I was out and about and ended up talking about Christ today with a guy I thought to be quite intelligent and honest. I knew I was out of my league intellectually (which happens often), but that is not to take away from the keenness of this fellow. I enjoyed talking with him and wished we had more time. The Lord only knows if I get another chance to see him. He was engaging and open and I found him refreshing.
Anyway, he made a comment to me that really has my thoughts churning today. His comments reflect the trends of people's attitudes today in society. The spirit of the age you might say. He said he didn't know if there were absolute truths. In other words, he may believe something but that doesn't mean it’s necessarily true. How could anyone know what is true?
Do we as Christians have the same thoughts? Shouldn't we of all people be firmly convicted of the absolute truth of God? Maybe some wouldn't articulate the honesty of the intellectual and spiritual struggle regarding God they are having like this guy did, but, do we have a struggle beneath the surface? Do we believe what we say we believe?
I struggle with the notion that there is no absolute truth. Even in morality. The thing about Truth is that it stands alone from what anyone may believe. If something is true it is true and no amount of unbelief regarding the thing is going to make it untrue. Truth is not affected by one's belief, it is independent of opinion. Something that is true does not become untrue merely because someone believes it to be untrue or says it is untrue. Holocaust deniers like Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are perfect examples. They deny it occurred but the truth is that it did occur.
Conversely, something does not become true merely because one believes it to be true. Global warming (previously global cooling) is an example here. Without the slightest evidence, exposed corruption and fabricated evidence, and only the force of their faith, people act as though something is true while it is not. And we as Christians are accused of blind faith.
But truth is independent and unaffected by the beliefs we have. This kind of truth we are describing is called absolute truth. It is immutable. It is shielded from the imaginations of men that try to alter it. Perception and understanding of what is true may be skewed, but, the reality of that truth is never changed. In other words, absolute truth can't be anything else than what it is even if the minds of men imagine it to be something else. Men may think upon an absolute truth in a false way. They may imagine it with incorrectness and fail to imagine absolute truth according to its reality. They say "it is like this" but the truth says "No, that is not what I am like". This is all to say that men simply think falsely about what is true. But what is true still is true even while men have faulty conceptions of it.
Now, if the truth of God is this way, and my unbelief doesn't make God any less true, what does that matter to God? He is still all that He is. My puny little wrong opinion of Him does not change His reality. So, why is belief about Him important? Why will God destroy the man who considers Him to be other than what He truly is - but welcome the man who reflects correctly upon Him?
Because God will be recognized for Who He truly is. He will not be thought of as anything less than the reality of His true Being. How a man thinks of God determines how he treats God. God is holy and He will not be treated as less than what He is and therefore He will not be thought of as less than He actually is.
Here is why revelation is so important. God must reveal Himself if man is to think upon Him correctly and act toward Him correctly. Ignorance of God means thinking of God as inferior to what He actually is and treating Him as inferior. Man could never, ever conceive of God as He actually is if man is left to himself to think up God. God is simply "other" than anything man knows. If there is only God and things that are not God, and, if God is NOTHING like the things that are not God, then how could man look at the things that are not God to understand the likeness of God? He can't. God must choose to appear to man so man can comprehend Him or man is left in the dark in matters of The Great Who.
What a despairing way to see life! Maybe this gentleman I spoke with enjoys his marriage and kids. Maybe he finds satisfaction in his work and is has life's comforts. Maybe the thoughts of life beyond this short existence on earth and the questions of "where did I come from?" and "why am I here?" and "Does God really exist?" and "how can I know" never plague him. Actually he struck me as one who does think about such things and has thought often about them. But in all his thinking he hasn't had those questions answered so he has answered them himself. Perhaps in coming up with his own answers he can feel a sense of meaning for his life and for a while satisfy the questions of his soul. But at some time and somewhere I can only think that his own answers will disappear like a vapor and the actual despair of a soul without answers will surface. These are questions that the soul will not be satisfied with unless it is God who answers them
Here is the thing though: No one in practice really believes there are "no" absolute truths. This is because they know absolute autonomy is anarchy. Everyone does what is right in their own eyes. They just want for themselves to be able to do what is right in their own eyes but not others – at least when what others want comes into conflict with what they personally want.
