"Special Truth" - A House of Cards

Do you remember the last instance in which  you met someone with some special truth or another?  How did the conversation go?  What effect did it have on you?  Did you feel built up and affirmed or did you feel left out and deflated?

Recently I met such a person--one with special truth.  In fact I met several within a two week period.  One had the answer to all of our family's health needs.  Another had special truth that would meet our spiritual needs.  Then there was the one whose candidate would fix Washington D. C.  Then there was the one who had special insight into investments and his program would give the follower durable wealth in turbulent times.

Certainly there are more than were just listed--people who claimed special truth, special insight, superior ideas, or some similar thing.  However, upon closer examination, it seems to me that there are pitfalls into which the one with "special" or "exclusive private" truth might fall if great care is not exercised.

Disclaimer:  Before continuing perhaps it would be well if consideration is given to the fact that there are legitimate truths that are unique.  

First, there are truths which are unique in that they are universally true across the earth and throughout time. 

These truth are unique because they can be objectively applied. 

These truth share a third quality and that is that they are transcendent, that is from outside of the human experience. 

The final quality is that they are generally accessible and not at all the private property of a special few.

As well, consider that the elements of this disclaimer are a way to examine the veracity of a particular "truth" for if such a truth does not meet these four standards plus one more we will consider in a moment, it very likely that such truth will not stand the acid test of time.  

It is also to be noted that this is not a matter of one offering this opinion or that and thus goes well beyond the exchange and examination of ideas or thesis.

Presuppositions

 The question that one must take to the discussion is the matter of what does one suppose to be true for such "special" truth to be genuine and real.  Much of the power of special truth and/or superior truth is decided by what one holds to have veracity and thus be taken as foundational truth.

An example would be the conspiracy theorist who holds that they have special truth about some international banking cartel that is in control of the world money supply.  Another example would be that government is in a clandestine operation to remove a citizens personal rights.  

In terms of religious faith, it is the one or the many who believe that God has given them some "special" revelation or another. For example one group holds in high regard their translation of the Bible which is at variance with Hebrew and Greek rules of grammar.  These and other suppositions are not without consequence in one's relationship with the foundations of genuine truth.

Entrapped by Special Truth

As sure as an animal can be entrapped in a net, so too there is the danger of being entangled in one's special truth.  This is the situation in which a person is so caught in their suppositions and the resulting truth paradigm(s) that insights into reality are colored deeply by this special truth. Just as an animal struggles to be free to only become more tangled in the net so too this person except that they do not struggle to be free.

This is not the kind of truth that liberates and grants a freedom of insight but one which restricts and holds in it clutches all other thoughts and views.  It is that truth that indeed traps the one who embraces it.  It soon becomes the paradigm through which all other notions and ideas are measured and when facts to the contrary are offered there is a certain selective perception or even loss of touch with reality.

Loss of Reality

One of the very serious outgrowths of special or superior truth is an unrealistic view of the possible.  It goes so far as to present as a loss of touch with what is realistic.  One such position is that of the person who votes for a particular candidate although there is no possible way for their candidate to carry the election.  Two examples from the political past is the presidential candidacy of Ross Perot and/or Ralph Nader.  

 

Both of these men against all the data presented still in all seem to believe that they could be elected as president of the United States of America.  Never mind that even their own poll numbers would not support their contention.  

Thus they developed followings who also lost a realistic perspective. All that happened in the case of Mr. Perot was that the conservative vote was split and the election went to the candidate who was the polar opposite of the ideas upon which he campaigned.   

The prevailing attitude seemed to be then and now is that all one needs to do is to vote consistent with their particular political agenda.  Again, at times superior truth tends to mitigate against being realistic.  There is a very real danger that this could happen again in the next election. 

Excluded by Exceptional Truth 

Another of the problems associated with this special truth is that of exclusion.  Such excluding may be as overt as discrimination and shunning or a subtle as simply avoiding.  It is brought about by a certain pride on the part of the one embracing such truth.

This exclusion is based in the notion that if one does not embrace such special and exceptional truth they are to be viewed as being religiously, politically, intellectually, ethically, or in some other way inferior.  This only serves to divide people and especially so when one's emotions and attitudes enter the discussion.

The outcome is that the proponents of that exceptional truth "circle the wagons" and begin to fend off outsiders and then feed off of one another with the consequence that convictions deepen.  The problem is that one become so enmeshed that to think one's way out is nearly impossible.  Not that they would want to as it would bring rejection by their referent group.

Superior Truth's Permission

Another attitude which frequents those with superior truth is that of permission.  This is the notion that because of a superior truth one is not bound by nor governed by the principles of those with lesser truth.  

For example one with superior truth might believe they have permission to deal in falsehood.  The prime example of this is found in the political extreme left who believe that because of their superior truth paradigm regarding government that they have permission to create and distort statistics.


