“Truth Detour - Road Closed”

“Truth Detour - Road Closed”

Recently while driving there appeared a sign, “Detour Ahead.”  Soon another appeared “Detour Ahead” and then a sign that read, “Road Closed.”  Not being familiar with the area did not help matters.  As you might suppose the road was indeed closed and with such being so, a fair amount of back tracking became necessary.

In the course of seeking genuine reality/truth one travels many roads.  However, what is most disconcerting is to encounter someone who claims a willingness to travel any road necessary but soon erects “Road Closed” signs. 

How can such be so?  It seems that if one is a genuine seeker of ultimate truth, that person would be willing to take any road necessary and then follow that road wherever necessary.  Sadly such is not so!

There are those who fall within the Reverend George McDonald* observation,

“To give truth to him who loves it not is to only give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation.” 

How does one know if they are dealing with one who will seek truth no matter where the road leads and no matter the costs involved?  You can most often identify those who are in such honest pursuit as they exhibit certain qualities.  At this point it must be said that no one possess or is possessed of perfect integrity—all are fallible.

THE ROADBLOCKS TO REALITY

The pseudo-seekers of reality share several qualities, among them are the following.

Dismissive:  To immediately dismiss a potential threat to one’s truth paradigm is often counterproductive.  The person who would seek genuine truth is one who submits all to careful examination no matter the outcome.

Existential superiority:  In a recent interaction a significant body of information was dismissed based upon one’s experience.  The notion of personal experience trumping the veracity of a truth claim is dangerous for reasons that will be explain below.

Explicitness:  Any profitable interchange deals in specific subject matter.  To cast generalities back and forth serves little in the pursuit of truth as both the late Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins amply demonstrate.

Fair exchange:  There is a great difference between argument and attack.  It is one thing to question the foundation, logic, and conclusion of an argument and it is something else to argue with innuendo, misstatement, projection, and misrepresentation.  Such interactions are nothing other than attack as opposed to sincere quest for truth.

Vulnerability:  Because at times truth is illusive there are those who will take a chance, pass a “Road Closed” sign, travel that new road, think a new thought, come to a new conclusion, be faced by a new finding, and most of all they are willing to challenge and have their conclusions challenged.

THE EXAMINATION OF GENUINE TRUTH

The genuine seekers of reality share several qualities, among them are the following.

Foundation:  Sound conclusions are built upon sound presuppositions.  When one encounters a new truth paradigm, it is well to ask, “What is necessary for such to be true?”  If the foundation is faulty then there is a very strong possibility that the structure of the argument is going to be faulty.

Logical consistency:  If truth is genuine, the pathway to that truth has a certain logical consistency.  In that vein, one is wise to carefully insure that a seeming illogical argument is not dismissed for other than logical fallacy.

The Comparative Measure:  To verify a truth claim, it must be compared to, based upon, and in sync with a known and verifiable truth.  All else is theory until proven otherwise.  This very often is where the one claiming an existential foundation for truth runs into difficulties for such is without connection to verifiable and proven realtiy.

So here is the question.  Passing all of the signs along the roadway to truth, how have your beliefs fared.  Did they stand up to the test or do they need to be re-examined?

_____________

*The Scottish Reverend George MacDonald was an accomplished author, poet, and writer of fantasy literature.  It is said that Lewis Carroll was influenced by his writings and thus wrote the wonderful, “Alice in Wonderland.”  Others fell under his influence to include C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien.

“You Can’t Stand the Truth!”

“You Can’t Stand the Truth!”

Who can read those words and not think of Jack Nicolas as Marine Col Jessup in “A Few Good Men?”

Yet, that is a question that divides people, not just in a movie but in the conduct of life.

The question we all need to face is this.  “Can you stand the truth?”  If one can stand the truth, they will go wherever necessary to seek out that truth.   If one can stand the truth, they will push their truth paradigm ever deeper until it is either validated or falters.   