And so to avoid such unpleasant situations people like this will say "we are free to do whatever we want so long as we don’t harm others". This makes "harming others" the only absolute moral truth, for, they say it is always wrong to hurt others. So people who say there are no absolute truths contradict themselves with statements like these because something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time. In other words, it cannot be true that there are no absolute truths and then also be true that it is always wrong to hurt others. Intellectually one lives in an irrational world if such opposing notions are maintained in one brain.
This all seems generous and humble on the surface, but, it is very prideful and self-centered at the core. What people really want by dismissing absolutes is to be "god" of their own world. There is a heart that insists “no one else is going to determine what's right/wrong for me.” It is the manifestation of a worldview that is humanistic and materialistic that denies the existence of God and His authority. It is a view that claims the highest being in existence is man (self). Thus, man is to himself god.
If there are no absolutes then think about this: There is no such thing as evil or good, right or wrong, and moral or immoral. And if so, we need to stop using moral terms like good, evil, moral, immoral, right, wrong, just, unjust, etc. These have absolutely no logical meaning in dialogue when people have different notions of "what should be". It is logically absurd and nonsensical to talk with these terms. Their definitions must be given, but, then also, their definitions must be agreed to by all. However, in that case we would then be subscribing to absolute truth when it is argued that it does not exist. And since we have different definitions of these terms it makes no sense without absolute definitions applicable to all.
Without absolutes you don’t have any concept of “right” and “wrong”. All you really have is “different”. Different opinions of how to behave as human beings are just that – “different”, and that is all. In other words, without absolutes it is simply absurd to say anything is good or evil. If someone who says there are no absolutes then begins to describe actions with any moral quality they are talking nonsense because they have stripped themselves of any basis to describe anything with moral terms.
Morality has to do with our relationships with others. Right and wrong are always in the context of how we interact with others. In order for there to be harmony with anyone else that someone else necessarily must agree with my own views on ethics -"How can two walk together unless they agree?" But, then again, without any basis for ethics (absolutes) it is unreasonable to seek someone of the “same” mind. Why marry someone who sees the world the same way as I do? If their views are different from mine I affirm their views anyway and see them as no less or no more valid then my own. Therefore, it is a moot point to try and “harmonize” with someone regarding worldviews. How about parenting? It is pointless to rear children with a certain system of values if no one system is any better than another and all are equally valid.
The denial of absolute truth leads to even more nonsense. For instance, if I affirm that everyone has a right to determine what is true/untrue or right/wrong for themselves, then I affirm the other man's system as valid. His system is valid (according to my system) even if it opposes my own personal system. This is because my own system affirms everyone's right to self-determine their own morality. Let’s go further: by self-determining their system I affirm it to be valid and effective because my belief is that everyone has the right to do that for themselves without any interference from anyone else. Now, with that in mind, it is absurd and irrational and a violation (contradiction) of MY OWN belief system to condemn another man's system when it is in opposition to my own. My own professed system affirms his right to have an opposing view.
Let us keep thinking on this more. If I believe every man can create his own moral code and that each man's moral code is valid, then I am thinking irrationally and with absurdity. Here is why: when my personal code collides with another man's code that is opposite of my own, they cannot both be valid. We are saying opposite things – both of us cannot be right. If then I condemn his code and claim it is invalid for the reason that it is not like my own, I am again irrational and absurd. This is because I violate my own system by condemning his. My system after all says he has a right to make his own code/system and that his is equally valid. Thus, indirectly, I am affirming two opposing ideas as true when only one can be true. This makes me absurd.
Furthermore, while my system affirms the validity of that other man’s opposing view, when I condemn his view I thus contradict my own system and am guilty of inconsistency with myself. Even worse still, if I condemn another man’s system I condemn my own. This is because my system affirms the other man’s system even when it opposes mine! I am a hypocrite! No absolutes, and total self-determination, combined with any condemnation of others reduces me to a liar who is faithless to my own professed system.
Everyone has a system of beliefs, no matter how well or how poorly thought out it is. People who deny absolute truth contradict their own system with such statements.
Absolute truth exists because God exists. I do not determine truth, God does. He is truth and all claims of truth are measured by their conformity to Who He is. He is eternal, omnipresent, and omniscient and therefore there is absolute truth that applies to all men, at all times in all places.
Comments
Post a Comment