As we get older we are confronted with all sorts of things; things that amaze, intrigue, scare, oppose, and even align with the ideas we have as a child. As we step into so called “maturity” (some of us are in a headlong sprint, while others have their heels dug in) we have to filter out what isn’t true. We make the discovery that not everything is true, and the next step is to question the very nature of truth. I think this is the stage that every person who has ever existed will enter, and will remain since their first dawning realization of the ambiguity of truth.
1. What is truth?
That’s the money question that has been pondered by philosophers, theologians, shepherds, slaves, presidents, and truck drivers. Is there such a thing? This is what I believe, and is my best attempt at understanding within the reaches of my twenty-one short years on this spinning globe floating in nothingness surrounded by somethings also floating in expanding nothingness. Truth is something that is defined, and it is defined by an authority.
I sometimes venture into the world of debate, and I always regret doing so. I’m not a good orator, nor am I a good arguer. Couple that with my short term memory and lack of attention span, any debate I’ve entered I’ve always left with a feeling of inadequacy and a remembering of my floundering ideals teaming up with hollow sounding words. But alas, one cannot be good at everything. The reason why I talk about this is because in such debates about truth there is always the defining factor that has to come into play, the question of well, God. As a debater of truth you in my humble opinion find your self a member of one of three camps, which I shall go into. Just to clear it up I shall order them in order of (also in my opinion, maybe not so humble this time but I try) most ridiculous to not. Here we go.
1. God does not exist, but truth does.
“There is no scientific proof for god, nor do I have any personal evidence so I have eliminated “his” input into my life, for it is not real”
That is a statement that many intellectual people of our modern day have said in some form or another. To them, the idea of a god is nice story tale told to children, or weak-minded adults in need of a crutch. I understand their view, and if it were not for evidence that points otherwise I would heartily agree with them. If you remember I said I was going to order these camps from most ridiculous to not, which would be putting this camp as the most. That might seems close-minded and judgmental at first, which it might be, but let me explain myself. I’m not saying that the idea of “god not existing” is laughable for it is quite compelling and on a day to day basis would most likely make the most sense. The reason I put this camp as ridiculous is for those individuals that say, “God does not exist but truth does”. They would say that stealing is bad, for it hurts others. Cheating on your wife is bad for it is not fair to her. Murder is bad because you’re robbing another of life. This leads to the statement, “As long as what’s true for one person does not hurt someone else, it’s fine”.
That sentence is what I call ridiculous. For in this idea you’re still defining personal truths. The definition of “bad” is different for everyone. How we perceive the world is different person to person, for example the person sitting next to me has been talking to the air with animated hand gestures in some foreign language, sometimes bursting out in laughter for the past half hour. This man is currently experiencing something that I perceive as crazy, but to him is of sound logic and makes perfect sense. Put the two of next to each other, have us define truth, and I guarantee the answers will not be compatible.
What I’m getting at is that “truths” will collide and are not limited by anything. The very idea that, “as long as your truth doesn’t hurt my truth, we’re ok” is in and of itself a personal viewpoint that could have no bearing on my truth. What if my truth was in every respect,
“to piss you off to the best of my ability”
The presenter of the first argument would say,
“that’s bad, and that’s not fair!”
Well those words sound hollow with no foundation, so I press further
“who says it’s not fair?” I ask.
“Society!” they respond valiantly.
Now we have the makings of an almost compelling argument that has some validity but I don’t think for the reasons that actually are in favor of this idea, which I’ll touch on later. The idea that society defines right and wrong aligns with my original statement, “truth is defined by authority” but only to a certain degree, for a hundred years from now truth could be completely different. I have yet to find a postmodernist that supports the actions of colonialism, or of the holocaust, or of slavery. But by their definition of truth what our ancestors did was right, and completely valid. We would never admit that, for their actions seem appalling to us. Without a foundation in the absolute though truth loses all validity, and that is why I say this argument is ridiculous
2. God doesn’t exist and neither does truth.
I placed this where I did in the lineup for; though I find it ridiculous I have no argument against it. Other than, well, God does exist. But if you do decide to eliminate a higher power then truth goes out the door as well so you’re life style makes perfect sense to me. If we destroy the foundation of truth than anything goes, and there is no standard except society and they’re probably crazy anyways so fuck ‘em. That’s all I really have to say here.
3. God exists and He defines truth.
Personally it’s either 2 or 3, and since I have evidence of 3 this is the camp I’m in. If God exists then there is truth, for he calls the shots. I don’t change truth to fit my needs, if I’m not compatible with truth it’s actually me that has to change. Sometimes truth is elusive, most of the time it’s uncomfortable, and more often than not it’s confusing. But I can’t simply redefine it and I can’t eliminate it. Sometimes it seems relative, and other times it could never be clearer. I would say truth almost seems to change, and is ambiguous in a sense, but it’s the same with time and has continuity. Right now I’m leaving the realm of science and entering the realm of confusing thought, but I would argue the truth is, in fact, a person.
As I sit here, that crazy man is still talking, but who am I to call him crazy? Only someone greater can make that call, and I’m not that one.
