I appreciate the chance to think through and reflect on aspects of my Christian faith that for all intents and purposes I’ve simply taken for granted. If nothing else, I’ve had to delve into a somewhat shallow aspect of my beliefs and I thank you for that. Well, on to the matter at hand.
First, we need to dispense with the boilerplate stuff. These terms and definitions come from one of the books noted below:
- Absolutism: Principle standards, which are objective rather than relative.
- Objectivism: Moral values and principles exist independent to individuals thereby providing norms to which something can be judged as either true or false.
- Subjectivism: Emphasizing the individual self or subject as the creator of meaning, truth or values.
- Relativism: Claiming there’s no such thing as absolute truth because what is regarded as true varies from person to person. Truth, therefore, is seen as relative to a person’s time, place or circumstances.
I like the definition of “absolute truth” as a fixed point of reference that doesn’t change with respect to situations or circumstances. An easy visual example is that of a chair placed in the center of dark room such that, even if blindfolded, one can navigate throughout the room always knowing where they are with respect to the chair. However, if the chair moves when the person moves, there’s no longer a fixed reference point.
You’d asked for some examples of absolutes. The only thing I actually had in mind when offering to provide “some” examples of absolutes was gravity. However, a little brainstorming brought the below list of absolutes that are at least within the physical world:
- Gravity – Irrespective of something’s size or mass, the object will fall to the ground at the same rate of speed because of gravity.
- Ohm’s law – Apply one volt through a one ohm resistor and you’ll have one amp of current which equates to one watt of power.
- A traffic light – green light means “go” and a red light means “stop”.
- Airplane/marine external indicators – green means starboard (right) and red means port (left).
- Food – if one doesn’t eat, they’ll (eventually) die.
- Mathematics – 1+1=2
- Measurements – A meter is a definitive length. Four cups (8oz) of water will always equal one quart.
- Reganomics – This is just to give you the ‘needle’! {;-P
- 2nd law of thermodynamics, which identifies the impossibility of perpetual motion.
- Friction generates heat.
- Boyle’s law of chemistry.
- Infants wet their pants.
- Time – or at least intervals thereof.
- Nothing moves at absolute zero temperatures.
- Water boils at 212F/100C – well, at sea level anyway.
- The earth rotating around the sun and the moon around the earth.
- Speed of light.
- The Periodic Table of the Elements.
- Dogs make better pets than cats – This is to again just give you the ‘needle’! {;-P
- Nobel metals don’t oxidize and thereby don’t corrode.
- Any house project I set out to do costs >2x what is planned and takes >3x the time expected. I have empirical evidence to prove this!
- Cold air makes snot flow out of my nose.
- Brain cells deprived of oxygen will die.
- Men are XY, women are XX in their chromosomal makeup.
- The cost of any given item is predicated on its supply and demand.
Granted, many of the above examples would certainly be considered more along the line of a “definition”. Even so, they’re constants in that they’re true for everyone. Given that there are absolutes in the physical world, it’s conceivable to me that absolutes exist within an intellectual and/or moral perspective. There’d be chaos if no one played football, baseball, or any other sport for that matter by the same rules. And too, confusion would reign supreme if we didn’t use the same language structure and word definitions. Well, perhaps language is a weak example considering that new words are created over time and sometimes definitions change; words such as ‘mouse’, ‘head banger’, ‘weed’, ‘Google’ and ‘gay’ immediately to mind. Nevertheless, I think the point is still valid.
It may appear simplistic, but I do believe our lives literally depend on the belief that absolutes exist and that everyone plays by the same rules in order to “get-along”. I would submit that horrible historical events such as the Holocaust came about because absolute moral values were predicated on relativistic terms. Didn’t Nazi leaders in WWII use Darwin’s principle of survival of the fittest? In light of that, it could it not make sense that Germany saw themselves as a superior race to the Jews and therefore began “the final solution”? If there’s no ability to define absolute truth, then it stands to reason that any outcome could conceivably have its own justification. As such, should the subsequent Nuremburg trials and death sentences meted out have ever been conducted? Other horrible events with terrible repercussions also come to mind including the Sudanese genocide, modern-day suicide bombers in the Middle East and elsewhere, Stalin’s purges in the USSR, the Crusades during the middle ages, Pol Pot, the Dresden bombing, the intentional starvation in Darfur, etc.
The above is obviously from a “dark side” of humanity. But consider something thing from a different perspective. Perhaps Mother Theresa should have been burned at the state for having been nothing more than a little pimp hussy with her young Indian charges. Truly, there needs to be some sort of objective in which to define actions and behaviors as either wicked or good – or even somewhere in between. To me, then, the implications of not having a “foundation” or a “truth gauge” can ultimately lead to disastrous applications.
