It always feel good to come across this sort of writing on Medium. With focus on the subject of this post, the greatest problem in today's world, I would say, is the notion that there is not any truth, only beliefs. But we all agree, based on the evidence, that the principle that has had the greatest impact on our lives (Satellites, GPS, the atomic bomb, the computer, which initially was developed to facilitate travel to space, etc.) - General Relativity - is a scientific truth. By our own attestations, as such, we admit that there exists the feasibility of truth. But if we do not then consciously embark on searches for truth, how exactly do we arrive at the possibility of a discovery of new truth?

Is truth then complex and difficult to ascertain? Ideally, of course not. Though not necessarily so, truth becomes complex and unmanageable only in the realm of beliefs. But rational secular man does not function on beliefs, functions on evidence. A philosopher says it very well, says (my paraphrase):

All we have to do to believe in truth is agree to treat all definitive improvements to knowledge as truth.

So then we abstract away from that famous question, namely, "What is truth", which in secular life, is purely philosophical and unlikely to result in any unilateral agreement across agents, rather focus on, "Is this new knowledge more robust than the knowledge that precedes it?", which in secular life, is the question that is both philosophical and pragmatic, and likely to, on the basis of evidence, result in unilateral agreement.

But then we have to value each of knowledge and progressions to knowledge.