In today’s culture, it's very hip and very cool to be seen as a person who is searching for 'truth.' It is, however, very uncool to make the claim that you have actually found it.
Pastor Dan Smith
Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Annapolis
If you know anything about the beautiful city of Annapolis, MD, you know that one of its primary features is the US Naval Academy, with its long history of service to our nation. The other thing you may or may not know is that boating of one kind or another features prominently in our lives. As for myself, I began sailing when I was just 13 years old, considered a late start in my town.
For those who of you who have never had the opportunity, it's important to understand that sailing is as much an art as it is a science. The artistic side of sailing becomes almost instinctual as you gain experience. You learn to sense the environment around you, to feel the wind as it shifts and surges, the currents as they flow with or against you, the overt and covert vibrations of the vessel beneath your feet as it cuts through the water, and much more.
But sailing a vessel on the war has for centuries also included a great deal of science. Sailing on the open ocean without a compass, for example, is suicidal. Sailing on any ocean can be a near-death experience, but technology, such as GPS systems, weather alert systems, etc. go a long way towards mitigating those risks.
Traditionally however, the most important piece of equipment on your vessel is still the Compass. So, for those of us who love to sail, we understand that we may well live or die by that compass. It's a piece of equipment which we always make sure is maintained, with a spare in storage just in case.
Now imagine for a second a compass which has no true north. One minute, north is one way, and in the next minute, it's another. Yet this compass is working exactly the way it is supposed to! Lets call this new-fangled piece of equipment a Relativistic Compass, meaning that, to this piece of equipment --and its creators, of course — every direction is equally valid and worthwhile.
With this kind of compass we can celebrate our freedom from an externally imposed uniform standard. After all, why should we place any kind of value on one direction over another? Based on the worldview of this compass' inventor, it's not fair that we use a compass oriented towards a "true" north to force uniform directions on every person. Really, they may argue, isn't the concept of "True North" just a "psychological construct" in the first place?
Article comments
1 - P6
You get to write stuff like thet here?
Cool.
2 - Eric Olsen
You mean in English? But of course!
3 - Shark
Can't wait to read the English version!
4 - Dirtgrain
How about putting it this way? There may well be an absolute Truth, but no human will ever know it entirely. Rather, there are degrees of being closer or farther from the Truth.
For those who believe in an attainable, absolute Truth, there is an obvious contradiction (similar to your "is that always true" counterargument). Consider all of the philosopher kings out there who claim to know and preach the Truth. How do you reconcile the differences in their views? Who gets to decide what is the absolute Truth? Is it just a collective, majority-rules decision? Also consider the time (the seventies?) at a psychiatric hospital in Michigan when there were three patients who claimed to be Jesus Christ. Hell, consider David Koresh (or that dude who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart). How can we be sure that these individuals were wrong in their claims regarding knowing the Truth? Well, we just know that they were wrong--we sense, perhaps, that there is no human who can know the absolute Truth.
Also at issue is the failure and breakdown of language as a tool of communication. I don't subscribe to the postmodern, deconstructionist notion that all language breaks down and is completely meaningless. Again, I believe that there are degrees of effectiveness in communication. One cannot 100 percent accurately convey the ideas in one's mind to another. One can get closer or farther from conveying the intended message, depending on the means of communication and depending on the audience. Then what would one do if he or she did know the absolute Truth? One could not accurately convey it--at least not absolutely.
Simply, consider the possibility that one who claims to know the absolute Truth may be wrong. How does this affect how we should proceed?
We can look at the history of Truth proclaimers who based their authority on the Bible and on Jesus Christ. Even at one time, there have been countless variations of how to interpret the Bible. Over time, the changes have been more drastic. The Bible is not taken literally by many groups in some of the harsh punishments and sacrifices that are described in it. We even have designated interpreters of the Bible (e.g., the Pope) whose interpretations change from year to year, from century to century. In this sense, religious Truth, collective religious Truth (in organized religions and groups as opposed to at the individual level), is relative.
Yes, we should pursue Truth. I don't think that is a problem for most people. But those who claim to know it and who claim to be able to absolutely convey it are suspect. In line with the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha, Truth can't be handed to you. We each must pursue it and construct it through our experiences and interactions.
Lastly, I leave you with this thought. No two people can have the same exact concept of God, Truth and righteousness. Their experiences, their educations, their emotions, their thought processes--all work uniquely from what goes on in the mind of any other. We each then have our own version of religion, no matter how much we try to conform to what a group might claim. Ultimately, then, we must decide individually to some degree what we think is true--or at least what we think is close to the Truth.
5 - JR
You do know that magnetic north and "true north" aren't the same thing, don't you?