Within this context, I sense the opposite of absolute is relative. Perhaps a good example of someone claiming an absolute perspective versus a relativist perspective is Ann Landers. Years ago, Ann advocated that sex before marriage was wrong. Later, however, when asked why she had changed her mind, Ann’s response was, “Times have changed [and] we have to keep up with times.” Speaking with regard to sex before marriage always being wrong (I can’t confirm that’s what she meant, but for the sake of argument we’ll assume so), Ann spoke as an absolutist. That Ann changed her mind with respect to keeping up with the times would then indicate that she really had no absolute values regarding sex before marriage.
If it feels good, what the heck – do it! Without a basis for values, can there be a basis for morality? In addition, without morality, can there be societal standards that govern behavior? Rape 10 year-old girls – what’s the problem? Who’s to say that it’s right or wrong? Questions pertaining to individual or corporate morality, it would then appear, have to be made relative to a stated source for the governance of that morality. Legalize marijuana – is there a right or wrong here? Do the benefits of legalizing marijuana for medical use outweigh the potential of more people getting hooked on drugs? And again, perhaps that’s not the best example – but for now, it’s the best I can come up with. Put this way, if one’s values are relative, then one’s own sense of morality is by definition relative. Can there be a definitive right or wrong or only assumptions based upon one’s own perceived values of right and wrong? Collectively, then, what a corporate people group would agree to as right or wrong would have to be their definition of what constitutes right and wrong.
Given that there can be no absolutes for a relativist (at least as I see it), I’d submit that the philosophical aspect of relativism is at best confusing considering:
- If a relativist thinks something is true for everyone, then he believes in an absolute truth and can no longer call himself a relativist. Therefore, hasn’t he just taken an absolutist position?
- Billy Graham believes God exists. An atheist, however, doesn’t believe God exists. For both to be right, God would have to exist and not exist (which I believe to be untenable because I believe God does exist). In a similar manner, how can we state that a cup of coffee is either hot or cold unless we have a reference? Perhaps there’ll have to be arguments made later to justify the existence of God – but for now I’m trying to keep things close to the surface.
- Everyone knows the math statement: if A=B and B=C, then A=C. However, in regard to Billy Graham (A) believing in God (C) and the atheist (B), denying God’s existence (D), I think the logic would go something like: if A=B and C=D, then A=C, A=D, B=C and B=D. But this can’t make sense because by definition of (A) & (C) are opposites as are (B) & (D) aren’t the same. As such, these statements would have to be considered not true – or at the least, undefined.
- If there’s no “standard”, no one can ever be wrong since there’s no way of determining right and wrong.
- If something is true for one, does it remains true even if it’s considered wrong by someone else’s “standard”? Suddenly we’re back to a lot of undefined statements.
- If one claims no such thing as absolute truth, haven’t they then assumed that no “view” can be true?
- On what basis can such claims for the opposites of right and wrong coexist?
How is it that those who don’t believe in any form of absolute truth or objective morality insist on making objective moral statements against those who do? Can a relativist insist on using terms like “wrong” and “evil” instead of something more “relativist” such as: “It’s neither right, wrong, good, bad, or indifferent. It just is.” Or, perhaps the relativist could say, “I don’t like it but if you do, I’m okay with that.” This thought seems consistent from the title of a book written in the early 1970s, I’m OK, You’re OK.
So, if truth isn’t subjective, the next question has to be how do we know what truth really is?
- Most people will not deny they exist or that they can reason.
- We know we exist because we’re aware of our existence.
- Truth corresponds to facts.
- We’re aware of some facts such as matter and reality.
- Is there a way to know the source of this reality?
- Even agnostics will admit to the “logic of cause and effect”.
- What was the “first cause”? How did the universe begin? Is God a logical concept?
- Without God, where did matter come from?
Descartes famous line, “I think therefore I am” is interesting in that it illuminates one’s own existence and that we have the required capacity to reason. We know we absolutely exist and therefore if someone were to say to us that we didn’t exist, rationale thinking says that it’s impossible for both of these claims to be right. Then again, things can appear to be true at some times and not at others. Around the time of Columbus, many people believed the earth was flat. Today, however, we know the earth is a sphere. Someone might infer that the truth has changed. But in reality, it didn’t. The earth has always been a sphere even when people believed it was flat. The truth of the earth’s physical shape did not change but I think it’s safe to say that people have changed from holding a false belief to a true one. In essence, our beliefs with respect to the shape of the earth now correspond with the facts.