It is not the extreme political left alone for certain religious cults believe that they have superior revelation that is not available to most.  Such superior revelation then grants permission to do what is necessary to put their superior truth forward to including being less than truthful.  

Of course should one "join up" by the time that they can see the distortion of the truth they will fall into one of two positions.  They might well buy into the notion of superior truth and in principle if not fact agree with the notion that the ends justify the means.  The second is born out of the fear of being shunned.  In either case they stay engaged and over time become more deluded.

Consider a Question or Two

So it is that  the original four principles of truth come again to the fore.  Here is the question.  

Is that which you believe universally true across the earth and throughout time; can it be objectively applied; is it transcendent, that is from outside of the human experience; and is it generally accessible and not the private property of a special few?  

We might add another and that is the question of the foundation of that truth.  Does that foundation share the four aforementioned qualities?  Durable truth does!

For a person's truth paradigm to not fulfill these five criterion it seems to me that then the life is as fragile as a house of cards.  So much the more so if it is so fragile that it has to shield itself from criticism with claim terms such as superior, special, or exceptional.

Finally, there is a truth that will liberate and set free.  There is a truth that will entrap and confine.  Which kind of truth have you built your life upon?

"The Progression / Regression of Durable Truth" CT3

Overview:  In this section consideration will be given to how secular man views the "growth" of truth.  To be sure it is presented in a simple format.  The first section will be the "progression" of durable truth.  The second will be a discussion of the "regression" of durable truth as man entered the picture.  The final section ask the reader a question, "Which model of truth is more durable?"

The "Progression" of Truth

Judeo-Christian Belief:  When one views the panoramas of history there is but one religion which is being currently practiced which pre-dates all other religions.  This would be true unless one holds the conviction that there were peoples who predate the events recorded in open words of the Torah.  The religion is Judaism.

Adding to that statement is a notion held by many if not most people of Christian conviction.  It is that their roots and foundations are in the Jewish faith.  Thus the term Judeo-Christian.  The basic understanding involved is that in order to understand Christianity and Christian thought, one must come to some understanding of Jewish matters and especially those recorded in the Jewish writings (the Old Testament) culture at the time of Christ (the Gospel narratives).

To do divide Christianity from its Jewish roots and the Jewish culture of its times is to tempt the possibility of dealing in mistaken error.  The other end of the spectrum of the false is Christian hearsay. 

These two backgrounds or knowledge foundations then allow for the understanding of Christian Theology.  Though this is by no means a complete treatment of the subject, and indeed an oversimplification, it allows for the following discussion of the place of Judeo-Christian Thought in the larger scheme of how western man has come to view truth and life.

In order to understand this section, reference is made to the material in previous blogs.

Judeo-Christian Foundations of Truth:

As previously noted, Judaism predates all other religions and systems of faith.  Beside that which is discussed above there is another reason that the term, Judeo-Christian exists.  It is because there are common threats of truth that course their way through both systems of faith.

• Both agree that there is transcendent truth that finds its origin in the Divine
• Both agree that Divinely revealed truth is completely congruent with the character and nature of God.
• Both agree that such transcendent truth as exists is revealed to mankind
• Both agree that such transcendent truth exists whether it is recognized or ignored
• Both agree that transcendent truth is universal, therefore it has consistency and integrity throughout all ages and among all peoples
• Both agree that transcendent truth is objective and not subjective.

The outcome of such belief is that Judeo-Christian faith is a belief with God about,

• The importance of humanity and a high view of man and human life
• The importance of progress and the critical nature of same
• The importance of reason is found in it relationship with revelation.  
• The importance of interdisciplinary truth and that such truth must have integrity in presupposition, content, and process.

However, with Enlightenment there came a shift that swept across the western world.  The result was and continues to be an emphasis upon man and his capacities, absent the "God Factor."  Today we call it secularism.

The "Regression" of Truth

The more that man has attempted to redefine the origin and transmission of truth, the more confusing that man "discovered" truth became and becomes.  This will be seen in the following material on Modernism and Post-Modernism.  The outcome is that the more man has been involved at the exclusion of God, in this matter of truth, the more unreliable has become that truth!


Modernism attempts to "Trump" Judeo-Christian Truth:  Modernism presents itself as superseding the antiquate and outdated Judeo-Christian thinking.  It held that the "God Factor" at best was myth and at worse was a deliberate attempt to subjugate various races, genders, national groups, etc.

Modernism holds that such truths as exist are not transcendent, that is they do not have their origin in the Divine.  They very much hold that the notion of God is dead!  That is not to say that those who hold this position ever believed that the Divine lived and then died.  It is the idea that the notion and therefore the influence of God on western culture is an antiquated and dead notion.  That death includes all of the attendant truth to include theology, doctrine, the influences of the Church in history, etc.