The magnetic north pole constantly changes location; it currently lies somewhere amidst the northern Canadian islands. Although I just saw a CNN story that says it may leave Canadian territory this year, heading north of Alaska. It's current course would put it in Siberia in fifty years. At some point, possibly in the next few thousand years, the Earth's magnetic field will disappear. When it reappears it may be reversed and North will be South.
So you'll perhaps forgive me if I don't put so much faith in that compass. It's all well and good in the Chesapeake Bay, but it could seriously confuse a person sailing through iceberg territory.
Also, you write:
If I were to walk the streets of Annapolis on any given day and ask people if there is such a thing as absolute truth, probably six out of ten would say no.
Your estimate seems high to me. I realize that Annapolis is a college town, but I'd still be surprised to find it that liberal. Have you actually done the experiment to determine the, er, truth?
And here...
Which is exactly why most people do not question the concept of moral relativism. They love the idea that there are no standards to follow, and you can see the results of such thinking throughout our society as people do what is good for them or what makes them feel good rather than doing what is right.
But then you write:
Because, by living according to what is true, we greatly increase the likelihood that we will live happy and fulfilled lives.
How is that different from doing what is good for us? And aren't you just defining a "truth" rather than actually discovering it among the laws of nature? What increases our happiness may not benefit, say, the whales; so is it still "truth" to them?
6 - Eric Olsen
Dirtgrain, absolutely perfect explanation of my own thoughts and concerns regarding Truth. Well done.
provocative article, too, thankd David.
7 - P6
Seriously, my position as regards Capitalized Essences is nietzschean: that somethins is objectively true doesn't mean there is such a things as Truth.
I think my ethics are objective, though.
1- Don't block the fulfilment of anyone's needs (biological, psyhcologicial, social). We all need the same stuff, so that's easy to determine
2- Don't accept having my needs blocked
3- Everything else is open for discussion
8 - Eric Olsen
Ya, I joke. I accept capitalized Platonic essences, but they are contingent.
9 - David Flanagan
Everyone:
Thanks for your excellent questions. I'm going to try and answer a few here during my lunch and I'll work on more of them tonight. I'll also try and consolidate some of the overlapping questions in my answers. Here goes:
1) Should we believe in absolute truth but, also acknowledge that we can never entirely know that truth?
If there is an absolute truth, then we must assume that it can be discovered and understood by all. If there is ONE way to do something, it doesn't matter who in the world disagrees with that truth. Truth stands for all time, even as philosophers and kings rise and fall. Truth by its very definition is an unchanging rod upon which things are measured. An example of this? Well, at one point in American history, this nation actively supported the institution of slavery. Are you saying that at that time we were right to keep slaves? That is a rhetorical question, of course. You might argue that we are now closer to the truth than we were before, but I would argue that we KNEW the truth before and did not practice it. Is there some defect in the English language that keeps me from telling someone that enslaving other human beings is wrong? If so, then I would happily show them forcefully how wrong that behaviour is. Rather than arguing that communication is weak, I would argue that it is robust, adaptable, and effective. All of civilization is built upon communication, or destroyed through the lack of it. Ultimately though, if I tell you that slavery is wrong, would you doubt me? You know that I'm correct, and so did the civilizations that kept slaves. They knew it was wrong, which explains why they went to such great lengths to justify it.
As for the countless variations that you point to in interpretations for the Bible; could you point out some of those variations for me? I do realize that we have doctrinal differences among churches where there might be disagreements over form or function, but the major tenents of the Bible, such as the Ten Commandments, have stood for centuries with virtually no interpretation. And when there are disagreements, there are best practices regarding how to resolve those disagreements, such as using scripture to interpret scripture, rather than just saying something like, "well, this is what I think it means." If you try to use that argument with a Biblical scholar, you'll likely get an amused chuckle from them. Its not just about what you THINK, or even believe, its about what is TRUE.
2) Can any two people have the exact same concept of who God is?
Lets personalize this question. I have a two daughters, one whose age is four and the other ten months. Now, I'm a father to both of them, but my relationship with each of them is completely different because of their age and maturity level. I can sit and have conversations with my older daughter. We read books together, color, paint, play games, sing songs, all kinds of fun thing. With my younger daughter, I change her diapers, I feed her, clean up her messes, hold her, sing to her, read to her, etc. I'm still a father to both, but its my relationship with each of them that is different, nothing else. So, while they do not necessarily see me exactly the same way, they both see me as their father and I interact on each of their levels, but in a consistent way in terms of when they eat their meals, when they go to sleep, what they can and cannot do in the house, etc. The rules applying to both of my children is the same, and I am the same person, so, all things being equal, does it really matter if they each see me in a slightly or very different way? Its not about how we see God, its about how we obey Him and our relationship with Him that matters.
