presence in it of a certain number of chairs and tables, pictures on the wall, color of the curtains, etc. Those agreements on the articles in the room would be truths for the people there. We note right away that whereas facts may exist independent of humans, truths are only in the context of thinking brains.

Indeed, truth often refers to the validity (correctness) of the content of statements (propositions). It pertains to the existence, nature, and characteristics of entities. A non-valid statement about an aspect of the perceived world will automatically make it false.

The acceptance, explicit or implicit, of the truth-content of a proposition is referred to as belief. Thus, belief is the explicit approval of the truth-content of a statement. That acceptance is enabled by the countless inputs one has received since childhood from parents, friends, teachers, books, news media and more. In other words, our mind is the framework in what we accept or reject as a true claim..

There are three different factors governing our belief system: the built-in logical functioning of the brain, personal experiences, and unconscious factors that give emotional satisfaction and self-actualization. It must be realized that criteria for granting validity to truth claims depend on the framework: religion and science have different criteria.

In the religious framework, the important reasons for the acceptance of a proposition as truth are the following: The source must be a higher authority. It could a scripture or a personage held in high esteem by the religious institution. There must be deep inner conviction of the truth of the proposition. What is stated as the truth must lead to some meaningful personal experience. It often has potential for ecstatic states. Then again, it must be fulfilling even if it presents some logical contradictions. Finally, religious truths have a transforming effect on individuals. It is only when one recognizes these aspects of religious truths that one can fully understand and appreciate why billions of people embrace them. The non-religious outsider who does not share these will be unable to see why so many are deeply religious.

Criteria for truth-content in the scientific framework are quite different. Given that science is a rational enterprise, the primary criterion here is logical consistency. This calls for concordance with observationally collected facts. Except for cosmic birth, geological particularities and biodiversity scientific truths are repeatable occurrences. Most of all, they are not isolated bits, but linked in many ways to other scientific truths. They have actual or potential consensus among experts in the field. In principle, scientific truths can be discarded by future discoveries or insights. In other words they always have potential for change.

Thus, truths are not just statements of facts, but interpretations of the facts. Everyone may see the same table in a room. But some will say that it is beautiful, some that it is ugly. So it is with many truths about the world.

Interpretations of facts and experiences that enable us to explain, understand, quantitatively describe and manipulate matter and energy constitute scientific truths. For this reason they may be described as exopotent. On the other hand interpretations of facts and experiences that give inner satisfaction, hope, solace, enrichment, and fulfillment are also enormously important for humans. Hence those interpretations may also be called truths. In so far as their impact is within us and are fairly ineffective in altering the physical world they may be described as endopotent.

We need both kinds of truths. Both serve different purposes in accomplishing different things. Therefore, neither can in fairness be declared to be superior or inferior to the other. However, using endopotent truths to explain natural phenomena would be as fruitless as giving the chemical formula for sucrose to enable one to enjoy a candy bar. It would be misleading to evoke God while explaining the Higgs boson, but that would be good to attract more readers.

Finally, let us consider the question of what is reality. One often uses the terms truth and reality synonymously. But they are not the same. Whereas truth refers to propositions about the world or about an experience, reality is an aspect of the external world. From the point of view of science physical reality is in constant flux. This ephemeral nature of experienced reality led some thinkers (especially in Eastern traditions) to regard them as unreal or illusory, in contrast to a posited immutable eternal Ultimate Reality.

Grasping the nature of or experiencing an aspect of Ultimate Reality is the goal in spiritual quests. Explaining and understanding the nature of ephemeral perceived reality is the goal of science.

These are some ideas on truth, belief, and reality. There have been many different views on these, articulated by keen minds over the ages in the cultures of the world. Humanity can live without understanding them, as it can without art and music, poetry and philosophy. Indeed the vast majority of normal people do that. But these add interesting dimensions to our intellectual, cultural, and spiritual heritage. They are like the pomp and circumstance of celebratory public events that give routine life spice and thrill. We have looked into some of them that have made a mark in history. There are many more yet to emerge from the minds and pens of future generations.