In this relatively new postmodern era we find ourselves in, truth is pretty much considered to be what you make it to be. Ethics are determined according to the situation and morality is a culturally created set of guidelines, primarily decided upon by those strong enough to wield influence and power over others in the community or "tribe," and adopted for the continued survival of the species.

Recently, I had a conversation with a co-worker about issues of truth and reality. With all the people I work with, this guy is the one I most enjoy because, despite his self-description as a "liberal democrat", we have a great deal in common and enjoy deep conversation over important issues.

In this particular conversation, my friend commented that he really enjoyed political science (which was his major in college) because society is essentially determined by the oratory skills of the individual, swaying the opinions of those to whom he spoke. He summarized by stating that "truth was determined by those who could win the argument."

I questioned this theory further with him, asking him if he really believed this was "true" in all of life, to which he responded with a mixed answer of yes and no. Of course, this was a moment of honesty in which he realized that his political and social theory dictated one response, while his life dictated another. I followed by pointing out how many people in the world believe they can make truth into what they want; they can determine what is ethically and morally "right" until such time as they, as C.S. Lewis pointed out, become the victims. When that occurs, absolutes suddenly abound.

Our conversation moved into the area of social issues like abortion, a topic of which I knew his position well since we had discussed it a year ago before, during, and after the election season. He, being a liberal democrat, believed abortion should be legal, a woman is free to make her own decisions about her own body, and people like Roberts, Alito and other conservative judges would do well to leave that hot-button alone. Me? Not so much.

This time, the conversation went differently. Within the context of a discussion of truth, my friend was thinking differently. I was able to talk with him within the framework of absolutes in which, despite our own, personal philosophy in which we have strong views and opinions, there must stand a right decision and a wrong decision; a right answer and a wrong one. We talked about perspectives and opinion and how things change, depending on which viewpoint you are focusing. He came to agree with me that there is, beyond our rhetoric and preferences, something real, something solid.

Though the talking points of this particular topic of abortion is usually related to the woman's opinion and perspective since she is the one who carries the child and it is her body, we were able to talk about it as men. After all, it isn't exclusively a woman's issue at all. I spoke to him as the father of a son who I love dearly. I spoke with him as a man who loves children and lives in a society in which infanticide permeates our society and is very real and very legal, yet there are limits to "choice" and freedom in many other areas of our lives that we all must live with everyday.

He agreed that his perspectives would probably change once he becomes a father and I agreed that I was certain they would, at least to some degree. That seemed to be when the light went off for him: How could something be universally right until something as subjective as one's point of view changes and then, all of a sudden, become wrong?

Anyone with properly working faculties can understand the law of non-contradiction, which says that P and not-P cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way. Yet that is what happens regularly in our postmodern world. People blindly believe that it is possible for one person to believe one thing is right and true while allowing that someone else can embrace the opposite position and both be considered right.

Some have argued that absolute truth is not worth fighting for. I tend to agree. Absolute truth should not be something fought over. Very few conversations ever lead to a positive resolution when they denigrate into a fight. But it is worth reasoning over. It is worth taking the time to have intelligent conversation in which the inconsistencies and contradictions are respectfully discussed, remembering that the person with whom we are speaking is a human being, worthy of the dignity and respect they are due as a intelligent creations of an Intelligent Creator.

I don't buy the methodology of some today who act as though it is better to by-pass the discussion of absolutes and simply work within the structure of an individual's subjectivism. After all, it isn't essential that individuals embrace propositions as universally true, so long as they come to believe and realize that it works for them.

There are two basic problems I see with this "logic": First, it is dishonest. It is dishonest for one to believe that there does exist absolutes yet pawn them off to others as though they are just another set of options that "work." If we believe in objectives, we should have the integrity to stand on them and deal with the messy task of reasoning with individuals regarding their truth. When done lovingly and respectfully, it can not only be a bridge-builder within our society, but it can be a very meaningful conversation for both parties involved in which mutual respect and friendship is built. Secondly, and more practically, is the question of what happens when the individual discovers something else they feel "works" better for them later in another situation?

If we're not honest at the beginning and take the time to make the case for why our beliefs are objectively true, we're doing a major disservice to those who have bought into the lie that all beliefs are equally valid and legit. Amazingly, when approached in an honorable way, even the most diehard relativist will often begin to use their God-given faculties to realize their own irrationality, and, at least, recognize that Truth exists.

Labels: David C. Price