QUESTIONS: Upon what foundation does one build his truth claims? Asked another way, what is the origin of truth? How reliable is that origin and thus the foundation? If the foundation is not sound, can the truth system built upon that foundation be sound?
Within the various cultures, sub-cultures, social groups, right down to the individual there is a tension which has to do with the origin and foundation of reality or as we might say, the bottom line truth. The position one takes in the aforementioned question sets the stage for the following material.
The discussion may we be summed up in the last question. The foundational presuppositions upon which a person builds his truth systems will determine the integrity, validity, and veracity of that system.
The discussion may we be summed up in the last question. The foundational presuppositions upon which a person builds his truth systems will determine the integrity, validity, and veracity of that system.
The initial question is this. Is truth’s origin external or internal? That is does the origin and thus the authority for truth lay in that which is external to the individual, social group, sub-culture, or culture or does it lay within. Among the outcomes if truth is internal to those things mentioned are the following two.
First, internal truth tend to divide. For example if one takes the position that his truth comes as a result of race, religion, ethnicity, sub-culture etc. then what problems may come when those truth convictions encounter truth conviction from other races, religions, etc.
Second, internal truth can be destructive. Since it is an internal truth it is far more likely to include and even give license for bias, discrimination, and beliefs that are destructive to others.
Second, internal truth can be destructive. Since it is an internal truth it is far more likely to include and even give license for bias, discrimination, and beliefs that are destructive to others.
There is however, another and in my view more reliable foundation upon which one can construct his system of truth. It is the case when truth is external to all that has been discussed so far.
Ethical truth can only exist when it's authority and origin is external to,
- The individual
- The culture
- The sub-culture
- The social situation
The outcome is an ethical truth which is universal and objective and points to transcendence and thus transcendent truth. Universal in that it applies to all peoples of all times. Objective in that it is not influenced nor changed by circumstances. Transcendent in that it has its origin from the Divine.
Open or closed values system: As an aside there is as a result of a direct or tacit decision as to the openness or closedness of the value system in which we live. Either we live in a closed or open ethical/moral environment.
The one who contends for ethical truth generally directly or tacitly believes that ethical values are only possible because the value systems that we recognize are open systems with the Divine as continually contributing to the processes involved. The one who contends for moral truth either directly or tacitly believes in a closed system without the involvement of the Divine.
Ethical/Moral confusion: Looking thus at the notion of ethics being beyond the situation makes a phrase such as situational ethics an inconsistency and only possible as the meaning of ethics and morals has been blurred to the point that they have become synonyms. Truth is that taking an historical definition of these words into account yields the point that these are actually contradictory terms since the existence and reality of ethical truth transcend any and all situations.
Returning then to the discussion of internal truth, consider the next few points.
Open or closed values system: As an aside there is as a result of a direct or tacit decision as to the openness or closedness of the value system in which we live. Either we live in a closed or open ethical/moral environment.
The one who contends for ethical truth generally directly or tacitly believes that ethical values are only possible because the value systems that we recognize are open systems with the Divine as continually contributing to the processes involved. The one who contends for moral truth either directly or tacitly believes in a closed system without the involvement of the Divine.
Ethical/Moral confusion: Looking thus at the notion of ethics being beyond the situation makes a phrase such as situational ethics an inconsistency and only possible as the meaning of ethics and morals has been blurred to the point that they have become synonyms. Truth is that taking an historical definition of these words into account yields the point that these are actually contradictory terms since the existence and reality of ethical truth transcend any and all situations.
Returning then to the discussion of internal truth, consider the next few points.
Moral truth only reflects only the mores of a particular culture. There is the view of truth and thus reality that its origin is internal to the culture. The outcome is that such truth--such moral truth has its origins and is validated by the opinion and action of the culture. That is to say that if at least 51% of the culture believes some notion or participates in some practice, then those things are considered validated as moral truth. In this case, societal mores are taken to be authoritative.
An example might be what constitutes larceny. If 51% of a given culture holds that a person stealing less than a prescribed amount is in fact not larceny then such would be a moral standard or truth prescribed by that culture. Of course the outcome would be that the behavior of the Law would be to conform to that moral standard.
Exclusive and/or private truth is another view of truth. Those who hold this notion believe that they are in possession of special or truth exclusive to them or their group. In some cases there is limited access and in others it is made available to others.
