What is Real? (Three Levels of Reality)

Everything is more complex than we generally think. What we experience daily is thought to be unquestionably “real.” Yet the deeper we look, the more we realize that reality is at least three-layered—shaped by our seeing, sustained by our shared meanings, and rooted in ultimate truth that, according to AI, “precedes us, holds us, and does not depend on our perception to be real.” 

Level one: From the time we get up in the morning until bedtime each night, we have no question that the family members we greet, what we eat for breakfast, the news we read in paper or online, the car we drive to work or to the store, the work we do by our hands or on the computer, etc., etc. are all real.

On this first level of reality, the question of what is real is seldom raised, as there is no need at all to doubt it. But there are other levels that many people do think about, although it seems that there are some who are content to live their lives only on this first level. For them it may be true, to a certain extent, that “ignorance is bliss.”

Level two: Things get more complicated when we enter the realm of thought and reflection rather than remaining in the world as experienced by our five senses. Further consideration indicates that much of what we consider real is actually socially constructed.

Peter L. Berger (1929~2017) was an Austrian‑born American sociologist and Protestant theologian, best known for his work in the sociology of knowledge and of religion. He ended his long teaching career as University Professor of Sociology and Theology at Boston University from 1981 until his retirement in 2009.

Berger’s book, The Social Construction of Reality (1966), co-authored with Thomas Luckmann (1927~2016), is a classic in the sociology of knowledge. It asserts that what we humans experience as “reality” in everyday life is largely a human, social product rather than a fixed, purely objective given.**

In their book, Berger and Luckmann introduce the concept of “plausibility structures,” and Berger further develops that idea in his next book, The Sacred Canopy (1967). That concept was then popularized by the British theologian Lesslie Newbigin in his influential book The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (1989).

In July 2018, I posted a blog article titled “There Really Are ‘Alternative Facts’," and I encourage you to read that important post (here). The point is that on this second level, “facts” are only what the society one belongs to agrees upon as being real or true. For example, for those who are die-hard MAGA supporters, whatever the POTUS says is considered true and trustworthy.

On the other hand, most of the rest of us are painfully aware that every day he says things that are false or misleading. We so often disagree with what he claims to be factually true. Our plausibility structure is based on the anti-Trump Democrats and Independents who think that much of what he says is neither true nor trustworthy.

So, what is “real” in this case? The answer depends almost entirely upon the “society” to which we belong. Thus, what we consider to be real in the realm of religion, philosophy, and politics is socially constructed, formed by our thought-community.

Level three: Finally, we are challenged to consider whether there is ultimate reality, and if so, what that might be. From the ancient past, there have been some/many who have explored the profoundly important metaphysical and religious question of what is ultimately real.

There are those, of course, who don’t acknowledge this third level. But I believe AI is right: ultimate reality “precedes us, holds us, and does not depend on our perception to be real.” Most of us need to spend more time and effort exploring, evaluating, and engaging with this level of reality. While it may or may not be “blissful,” that is where we find the real meaning of life.

_____

** In addition to this seminal book, Berger is also the author of two significant sociological/theological works: The Sacred Canopy (1967), a foundational text in the sociology of religion, exploring religion as a protective framework for understanding existence amid modernity, and A Rumor of Angels (1969), which examines signals of transcendence in modern society, challenging secularization theories. In addition, he is also the editor of a much later book of interest, Between Relativism and Fundamentalism (2010).

A Truth Decay Crisis

“Trump Doesn’t Give a Tweet about the Truth” was a title I thought about using for this article—but while it is partly about DJT, this article is more broadly about the crisis of truth-knowing and truth-telling in contemporary society.

Warnings about Truth Decay

Douglas Groothuis, an evangelical Christian, authored a book titled Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (2000). Having heard of that book soon after it was published, I thought it was a clever title and that it dealt with important issues.

Not surprisingly, The Social Construction of Reality (1966), the book I wrote about in my 7/25 blog article, is cited in Groothuis’s book. Among other things, postmodernism affirms that reality/truth is socially constructed, and Groothuis (b. 1957) sees that as a problem.

“Truth decay” is not just a concern of conservative Christian theologians, however. Increasingly, it is becoming a serious concern in society at large, particularly in the world of politics.

Early this year, RAND Corporation produced a 324-page report titled “Truth Decay: An Initial Exploration of the Diminishing Role of Facts and Analysis in American Public Life.”

To this point, I haven’t read but just a bit of the RAND report, but my impression is that it is an important study about a real crisis.

Warning about the Death of Truth

I have read the new book by long-time New York Times chief book critic Michiko Kakutani. Her book, released last month, is titled The Death of Truth: Notes on Falsehood in the Age of Trump. 

