It is important to distinguish between facts and the truth. It is true that according to our rules of maths 2 plus 2 equals four, but while that is a fact it is clearly not a truth.  It is conditional on the laws of mathematics, which can also be used to undermine it, so although universally accepted it is not absolute. But while it seems easy to make plausible statements about what truth is not it is much harder to say what it is without resorting to stuff that sounds suspiciously like religious mumbo jumbo (such as truth is love, which seems more truism than true). I think a more interesting way to answer the question is to use the quantum rule as I applied it to storytelling. This states that events only happen causally when observed. Before and after that moment anything can happen, or rather everything that can happen does happen. Truth can be imagined as analogous to the particles in quantum physics, as the wave form of all experience from which our consciousness of narrative and identity is formed. But this wave motion of experience disappears the moment any part of it is consciously identified. As in quantum physics the observation of the moment leads to the invention of past and future and beginning and end, and is tangential to the motion of the wave at the moment it is observed. The observation creates a narrative but obliterates our perception of the material from which the story is made. So truth momentarily informs morality, but it vanishes under the coercive vision of the moralist (or the atheist, or the materialist, or the priest, or etc). Truth is therefore not expressible other than in fragments,  jokes, half remembered dreams. How can this elusive truth be related to love? Unconditionality governs the wave form, just as particles may appear anywhere. Love is unconditional – it is only the reciprocally unconditional relinquishment of control that allows the wave to be perceived, imagined and ridden. If the purpose of human life is to care for all living things love is the means by which this happens. This is why pragmatists become confused about Darwin. The theory of evolution is a highly plausible attempt to delineate (narrate) the unknowable. As with a story, we know what has happened if we observe a moment closely but this knowledge gives us no power to predict the future or indeed exactly to recount the past. As soon as the moment is identified it dissolves according the the quantum law by which we perceive it. Critically, the question should not be, is Darwinian theory true? but when is Darwinian theory true? And the answer is at all times except when observed, at which point the linear nature of our observation makes the evolutionary course unintelligible. It is the same as any other story we might wish to invent. So just as nothing is material unless observed, so everything is by the same argument true. In this sense we can assert that truth is immaterial.

A note on faith. Faith is our tenuous perception that truth is a wave form. But as above once formed into an observation the consciousness of faith immediately becomes teleological, at which moment it is no longer faith. It is therefore the nature of faith to be destroyed in the moment of affirmation. This does not of course devalue faith. On the contrary, it recognises faith as a means of perception provided it is not immediately dogmatised. Dogma can however be a medium to faith just as storytelling is a medium to experience and scientific observation is a medium to the deduced wave motion of particles.