The behavioral outcome is that for some there comes a notions of superiority since they have been vested with this special truth. The can be an attendant license to behave on a level which is not consistent with ethical or even moral truth. This may be seen in some religions whose members have been taught that they may lie or even kill in order to achieve the greater good as defined by their beliefs.
The behavioral outcome is that for some there comes a notions of superiority since they have been vested with this special truth. The can be an attendant license to behave on a level which is not consistent with ethical or even moral truth. This may be seen in some religions whose members have been taught that they may lie or even kill in order to achieve the greater good as defined by their beliefs.
Self truth. Those who hold this position believe that the individual is the origin of truth. Some even postulate that there is within all an inner light of some sort that reveals to them truth. Such belief is most often tailor made to their personality and their moral convictions. When people employ the phrase, "My god would never..." and then they go on to list their agenda they are reflecting this notion of self revelation of truth.
The problem is that such people seldom if ever create a god that is realistic. In fact, most often they create a god that does not challenge nor stress their own level of self-centeredness.
QUESTION: What is the outcome for a culture that seeks to embrace and even force the acceptance of these and other truth systems?
There is no common basis for deciding truth.
For example the person who holds ethical truth, who then relies upon an external authority, might then refer to the authority of Scripture or in some cases the authority of church tradition as taught and practiced throughout history.
Though there may be some commonality with those who hold moral truth, at some point there will be a departure. For the reasons this is so refer to the discussion in the articles, "Cultural and Personal Chaos" and "Checking the Descent into Unethical Chaos."
There cannot be an agreed upon standard of authority.
With differing truth convictions the standards for deciding reliable authority differ. As previously mentioned one such authority is found in "I feel that...." Others rely upon externals either culture or transcendent universal authority. Factor in the closed /open values systems argument. Again there is a great potential for division and as well disconnect when arguments are tendered based upon such differing views of the origins of truth and the place of the Divine in those views.
There can be no agreement as to correct and incorrect action
For example the person who holds ethical truth, who then relies upon an external authority, might then refer to the authority of Scripture or in some cases the authority of church tradition as taught and practiced throughout history.
Though there may be some commonality with those who hold moral truth, at some point there will be a departure. For the reasons this is so refer to the discussion in the articles, "Cultural and Personal Chaos" and "Checking the Descent into Unethical Chaos."
There cannot be an agreed upon standard of authority.
With differing truth convictions the standards for deciding reliable authority differ. As previously mentioned one such authority is found in "I feel that...." Others rely upon externals either culture or transcendent universal authority. Factor in the closed /open values systems argument. Again there is a great potential for division and as well disconnect when arguments are tendered based upon such differing views of the origins of truth and the place of the Divine in those views.
There can be no agreement as to correct and incorrect action
As noted above the ethicist argues that there are objective universal truths, by most considered to be transcendent which establish and maintain the dividing line between right and wrong. Of course the moralist counters with the notion that the difference between right and wrong are established based upon cultural mores. Again the individualist would discount both and establish right and wrong based upon standards that might well be unique to him.
There is not enough in common to enjoy a common faith experience nor expression
SUMMARY/CLOSING THOUGHTS: Mankind has been given the freedom to choose and so each person must decide for himself whether he believes that truth is external to himself or is it the light within. Further he has been vested with the authority to make a choice in the matter. As well he has been vested with the power to decide whether he accepts an open or closed values environment.
If all is internal to the entities mentioned above, what can the person who hold such a conviction offer as validating proof and thus confirmation that it indeed is a genuine truth, one upon which one might stake his life. How might such a person without relying upon personal feelings and/or cultural mores validate his truth claims. If the self is considered the ultimate authority, then it is to the self that one must answer self as the ultimate authority.
Finally, the one who hold that there is universal, objective, transcendent truth views God to be the ultimate authority. Responsibility for rest with Him for being the final and ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong. While societal systems and cultural system may exist and serve to keep order and provide safety, as to ethical truth and such sanctions as come from disobeying same God is the final and ultimate authority to which one must give account for his rights and wrongs.
Each person who draws a breath of life has been vested with the power to choose who or what provides his ethical/moral compass but what he has no control over is the outcome of that choice!
No comments:
Post a Comment