Truth and Facts

How is truth dependent upon facts? Is truth more than “mere fact”? Can you think of something that is true but not factual? Is this possible in science? In religion (e.g., are any stories in the Bible true but not factual)?

The Cambridge English dictionary defines fact as “something that is known t have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information”  Oxford languages says truth is “a thing that is known or provided to be true.”  Facts are true, as far as we can tell, but truth is not limited to facts. 

There are many examples of things that are truth but not factual.  A parable shares truth, but probably are not factual. The point of a fable, for example, is to share a truth in a way that is not factual. Simple metaphors and more complicated allegories are not factual, but can be truth. Moving beyond those kinds of examples, love is truth, but can’t really proven.

It is more difficult for something in science to be considered truth but not factual.  According to our video, indicators of truth in science include measurability, replicability, and controlled experimental evidence. For me, the theory of evolution is close to truth because it is supported by the evidence.  A hypothesis is less than truth because it has yet to be proven by experimental evidence. In science, truth and fact walk hand in hand.

In religion, there are many examples of stories that are considered true but are not factual.  We don’t search for factual support for stories in the Bible even though we consider them to carry truth (or not very often do we search for evidence). An example, for me, are the biblical stories of creation.  They carry truth, but are not factual. Did Jonah really live in the belly of a fish?  Maybe not, but there is truth in the story.