In summary, then, for someone to then say that there’s no such thing as absolute truth is to state an absolute and from my feeble understand, this is a contradiction of terms. Yet, everyone seems to have an innate sense of right and wrong. Who hasn’t been “cut-off” while driving? The immediate reaction is anger and rage, flipping the ‘bird’ at the other driver and shouting out, “You stupid %#$@&% idiot!” Even small kids understand the unfairness of an action when, say, someone cuts in front of the line for an ice cream cone. Lying in legal court proceedings is perhaps a violation of another absolute and courts have laws regarding perjury in order to ensure compliance to the law. From where do we get this innate sense of right and wrong?
Therefore, I think it’s reasonable to state that there are absolutes. The question, then, becomes whose absolutes do we follow? How, then, do we know that one’s absolutes are indeed absolutes? On this point, I think we get to the crux of the issue. Being honest here, I’m sympathetic to those who’d say the Christian idea of absolute truth is intolerant, narrow-minded, bigoted and even exclusivist. Christianity’s claim is not that it’s one truth among many. Instead, Christianity claims to be the only channel through which truth is communicated. I’ll concede, that sounds rather exclusive. In reality, though, Christianity isn’t the only faith-belief doctrine that claims to be exclusive. Even a cursory examination of, say, Islam reveals its exclusive claims of truth through Allah and the necessity of Jihad. It’s fascinating to observe the degree to which Western people generally condemn Christianity for its self-proclaimed tenants. Yet the adherents of Islam are in essence given a pass for their self-proclaimed tenants that are in my mind much more punitive to the non-Muslim infidel. However, that’s probably a different subject altogether.
Nevertheless, it’s hard to ignore a “diminished evaluation” of other beliefs (faiths?) when biblical scriptures such as John 14:6 state: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” The thought occurs to me as I’m thinking back on our conversations about ‘grace’ – I fully agree and understand that if the truth the Christians professes to possess is only proclaimed for others to live by but not those within the “Christian community”, who would want to believe Christianity’s message? Along the same line, even if Christians fail to live up to the standards of their faith; do those failures necessarily illuminate false doctrine? Perhaps those failures are better defined as ignorance of the Christian faith or the inability of Christians to uphold to their faith?
To that point, I think C.S. Lewis said it best when he concluded that everyone has to come to a point where they determine that Jesus is either lord of the universe, a liar, or some kind of lunatic. Cultural trends come and go with the passage of time. Hey, if nothing else, thank [our supreme being] that we aren’t heading back to the disco days anytime soon. Those colorful bell bottomed polyester leisure suits, fat belts and heeled shoes were the pits! However, I do miss the hair!!!! Nevertheless, the basic message of Christ as ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ has remained for nearly two thousand years.
My daughter once explained to me that the concept of absolute truth might be more clearly defined by the concept of non-truth (or falsehood). Intolerance is (to me) a good example. Are people who believe in absolute truth intolerant? Wouldn’t tolerance be putting up with error and not accepting all views as true? So, if tolerance is putting up with error, doesn’t that assume that there is truth? You can’t have error without the concept of truth much like you can’t identify whether a cup of coffee is hot or cold without a reference. To me, a belief system composed of objective truth that claims to be founded on a fixed point of reference is the only consistent way of living and thinking. I would therefore submit that absolute truth gives a firm foundation for decision-making and the implementation of principles into our daily lives.
The End
I apologize that it’s taken me a lot longer than I expected to piece this little ditty together. Yet, after reading through this “tome”, I’m not sure that I’ve adequately answered your question or provided sufficient reasons or examples as to the existence of absolute truth. I think I devolved into what I already have believed for some time. and, maybe that’s okay. That’s where I am – believing that absolute truth exists both in the physical world as noted above and within the intellectual world as I’ve tried to argue here. It was my intent to prove absolute truth exists apart from having to lean on my Christian faith. Nevertheless, I ended up where I did if for no other reason than because I see my Christian faith as the epitome for absolute truth which is best exemplified through the life of Christ. Christ’s life and teachings are the basis for my standards of morality et al in spite of the fact that Christians (and certainly myself include) all too often aren’t examples of living a life predicated on Jesus’ teachings. Maybe it’s possible to understand partial absolute truth with reason and logic apart from Christianity. Then too, maybe I’m concluding that the ultimate source for absolute truth is beyond our finite abilities of reason and logic and perhaps for that realization of truth to be found, we have to be open to the source of absolute truth.
Well, agree or disagree – there you have my $0.02 worth. Feel free to comment, question or challenge anything said. As you’ve perhaps sensed, I enjoy healthy debate, deep discussion and having to dig deeper into things about which I really ought to have a better understanding. Without your gentle prompting, this would not have happened. So, thank-you.
I hereby congratulate myself on the just-created weekly award of – drumroll, please – “
Martin's Mercurial Musings 