Early in her book, Kakutani (b. 1955) writes that DJT “lies so prolifically and with such velocity that The Washington Post calculated that he’d made 2,140 false or misleading claims during his first year in office” (p.13).

(Update: According to an Aug. 1 Washington Post article, as of July 31, DJT had publicly made 4,229 false or misleading claims.)

In her concluding chapter, Kakutani suggests that “Donald Trump is as much a symptom of the times as he is a dangerous catalyst” (p. 152).

Indeed, before the end of her Introduction, she calls attention to academics in the 1960s who were “promoting the gospel of post-modernism, which argued that there are no universal truths” (p. 18).

While she does not mention Berger and Luckmann, Kakutani decries “the post-Trump cultural landscape, where truth increasingly seems to be in the eye of the beholder, facts are fungible and socially constructed” (p. 43).

But the prevarication so prevalent in present-day society is a problem that cannot be explained simply as something produced by the theories of social construction and postmodernism.

While there are positive (and true!) aspects of social constructionism and postmodernism, there is nothing commendable about the willful telling of untruths for political purposes and/or personal gain.

Heeding the Warnings

Last week, I also read Preaching Truth in the Age of Alternative Facts (2018), a slim book (only 89 pages) by William Brosend, an Episcopal priest and seminary professor.

Consequently, one of many negative results of truth decay is the maintenance, or increase, of social injustice.

So, yes, it seems that DJT—and many of those who support him—abets truth decay by not caring a tweet about either truth or justice.

There Really Are "Alternative Facts"

This article was prompted by the death of Peter Berger a year ago. Berger was not only a world-renowned sociologist but also a notable lay Lutheran theologian. He is best known for The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (1966), which he co-authored with Thomas Luckmann.

A Bit about Berger

Born in Vienna, Austria, in 1929, Berger immigrated with his family to the U.S. when he was 17. Although he attended a Lutheran seminary, he ended up becoming a sociologist rather than a minister. 

In 1981 Berger began teaching at Boston University and was the founding director of BU’s Institute on Culture, Religion, and World Affairs from 1985 until his retirement in 2009.

An early and vocal opponent of the “God is dead” movement in the 1960s, Berger was much appreciated by evangelical Christians, as is attested to in this Christianity Today article posted two days after his death on June 27, 2017.

A Bit about Plausibility Structures

According to Berger (and Luckmann), knowledge—and people’s conceptions/beliefs of what reality is—is socially constructed.

There is an objective and a subjective aspect to reality, and the society in which one lives, one’s culture or subculture, by necessity interprets/constructs objective reality subjectively. That interpretation/construction forms one’s plausibility structure.

Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (1989)

“Plausible” is an adjective that means “seeming reasonable or probable.” Synonyms include such terms as “believable,” “credible,” “logical,” and “rational.” 

All interpretations of reality are not equally plausible, of course. There is, for example, pronounced differences between what is considered plausible by the dominant “white” culture in the U.S. and by the traditional culture of American Indians.

And more and more there seem to be pronounced differences in the plausibility structures of devoted Democrats and fervent Republicans in this country.

Because of the distinctly different plausibility structures, there really are “alternative facts,”—for “facts” are only what the society one belongs to agrees upon as being real or true.

Why Is This Important?

Consider a couple of examples.

Most Christians believe that God created the world and that at least some of the miracles as reported in the Bible, especially the Resurrection, are true. For those of us who grew up in the church and with belief in the message of the Bible, Creation and Resurrection are “facts” (although even among Christians now those facts are not interpreted in exactly the same way).

But for those with a completely “scientific worldview,” that is, with a belief system that only accepts that which can be proved by the scientific method, the creation of the universe by God and miracles cannot be factually true. Their plausibility structure rules out all “supranatural” causes.

Or, consider the matters of abortion and homosexual activity. If one’s plausibility structure holds it to be factually true that all abortion is murder of preborn humans and all homosexual activity as an abomination and a sin against God, then there must necessarily be ongoing opposition to abortion and such practices as same-sex marriage.

Consequently, those with that plausibility structure see Christians who are pro-choice (= pro-abortion in their understanding) and/or who affirm LGBT rights as having defective faith and perhaps as not being real Christians.

Moreover, with that worldview, there is no way one could vote for a political candidate who is pro-choice and/or who favors same-sex marriage. Such is just not plausible. (This matter is well described in this 7/21 Washington Post article.)

This article merely scratches the surface of an extremely important topic, but perhaps it is becoming clear why it can truly be said that, due to diversely different plausibility structures, there really are alternative facts.