Without there being the Divine, revelation cannot possibly exist for it would have no origin.

"No revelation, no Divine!  Know revelation, know the Divine."

Therefore such revelation as is embraced throughout Judeo-Christian history is not held to be valid and therefore, such truth as is discovered comes by human rationalism, scientific discovery, and as well such truth as may be postulated from existence.  Such a position is based on a very high view of man, man's capacities.
Because of that high view of man and because God is excluded from the discussion there are the following pathways to truth.

• Rationalism theorizes that through Idealism and Mentalism truth may be known.  Rational processes of the mind are key to this theory.
• Empiricism theorizes that through Science, Naturalism, Materialism, Mechanism truth may be known.  Truth is derived from how one observes and processes those observations.
• Existentialism theorizes that through the Sensationalism truth may be known.  Truth is known through what one senses and feels.

The outcome of such belief is that Modernism is a truth that comes in and of a closed system.  That is to say there is no Divine influence in and upon the system of truth the Modernist postulates.  As to the previously posted discussions of Ethics vs Morals, since there is no transcendent truth, man's best guess at what is right and correct is from these three categories just listed.

For example, in empiricism man may observe and test the values of a culture and decide what at least 51% of that culture hold to be true.  In this example truth is then imply a social construct or a truth born of cultural mores.  Of course just because a majority of the culture believes something to be true does not make it so.

Post Modernism revealed

The Post-Modernist rejects all previous notions of and arguments for truth.  While the Modernist and those of Judeo-Christian belief agree that there is this "stuff" called truth, this group rejects all of the above discussion regarding the matter.

Therefore, there is no God or even god, transcendent truth, revelation, universal truth, objective truth!  All is rejected.  In its extreme forms it is titled, Nihilism.  It is the Post-Modernist that tacitly or directly seeks to remove any and all restraint from the individual.  The outcome is that there is a spiraling descent into ethical chaos.  Such is not without implications for the mental-emotional-volitional-social elements of one's being.

Notice that without some way to know and embrace truth in the thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and actions of life; there are consequences to include but not be limited to the following.

• There is no basis for values thus no basis for judging right from wrong and good from evil.  
• There is no basis for gaining a sense of confidence which results from right action.
• There is no definition of roles and boundaries.
• There is no basis for meaningful discussions of truth for common presupposition does not exist
• There is no common way to process information--logic does not exist
• There is no basis for building self esteem which comes from aligning one's thoughts and actions with belief.
• There is no basis for relationship (in theory)

One might comfortably conclude that without the restraint of a belief (truth) system there is a type of anarchy both in the individual and as well in the relationships of those individuals who believe and accept post modernism.

One of the tests of the validity and veracity of truth is whether it is even possible for such to exist.  Take for example the previously listed qualities of the Post-Modernist.  If more than one person holds the Post- Modern position and discusses same with another some sort of relationship has to exist.

Relationships can only come when there is common language, common thought and/or common purpose.  In this case there is a common value in rejecting Judeo-Christian belief and Modernism.  Thus there is common thought and in some cases, corporate action.  In the expression of a common value, a form of "truth" is being acknowledged  and accepted.  Thus there is a truth standard and a major flaw in Post-Modernism.

Which is the More Durable Truth?

My thought is that most people seem to find comfort and security in the notion of durability.  That is to say that if something or someone can be counted upon when all else fails, it gives a certain confidence, a certain sense of comfort, a feeling of security where otherwise none exists.

With that thought the following is offered.

The reality of truth is that, if the best you can do is man’s truth (Modernism), it is better than no truth (Post-Modernism)!  Therefore, I believe that Post-Modernism is trumped by Modernism.  However, I believe that the prudent thinker will conclude that Judeo-Christian belief trumps both of the previous.

Also consider, if you can have a truth that is, external to the individual and culture and thus is universal,   objective in the sense that it does not change with the circumstances, most of all transcendent in that it finds its origin in the Divine, the outcome is an open system of truth (Judeo-Christian).  Such truth is a more durable truth and my view is a more durable truth which has stood the test of time, culture, race, etc. is to be preferred over all other truth systems.

"The Foundations of Truth and Reality" CT1

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

If a person decides that truth is external, then the decision has to be made as to how external. Is such truth then to be the product of society, sub-culture, ethnic group, or of a transcendent God?  If one stops his view at society or any of the other moral externals then it is as previously noted, that entity, say society must be trusted to not only provides the origin and foundation of truth but also provides the ultimate authority for action to include the determination of right from wrong and sanctions associated with such.

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!

"Ethical Truth vs. Moral Truth Revisited"

Truth claims!

