Double Truth

It is true that seemingly valid religious truth arising from revelation might differ from a philosophical perspective based on reason (as separate sources of knowledge)  to provide contradictory truths without detriment to either.

In other words the question is:  Are some truths a matter of reason (logical analysis and proof) and others of faith? Or should all truths be subject to the same standard. 

Here is my response and your answer would be most welcome.

Truth as seen in different contexts.  

I think it is possible for two opposing views to be true, given they are seen or talked about in different contexts.  In other words there is a relativity to truth depending on the context.

Perceptions better served by a pragmatic truth concept  

In relation to their being some truths more dependent on analysis and proof versus one taken on faith  I think that’s more a matter of one’s perception, as the dividing line between the secular versus spiritual (faith) is blurred. 

Rather, my suggestion is to revert to a pragmatic truth based on the premise a truthful proposition is one whose outcomes can be demonstrated to be so (true ) over time within a designated context.

The problem with the idea of a double truth proposition

So that, as I see it, the problem with that idea of a double truth  (which proposes we separate scientific truth from revelation as in faith ) is to ignore Truths relativity. That is a truth with a small t if you will and not a large T for absolute truth that doesn’t exist. Of course there are many things we are entitled to take for granted that are true because we have faith in the underlying science that has proven them to be true to become integral to our existence.. 

Provisional Truths apply universally 

The scientist holds true to provisional truths, trusting in the works of those whom he has come to rely upon until such time as those propositions can be proven to be contrary to previously held beliefs. In a religious sense one might argue its faith based premise involves a leap of faith unconnected to rational thinking but it is nevertheless only sustained if outcomes can be demonstrated to be true over periods of time. Similarly such beliefs are only provisional as our beliefs will change over our lifetime or at the very least into the next generation, just as they do for society, to rediscover or renounce what is believed to be the truth by each subsequent generation.

All truths must be subject to the same standard.  

The same rigors of assessment need to apply equally to both although the scientific method is obviously more tangibly evident as in utilizing a rigorous analysis reliant on observation to provisionally verify a theory. But Science and the scientific methodology to ascertain the truth and religion in its quest for the truth are the tools for philosophers and not their masters.