r u ABSOLUTELY sure?

In the previous blog on Faith & Consequences I discussed the consequences of what we believe to be true because of our faith. What we trust to be true guides our actions in most every way. The BIG questions around truth (and thus faith) are these:
is there an absolute truth or ONE truth that trumps all other perspectives of fact? And if there is, then how do i find it?

I began the discussion on absolute truth by framing the question this way:
   
if truth is relative and thereby any person's truth is just as valid as another's, then must we see our enemies as morally equivalent?


Star Wars has made popular an ageless idea of the battles of good and evil. Where does the notion that something is good and something is evil come from? The writer of the story knows, but why is his view right? Maybe war is only the struggle for power and dominance and has no moral imperative. For if everyone's perception of fact is equally valid, no one has a right to defeat another for the sake of bringing them into subjection to truth.

Religious wars would have been purposeless except to subordinate one group to another. While the idea that others should respect my truth as equally valid as theirs feels right, the logical conclusion of this position does not seem to square with the universal desire people have to seek moral superiority. All people know down in their hearts that Nazi Germany, Islamic terrorists, and African genocides are not right, Everyone throughout history has sought to be right and correct the wrongs of their world. If truth were relative and based on what a person perceives it to be, then the quest for "right" is worthless because "being right" is simply what that person believes it to be The virtue of tolerance has been hijacked by many in our culture to mean moral equivalency, but it really means that we each should respect the right for others to hold to separate beliefs, not that we accept their truth as valid.

The fact that anyone would absolutely believe that truth is relative has violated the notion that there is no absolute truth.  

Now, how do we find THE ONE TRUTH about anything? Here are a few ideas I'd like to share with you to ponder.

While anything that is rational is not absolute truth, absolute truth must be rational. "An eye for an eye" is a rational way to respond to being violated or harmed. It has a rationale actually based in justice, getting what you deserve. However, we have found that revenge is not the best way to resolve offense. It is a downward spiral of destruction. reconciliation based on forgiveness is a rational way to deal with offense that results in healing and restoration and betterment for all involved.

One way to see the difference between the rationale of truth vs. truth is rational is the fact that absolute truth deals with what's right in the "big picture" vs. a narrow or limited perspective. The "picture" is big when long periods of time and a broad view of impacts are considered. Stealing money to meet an immediate need is rational, but stealing has negative affects on the person who loses what's stolen. In addition, the person who steals has taken a path to meeting their own needs that does not solve their problem long term and ignores the benefits to them and others that may come from receiving help from others. Thus, the notion that stealing is wrong has a rational based in the "big picture."

Another perspective on the difference between the rationale of truth vs truth is rational deals with the difference between practical and principled decisions. For example, China saw abortion as a rational way to control population. In the US abortion is considered "right" because it gives a woman more control in her circumstances. Both rationales are based on what is a practical solution to an existential problem. The principled approach to abortion would be to see that the unborn child is a life and that society must protect the life of all people, especially those that are vulnerable and cannot protect themselves. Seeing the principle as true has a rationale that the respect for life has a significant positive implication on the overall satisfaction of a society across time.

To discover what is true, you must expose the idols or counterfeits for truth that you have chosen to worship. If Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe God alone is worthy to be worshiped, why are so many of all faiths devoted to the idols of power, hatred, judgmentalism, pleasure, comfort, safety, performance, etc.?   Human nature has a tendency to put affection toward something that can deliver gratification in some area of life, but fails to satisfy or destroys the overall satisfaction of the soul. When you select something to be true that does not work in harmony across all facets of life satisfaction then you have affection for something that is not absolute truth.

One mistake we make in trying to find truth is to think that if we get enough knowledge, then we do not have to have faith. In many ways seeking knowledge can be helpful because we gain more perspective on the 'big picture", but the quest for knowledge can be a pride thing, a desire to trust ourselves and not trusting the author of absolute truth. We should accept that we will not be an expert in everything. A juror does not become an expert to judge what is true in a court case. Rather a juror must depend on testimonies of experts and eye witnesses when discerning what is true about a case. This would be a helpful model for us, seeking knowledge but also respecting its limits while trusting the testimonies of others who have perspective on truth.

These are just some helpful hints to finding absolute truth. If there were a pill you could take to find truth, everyone would come to the same conclusion on truth. The absolute truth about absolute truth is that you will ultimately have to rely on faith, not irrational, blind assumptions, but trust in something or someone whose rationale incorporates the "big picture" and works completely for the satisfaction of the whole soul.

At least it is ....