3) True North vs. Magnetic North
All I can say here is that my charts and my compass points have not changed in my lifetime. If you want, I can always modify the story so that we are using true north if you'd like. That was the point of the compass example in the first place. You illustrate a good point in that it is often difficult to simplify something to just one example for everyone. One thing I will say, I have sailed on the ocean, not just the Bay, and I would never go out there, or even on the bay, without a compass to navigate by. Of course, we use a compass for simpler purposes these days and chart our location by GPS. But I'm getting too far from the topic here.
4) What is the ratio of those who believe in absolute truth vs. those who believe in moral relativity.
I'll have to dig up my sources again on this, but the number was pulled from several surveys that were conducted of the general population. Approximately six of ten people in our society believe in moral relativity.
5) What about my statement that says people prefer moral relativity because it lets them do whatever they want (or whatever feels good) as opposed to when I asserted that living according to the truth allows us to live longer and more fulfilled lives?
First a personal example. If I had my way, I'd probably eat Big Macs for lunch every day. Could I? Sure, I love the things. Would I pay for that habit? Definitely! I'd gain weight and my health would degrade and what I would trade is short-term satisfaction for long-term health. In a similar way, just because you like to do something doesn't make it right, or even true in any sense.
The fact is, when I eat a Big Mac, I'm lying to my body because it thinks its getting tasty food but what it actually gets is crap that will ultimately shorten my life span and hurt my health.
In a similar way, my oldest daughter would eat sweets all day if she could, but she only gets a treat after lunch and one after dinner. And sometimes those treats are in the form of yogurt special fruits that she loves, like mangoes or strawberries with sugar and whipped cream. Candy bars would thrill her, but I have the longer-term perspective in mind and my wife and I work to set boundaries for her that will, one day, save her life a thousand times over as she gradually becomes an independent human being.
As for the whale example, you'll have to give me more specifics on that.
Thanks.
David
10 - Dirtgrain
Religion and Politics in the United States: Nuances You Should Know. Do some research, and you find all kinds of differences in the way that the Bible is interpreted. The next time Jehovah's Witnesses come to your door, ask them how they interpret the Bible.
Dancing with snakes? Testifying? Do you believe in witches? Sacrifices?
Sure the Ten Commandments are interpreted differently. Is the Sabbath day Saturday or Sunday? Can one work on the Sabbath day? Is bigamy adultery (Check with Mormons back in the day)? "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." And from the Living Bible version: "You shall not make yourselves any idols: no images of animals, birds, or fish." I see Jesus fish symbols all over the place.
11 - David Flanagan
Dirtgrain:
Very good questions and I thank you for the opportunity to show how exactly scripture should be interpreted, as opposed to pulling things out of context to prove a point, which is something that, unfortunately, even Christians do all too often. Lets go through each question and allow the Bible itself to clarify each issue:
1) Dancing with snakes:
I know that some churches have this thing about dancing with snakes. Its not something to which I agree and the main reason why is because scripture says this of believers and snakes:
With that said, there are some believers who do this and, once again, its not a test of orthodoxy. I think its an issue of debate amongst believers more than anything else.
2) Do I believe in witches:
Not only do I believe in them, I have two friends, one from college and one co-worker who ARE witches. One of them is a high priestess in her coven. They both know I'm a devout Christian.
3) What about the sacrificial system of old Israel:
The new covenant, as established by Jesus, is one of grace. The old sacrificial system pointed to just one thing, the need for blood to assuage the sin of the people of God. But the old sacrificial system could never permanently remove the sin of the people because the sacrifices were all imperfect. Which is why I've said before that Jesus did not come to earth to live, he came here to die, the perfect sacrifice to permanently remove our sins once and for all time. "Behold the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world."
4) What day is the Sabbath:
First of all, the Bible says that we are to keep the Sabbath. It is a day of rest and a day of worship to God. The Bible, however, does NOT say that the Sabbath MUST be on Saturday or on Sunday, it says simply to keep the Sabbath. What did Jesus say about the Sabbath? Lets look at the scripture:
All the arguing about which day is THE sabbath is what we call majoring in the minors, its not a test of orthodoxy.
5) Is bigamy adultery:
Simple answer from the scriptures:
Matthew 19:
3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[1] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[2] ? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
One man, one woman, joined for life.
6) You shall not make yourselves any idols:
This applies to those who set up false Gods or to those who worship created things rather than the creator of those things.
As for the symbols that Christians use to indicate in whom they have faith, there is nothing wrong with that. I don't have a Jesus fish on my car because, as a person who drives daily in really awful traffic, I don't always drive in such a way as to reflect well on Christianity. :-)
Thanks,
David
12 - jesse
"Through one faith which is in Jesus Christ, the bible is absolute truth. Through all the many different faiths which have come in the name of Jesus Christ, the truth from the bible is what each makes it to be.....relative."