The Case for Absolute Truth

In a society so focused on inclusion, there seems to be an enormous amount of muddiness over what, exactly, must be included. It seems today that tolerance is the substitute for truth, and this is a very grave error that has led to the destruction of many former societies. Tolerance, of course, is not an inherently malicious action. Few people would advocate shunning and imprisoning people who act or think in ways different than they do. However, tolerance, if recreated as total inclusion of ideas, becomes the most intolerant of all ideologies, for in the name of tolerance, the necessity of the primacy of truth is brushed aside, along with its messengers and defenders. 

One of the fundamental beliefs of the "tolerism ideology" is that truth cannot be absolute. This may not seem obvious on the surface, but the connection is there once logic is applied to the ideological statement. The gold standard of tolerance is to be willing to accept other's views. This acceptance cannot, by definition, exist in a society focused on truth. At this point in the argument, there is a fundamental question that arises. "How is it impossible for truth to be focused on in a tolerant society?" The core contradiction that arises in societies of total modern tolerance over truth is that truth cannot be named or regarded as truth in this ideological tolerance. Instead, all ideas, no matter how contradictory, must take precedence over the truthful ones. On the surface, the seems like another inaccuracy. However, to understand the dangerous intolerance of the tolerant societies, the nature of truth must also be understood.

Truth, according to the prestigious Oxford English Dictionary, is "the quality or state of being true," and "true" is defined as "in accordance with fact or reality." Therefore, truth is the quality or state of being in accordance with fact or reality. This definition serves as an excellent starting point for the case against modern tolerance. In tolerant societies, whatever a person thinks constitutes their reality. Herein lies one of the most poisonous contradictions in human history.

In order to understand the woes of relative reality (which is where perception equaling reality leads), one must understand the nature of reality itself. The fundamental questions toward an understanding of the nature of reality entail: "what, necessarily, constitutes reality?" and "how, necessarily, does reality reveal itself?" Through a logical means, it can be determined that reality is what exists. Reality is not a living organism; reality is a state of existence. As such, therefore, reality must be objective and not subjective.

How is reality really the state of existence? Some might retort. Does reality really exist independent of observation and subjugation? The short answer is "yes." The long answer. however, requires a practical use of the understand of the form of an object.

No doubt, the words in this article you are reading definitely exist. Why would you be reading a hallucination? What is happening right now is a conscious decision by you, the reader, to read the words present on this page. Now, this page must, therefore, be existent, or else how are reading them and cogitating over their contents? Now, if, by happenstance, you decided that these words did not exist, or that this article was actually about Swiss Cheese or Grimm's Fairy Tales, then does that change the nature of this article or the article's existence? Clearly not, since the article is still in front of you and the words and their original, intended meanings have not changed in response to your thoughts. This article, therefore, no matter how much you may wish it otherwise, is and always will continue to be about the case for and existence of absolute truth. None of your perspectives, ideological insertions, or reinterpretations can change that reality.

What has just transpired is that we have established is that this article exists in an objective state, and that it will continue to exist in this objective state so long as nobody physically alters or removes it. What we have also established is that your thoughts, perspectives, and emotions have done nothing to change this state. Therefore, we have concluded an objective reality.

"Ok, so reality definitely exists objectively, and my perceptions definitely do not change this objective existence. However, how does believing in an objective reality lead to a better tolerance? You would think that in order for a civilization or people group to survive, there must be some level of ideological tolerance." This might seem like a viable conclusion at first. However, one must remember that truth, when learned and adhered to, does not permit anyone to live in fantasy. By definition, truth and fantasy are opposite. Something cannot be true and also be fantasy. People who live in fantasy are not beneficial to themselves or others. What would be even remotely beneficial, for instance, of believing that a poisonous snake is a garden hose? If that snake coils up and bites the very person who imagined such a ludicrous proposition, does not that person require urgent medical attention? Surely we can conclude that this fantasy was dangerous, and that knowing the truth of the situation, that the poisonous snake was indeed a poisonous snake, surely would have saved this person's life, since they would have fled from the snake for protection instead of reaching out to grab it thinking the snake to be merely a garden hose.

Now, suppose a passerby watched the entire scene unfold, and he had ascribed to the idea of tolerance in the new sense of the word. This person, no doubt, would see the poor fantasy bound individual right next to the snake, and immediately shout "watch out! There's a snake there!" However, the person living in fantasy would no doubt respond "snake? what snake? I only see a garden hose." To which there now arises a serious problem. One person perceives the truth, and the other lives in fantasy. If this passerby held to the idea of modern tolerance, that is, that we must be accepting of other's opinions, no matter how right or wrong, he would say "well, I guess I must respect his opinion. After all, his truth is truth for him and my truth is truth for me" and continue to watch in horror as the snake bites the individual who believed it to be a garden hose. This is the danger of modern tolerance. Fantasaic ideas, as pleasant as they may be, can, and often do, lead to harm. However, what leads to more harm is the modern tolerance of these ideas by others on the ground of the fictitious and pernicious oxymoron of subjective truth.

Now, there is a most beautiful form of tolerance that, when actioned by individuals, creates a beautiful harmony of truth and respect for others. It is the Biblical doctrine of living in love and speaking the truth. The concept of love in the Bible is not allowing people to believe whatever fantasies they desire to believe. Instead, the concept of love in the Bible is that, no matter how crazy those fantasies may be, people are not to reject and belittle the person for believing them. However, people must openly, and in a loving way, correct those fantasies and bring them to the truth. In addition to this, Biblical tolerance demands that people take an active interest in the lives of others, and that they help their neighbors to live better, more moral, and truthful lives. Indeed, this Biblical tolerance strengthens the character and removes fantasy from the society.

There are many verses that exemplify the sort of loving, truthful, and proper way for a society that, when put into practice, are far superior to the dangerous modern indoctrination of a vain and dangerous tolerance. I have listed some below:

Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. - 1 Peter 2:17 (New American Standard Bible)

but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ... - Ephesians 4:15 (New American Standard Bible)

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. - 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (New American Standard Bible)

Here is a simple, rule-of-thumb guide for behavior: Ask yourself what you want people to do for you, then grab the initiative and do it for them. Add up God’s Law and Prophets and this is what you get. - Matthew 7:12 (The Message Translation)

Post a Comment