This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Absolute Truth is no longer relevant. Except for some very interesting mathematical equations which are necessarily true, I would argue that absolute truth does not even exist. Instead, Moderate Truth exists. Moderate Truth is based upon statistical probability. It is argued that the
most truth we can ever come up with, absent magic or miracles, is a moderate truth with the maximum of 99.9999999999% real probability in the real world. The legal system knows this. This is why the legal system
does not use a standard of absolute truth, only relative or moderate truth. In the law, there are three legal standards for truth: 1. truth beyond a reasonable doubt 2. clear and convincing truth 3. truth by a preponderance
In criminal cases the standard that the prosecution must meet to convict a defendant is truth beyond a reasonable doubt. I argue that this is
probabilistic truth requiring a relatively high probability of 95% or greater. In order for something to be true, beyond a reasonable doubt, it must be critically judged as being at least 95% true. I a prosecutor cannot prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant must be found innocent. The intermediary standard for truth is truth by clear and convincing evidence. This standard is often used in settings such as an ethics complaint against an attorney. A finding of a fact by reason of clear and convincing evidence requires that the fact be found to be true on the basis of 85% real probability in the real world or higher. If a complainant cannot prove his
case by 85% real probability or higher, then the defendant must be found innocent. Finally, in ordinary life, the standard for truth is truth by a preponderance of the evidence, or truth by a real probability of at least 55%. This is truth which is more probable than not. A standard for truth which is lower than 55% would be irrational. The lowest level of truth for Moderate Truth is 55%. If a plaintiff cannot prove her case by 55% real probability in the real world or greater, then the defendant is found to be not liable. Based on the foregoing, I would argue that Papal Infallibility is out of date. Given that the Pope simply does not have access to the Eternal
Truths of mathematics which exist outside of space time, I would argue that all Church teachings dealing with Faith and Morals, should simply be found true based upon the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of 95% real probability in the real world. Such Moderate Truth would allow for a high
degree of certainty needed for an authoritative moral teaching, but at the same time would be subject to later revision and reinterpretation if necessary. Hans Kung calls this Papal indefectibilility. Papal Infallibility, if it exists, only operates at a level of 95% real probability in the real world, that is, truth beyond a reasonable doubt.