On the other hand if such a person limits that truth to what they  choose to believe then such truth is a product of one’s volition*—that is one’s will.  Such may mean that honest inquiry is lacking.  Why would this be so?  Consider the following.

On one side of the question you have intellectual integrity on the other side intellectual bias.  On one side you have intellectual vulnerability on the other side intellectual resistance.  On one side you have intellectual bravery on the other side you have intellectual cowardice.  On one side you have intellectual daring on the other side intellectual cowering.  On one side you have intellectual freedom on the other side you have intellectual bondage.    

Yet it is the one who lives in a world of intellectual bias, resistance, cowardice, and cowering who proclaims his intellectual freedom all the while disparaging those of differing opinion.   One must ask, “Why not hear what others have to say?” Aristotle observed,

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

What is most interesting is that those who claim to be willing to follow the path to truth wherever necessary, at least in my experience, close off all but what they can mentally deduce.  Their position is best described as cynical of anything that cannot pass their own rational filtration processes. 

Classically this is called rationalism and in the extreme it rejects all other avenues to truth such as Empiricism and Existentialism.  In lesser degrees it is the filter applied to other avenues to truth.

Three simple observations are to be made at this point.

First, one does well to push truth ever deeper to see if it is durable or destructed.  If one’s truth is not durable then it most certainly will fall in the face of challenge.  It is the brave person who can face that eventuality and re-chart his life and purpose.  The coward resorts to affective responses and personal attack.

Second, there is no new truth only the discovery of the truth that already exists.  For that reason he is prudent who does not become so ensnared in a truth paradigm that it cannot change with the discovery of deeper realities.

Third, truth is a stewardship issue.  When one discovers deeper and deeper truth such vests that person with a responsibility to then live out that truth no matter the cost.

In summary, underpinning the above is a simple principle.  It is this.  Truth is a character issue and today in western culture truth discovered, challenged, and lived out, has been relegated to a place of irrelevance.  Indeed it has been sacrificed on the altar of expedience. 

*thought elucidated at http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html

“The Preponderance of Faith”

“The Preponderance of Faith”

Perhaps you've heard the statement "preponderance of the evidence."  The point of the following is that without 100% proof, there is a gap that is only filled by faith.  Thus, from the cold empiricist to the existentialist, faith is to be found in any and all systems of knowledge.

George H. Smith[1] in his book, Atheism: The Case Against God and writing of The Skepticism of Faith argues that skepticism in the study of the origins of knowledge will eventually lend aid and comfort to religious claims and turn against the atheist.  Quite a claim for a libertarian atheist.

The point is this.  For the one who is skeptical of the theist and who asserts that his claims of reality cannot be proven in total, then he is simply observing what is true of any and all roads to reality.  Both sides of the atheism-theism question to some degree must rely, not on the facts but upon his belief.  To rely upon one’s belief is to put trust in that belief—that is put faith in that belief.

Just to be clear, since atheism cannot be reliably proven, then such requires some degree of belief beyond what proof that may exist for the claim.  Therefore one can conclude that atheism requires faith.  So while the atheist points to the theist and joyfully demands proof, what he fails to see is that his own position is equally fragile.  Fragile because it cannot be completely and totally substantiated.

This holds true for the Rationalist, as there are matters that cannot be discerned through one’s thinking no matter how much intellectual prowess one might posses.  As well it holds true for the Empiricist for there are matters that cannot be scientifically proven nor explained no matter how much science is applied to the question.

Whether it be Naturalism, Idealism, Materialism, Existentialism, or any of a number of other “isms” it is as it is in theism.  There simply is no iron clad, 100% verifiable way in which to prove the veracity of any of the aforementioned systems and any others that you might care to include in the discussion. 

The simple point is that without some degree of trust/faith, one cannot legitimately embrace any truth system.  So then, how does one comes to believe in this idea or that notion?  In its simple form, it is a matter of one’s choice.   What then do you choose to believe?

_____________________

[1] Author, editor, and contributor to numerous publications is an atheist and libertarian thinker.