In light of the arguments presented for the other philosophies about truth, it seems ridiculous to even ask the question of whether it is credible to believe in absolute truth. But we will ask and answer it as anyway.
People, either consciously or unconsciously, are on a journey in search for truth, for something to believe in. That truth or unchanging reality serves as what we call a fixed point (or absolute). That fixed point is what we use to measure our progress in our journey. Consider this, if truth is relative, then you have no fixed point, without that fixed point, how do we even know we are traveling in the direction we should be traveling in? Well, we won’t. The curious thing is that even relativists themselves have a fixed point (even though they would never publicly acknowledge that).
Relativists know that truth is not relative. That is precisely why they so fervently argue and propagate their view. Think about it, why the battle to convince everybody else that relativism is true if they themselves believed relativism to be true? The point is, relativists would not engage in converting others to become relativists because if they were true relativists, they would know and acknowledge that all worldviews and philosophies about truth are equally valid. But the fact that they do engage in converting people to their point of view and of accusing those who don’t convert of intolerance, just serves to demonstrate that they believe their view to be superior and truer than all other views. It sure appears they are behaving just like “intolerant absolutists,” doesn’t it?
Joseph Fletcher once wrote that, “The situationist avoids words like ‘never’ and ‘perfect’ and ‘always’ and ‘complete’ as he avoids the plague, as he avoids ‘absolutely.’”[1]
Geisler states, “What Fletcher is in effect saying is 1) “one should never use the word ‘never,’” 2) “one should always avoid using the word ‘always,’” and 3) “one should absolutely deny all ‘absolutes.’”[2]
Here is the issue, denying the validity of absolutes violates logic and is self-refuting and self-defeating. “Since it’s self-defeating to argue that all views of reality are false or relative, and it’s contradictory to believe that all views of reality are true, then the only logical option is to believe that some views represent in a more accurate way reality than others. Therefore, in order for philosophical inquiry to make sense, one is forced to believe in absolute truth. It makes sense to believe that there is a knowable, transcendent, and unchanging reality (a fixed point or referent).”[3]
It’s important to return to the whole idea that these philosophies about truth rather then uniting they divide. Moseley says that, “Even when people disagree about the truth, they still share common philosophical ground if they at least can agree that truth exists. When the quest for truth is abandoned, every viewpoint, however spurious, is legitimized, so there is no reason to search for consensus under the banner of the truth.”[4]
Listen to these sobering words, “Since the sixties we have been in the throes of this quiet but desperate revolution of thought—the death of truth…we refer to the truth of what the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer called ‘true truth,’ the extinction of the idea that any particular thing can be known for sure…Today we’ve lost the confidence that statements of fact can ever be anything more than just opinions; we no longer know that anything is certain beyond our subjective preferences. The word truth now means ‘true for me’ and nothing more. We have entered an era of dogmatic skepticism…When truth dies, all of its subspecies, such as ethics, perish with it. If truth can’t be known, then the concept of moral truth becomes incoherent. Ethics become relative, right and wrong matters of individual opinion. This may seem a moral liberty, but it ultimately rings hollow. ‘The freedom of our day,’ lamented a graduate in a Harvard commencement address, ‘is the freedom to devote ourselves to any values we please, on the mere condition that we do not believe them to be true’…The death of truth in our society has created a moral decay in which ‘every debate ends with the barroom question ‘says who?’ When we abandon the idea that one set of laws applies to every human being, all that remains is subjective, personal opinion.”[5]
How long can a society or civilization survive when the prevailing philosophy about truth is such? Has history taught us nothing?
[1] Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakable Foundation (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001), p. 47.
[2] Ibid., p.47.
[3] Ibid., p.48.
[4] N. Allan Moseley, Thinking Against the Grain (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003), p. 68.
[5] Paul Copan, “True For You, But Not For Me (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998), p. 73.
People, either consciously or unconsciously, are on a journey in search for truth, for something to believe in. That truth or unchanging reality serves as what we call a fixed point (or absolute). That fixed point is what we use to measure our progress in our journey. Consider this, if truth is relative, then you have no fixed point, without that fixed point, how do we even know we are traveling in the direction we should be traveling in? Well, we won’t. The curious thing is that even relativists themselves have a fixed point (even though they would never publicly acknowledge that).
Relativists know that truth is not relative. That is precisely why they so fervently argue and propagate their view. Think about it, why the battle to convince everybody else that relativism is true if they themselves believed relativism to be true? The point is, relativists would not engage in converting others to become relativists because if they were true relativists, they would know and acknowledge that all worldviews and philosophies about truth are equally valid. But the fact that they do engage in converting people to their point of view and of accusing those who don’t convert of intolerance, just serves to demonstrate that they believe their view to be superior and truer than all other views. It sure appears they are behaving just like “intolerant absolutists,” doesn’t it?
Joseph Fletcher once wrote that, “The situationist avoids words like ‘never’ and ‘perfect’ and ‘always’ and ‘complete’ as he avoids the plague, as he avoids ‘absolutely.’”[1]
Geisler states, “What Fletcher is in effect saying is 1) “one should never use the word ‘never,’” 2) “one should always avoid using the word ‘always,’” and 3) “one should absolutely deny all ‘absolutes.’”[2]
Here is the issue, denying the validity of absolutes violates logic and is self-refuting and self-defeating. “Since it’s self-defeating to argue that all views of reality are false or relative, and it’s contradictory to believe that all views of reality are true, then the only logical option is to believe that some views represent in a more accurate way reality than others. Therefore, in order for philosophical inquiry to make sense, one is forced to believe in absolute truth. It makes sense to believe that there is a knowable, transcendent, and unchanging reality (a fixed point or referent).”[3]
It’s important to return to the whole idea that these philosophies about truth rather then uniting they divide. Moseley says that, “Even when people disagree about the truth, they still share common philosophical ground if they at least can agree that truth exists. When the quest for truth is abandoned, every viewpoint, however spurious, is legitimized, so there is no reason to search for consensus under the banner of the truth.”[4]
Listen to these sobering words, “Since the sixties we have been in the throes of this quiet but desperate revolution of thought—the death of truth…we refer to the truth of what the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer called ‘true truth,’ the extinction of the idea that any particular thing can be known for sure…Today we’ve lost the confidence that statements of fact can ever be anything more than just opinions; we no longer know that anything is certain beyond our subjective preferences. The word truth now means ‘true for me’ and nothing more. We have entered an era of dogmatic skepticism…When truth dies, all of its subspecies, such as ethics, perish with it. If truth can’t be known, then the concept of moral truth becomes incoherent. Ethics become relative, right and wrong matters of individual opinion. This may seem a moral liberty, but it ultimately rings hollow. ‘The freedom of our day,’ lamented a graduate in a Harvard commencement address, ‘is the freedom to devote ourselves to any values we please, on the mere condition that we do not believe them to be true’…The death of truth in our society has created a moral decay in which ‘every debate ends with the barroom question ‘says who?’ When we abandon the idea that one set of laws applies to every human being, all that remains is subjective, personal opinion.”[5]
How long can a society or civilization survive when the prevailing philosophy about truth is such? Has history taught us nothing?
[1] Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakable Foundation (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001), p. 47.
[2] Ibid., p.47.
[3] Ibid., p.48.
[4] N. Allan Moseley, Thinking Against the Grain (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003), p. 68.
[5] Paul Copan, “True For You, But Not For Me (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998), p. 73.
Comments
Post a Comment