"IMO and The Truth" Part One

The court room was packed and overflowing.

The judge looked at the jury verdict form and then at the jury.  It was then that he announced that when the verdict was read there was to be no reaction from those present in the court room.  It had been a particularly heinous crime and there was no doubt that the defendant was guilty!

The form was returned to the jury foreman and in a matter of fact voice he read, "In the matter of the state versus the defendant, after careful consideration the jury returns a verdict of not guilty."  Try as they might, there was a collective gasp from those present, how could this be?

Indeed from opening statements through the presentation of testimonies and evidence to the closings statements and finally the judge’s instructions to the jury it seemed so very clear.  How could the jury return anything but a verdict of guilty?

Later when interviewed the jury foreman had a shocking response.  A response that was in no small way disturbing!

"To a person, we the jury believe that the defendant was guilty, as guilty as could be!"  Then he went on, "The parameters set forth in the jury instructions were drawn so tightly that when we look at the cases presented within those parameters we really had little choice but to return the verdict we did."

Now let us move from the example to the venue of the one's opinion. 

Parameters Do Not Change Reality

At one time or another most people think about what constitutes or makes up truth/reality in general and in particular what may be considered as one seeks to find that truth/reality.  It is here that there may be a very real danger. 

For example if a person draws the parameters of what is acceptable too restrictively, the discovery and/or defense of truth/reality is then in serious jeopardy.   The outcome at the very least is far less accurate than it otherwise would be. At the other end of the scale the truth/reality would be denied even though valid.

Take for example the existence of Jesus Christ.  To simplify the issue, either Jesus existed or He did not.  That is the very basic truth/reality of the question.  No amount of evidence or opinion can now change the reality of His existence or His non-existence.  Said another way, no amount of opinion, bias, assumption, nor anything else can change what was so, either way you view the question.

An attendant problem is that of accuracy.  As noted above restrictive parameters have an effect upon accuracy.

So then how is one to know for sure?  As with any other truth or reality, if one's rules of evidence are drawn too tightly, then genuine and valid evidence is disregarded and the truth of the matter is lost.  The question then becomes who is to be the arbitrator of what may be considered and what may be discarded from the inquiry?

Drawing the Parameters

It would appear that there are two somewhat different but related Influences that bear on the subject of how one discovers reality.  One might view the first influence in terms of a scale and the second in terms of an all or none position. 

First, is the question of just where one fits on the “believe – disbelieve” scale.  While a little cynicism protects one from certain kinds of dangers, the total doubter will have no basis for the existence of any kind of reliable truth.  Such a person rejects all truth claims and fits in a Post-Modern notion of existence.

Second, is more of an all or none position.  The position is encapsulated in the question, “Does God exist?”

For the one who tends toward disbelieving and as well reject the existence of God, there remains no authority outside of the self.  So it is that the individual has become the arbitrator of truth.  The validation of truth is nearly impossible as truth rests solely on, “In my opinion….”

Such a position can be very lonely.

Note:  More to follow in Part Two.