• Is it possible that one can find safety and security without a validation of belief?
• How is it that one can know that their beliefs are in fact true?  
• What claims of validity can one offer as proof to themselves and to others?  
• Is there confirmation and thus confidence because of the logic in their truth claim?  

Certainly there are many who would validate one's pathway to truth.  For example those who hold a  Judeo-Christian ethical view of life believe with one another that there is such a thing as Divine revelation.

Then there are those who hold a  Modernist moral view of life who would agree that there is in fact this body of "stuff" that can be labeled as "truth."  They may disagree on what is in that collection of "stuff" and they may disagree how one arrives at what goes in that collection of "stuff" but they would agree that there is "stuff" called truth.

So then both the Judeo-Christian thinker and the Modernist thinker would agree that there is some sort of truth.  They may disagree as to pathway to, what qualifies as, the characteristics of, but not at the notion of there being  some "stuff" we call truth!

Then too the Modernist thinker would agree with his fellows about "truth" in at least one respect.  They both would postulate that truth is discovered through human effort.  That is discovered through one's rational process, scientific discovery, collective opinion,  cultural behavior norms etc.

Since such "truth" as may be discovered is relative not universal, subjective not objective, etc. there is the potential for conflict within the Modernist position.  In other words, one man's "fact" might be another man's "fallacy" or "fiction."  Even so they would agree on the validity of there being a pathways (different as they might be) to their particular set of "stuff" they call truth.

However,  the question of logic must be introduced into the discussion.  In other words, if a generality fails to be logical in content and process, then more than likely it leads to an invalid position.  Such logic would go on to say that if it can be proven that there is at least one exception, one erroneous element, or at least one inconsistency to the position held, then the table is set for two other questions.

They are these.  First, has not the basic generality been invalidated by one or more of the things just mentioned.  Second, since the door is now open to exceptions, error, and/or inconsistency, how many other problems might there be?

Are you with me so far?

Remember now the Modernist makes the claim that there are no universal truths and in fact all truth is man discovered and is relative even unique to time, culture, the individual, etc.

So here is the dilemma  Is not the proposition that there is no universal truth in and of itself a generality and thus a universal truth?  If one accepts such to be so, then the Modernist has just made a "logic" hole in his no universal truth claim.  (We might at this point ask of other problems with their "stuff" called truth?)

That then leads to another question.  How many other universal truths might be lurking about within his argument or perhaps out there just outside his consciousness?  Oh by the way, the proposition of there being no universal truth when argued by the Modernist shares characteristics with ethical truth, that is it is held to apply across time and culture etc.  It is held to apply no matter the situation or the individual.

Should not those who hold this position "fess up" and admit that in at least one instance they hold a universal objective truth!  If they do of course they open the door to there being other universal truth.

"Nice argument," one may say.  "Don't believe it but, nice argument."  Well, other posts will continue the discussion.  In the mean time maybe the following is worth thinking about.

Could it be that there not being universal objective truth leaves the individual cut loose form the very things that allow him confidence in the content and processes of this thought life which then has implications for his actions?.  Could it be that cutting the individual's moorings from universal objective truth has a debilitating effect upon the relationships that one has with himself and thus others?  Personally, I am convinced it is so!

"Judeo-Christian Truth/Reality Revisited" CT2

Returning to the subject of the previous blog, consider again the external versus internal origins of truth.

Far longer than Modernism and Post-Modernism, there has existed the belief in Judeo-Christian truth.  In fact should all people of all times be polled, the great majority would be classed in the Judeo-Christian camp.

It is Judeo-Christian truth that requires no particular level of intelligence or education for understanding.  The fact is that it comes of transcendent revelation, that is revelation that contains two elements.  First, its origin is from the exterior of the universe as we know it--it finds its origins in the Divine.  Second, it is revealed to the believer on his level--that is to a child it is revealed upon the child level, to the academic on the academic level, to the simple on a simple level, and the list goes on and on.

Thus the mystery and the miracle of Divine revelation is that such revelation is made available to all people of all times on their level.  Take for example the simple statement "God is love."  From the earliest days of a child's  understanding, through the developing years, the productive years, the retirement years, all the way through to last days of one's life, that statement can be understood, the only difference is in the depth of understanding.  So it is with other elements of Judeo-Christian faith.

Too basic Judeo-Christian belief is universal in that it applies to all.  It is objective in that it does not depend upon circumstance.  It simply exists without regard to time, culture, and the individual.  It is as eternal as the God whose character and nature it reflects.  While nuances of application may vary over time, according to culture, and in the individual, the basic elements of its existence does not!  Thus love is always love, murder is always murder, deceit is always deceit, etc.

The best way to describe such truth/reality is that it is not so much a belief in God as it is a belief with God.  In other words, it is completely compatible and consistent with the nature and character of the Divine, the God who is!

More to follow as later we consider Modernism and Post Modernism and their outcomes.