Previously, I distinguished between perception and reality. Perception is a personal experience whereby a 'form' of reality is created based on what inputs we have at our disposal. Reality is an impersonal rendition of the absolute truth as exists at that point in time. I've introduced a contrast between personal and impersonal becasue I wish to state that perceiving THE reality as opposed to A reality is impossible for any human. It's simply not in our capacity to do so and even if it were, bias would influence our inputs.
I'm bringing this up again in relation to the existence of an absolute truth. Obviously I believe that truth lies in the life of a certain character called Jesus, and the book adopted by his followers, The Bible. Other people believe in different truths. That we are descendents of apes. We were created by lightning striking some structurally condicive surface clay in a promordial earth. That we were deposited here by aliens who once lived on Mars.
I'm not making fun of these people. No, far from it - don't get me wrong. Many of these people are intelligent, progressive, forthcoming individuals, and some of them even have more integrity than the sort of character I see at an average church! By virtue of the fact that I continue to talk to these people, you can infer that they have some sort of 'value' to me.
So why do we see everything differently? Why, if we are all intelligent (hypothetically) and curious individuals, do we end up with different opinions on the Big Questions? Like, what is the meaning of life? Or, is there a God? Or, what is the origin morality and ethics? Its seems that the questions that would most affect our lives, we have agreed to disagree on.
Firstly, I would like to say that (1) absolute truth exists, and (2) absolute truth is not relative. The implications if this were not true are as such: if absolute truth does not exist, there would be no such thing as fact. Also, no yardstick would exist on measuring how 'true' or 'false' our beliefs are, since there is no definable endpoint for truth. The second statement merely highlights the mutual exclusitivity between absolutism and relativitism. It follows, despite the existence of numerous popular quotes claiming otherwise, that perception is NOT reality.
If an absolute truth exists, then this is the logical origin from which all theorising should spring forth. In this instance, truth acts as an anchorpoint to ensure that theorising is still grounded in the reality of the truth it is trying to discover. Let me give you a silly example. An elephant is found by itself on a desert island. How did it get there? Some might say it flew there. Others might say it swam. Others yet might say it was offloaded from a beleagured ship passing by. Others say...
Many theories. Some sound more absurd than others. But what makes it sound absurd? Truth, as we understand it individually, makes anything that does not fit the criteria, absurd. For example, the person who thought the elephant flew there arrived at that conclusion because he nows certain animals such as birds can fly. and the elephant is also an animal. He also knows it is physically impossible for an elephant so swim through an ocean, so the possibility of it arriving by sea is impossible. We can see that his assumptions are partly true but also partly false. But he can still reach a conclusion that suits his understanding of truth!
In the same way, when it comes to these big questions, it really depends on our grasp of truth. It also depends on our psychological needs, because just as many people are accused of having a psychological need to believe in a God, so to do many others have psychological needs to NOT affirm the existence of any God. You see, regardless of how these Big Questions are answered, they ultimately affect one thing. Our lives. My life. Your life. Our lives. And, ultimately, our lives are the most precious thing we can humanly comprehend. Every treasure that we can possibly accumulate is achieved on the premise that we are alive. Life. It's foundational.
Challenge the foundation and the building shakes. It can be a pretty traumatic experience. Yet, some people don't even know what foundation they build their houses on! Who is to blame then when the house collapses? Is ignorance truly bliss? Only if you believe that truth is relative, yes.
As far as i'm concerned, there are only two competing views that relate to the meaning of life. Everything else is a variation or derivative of these two. So lets have a bit of a look into it.
Evolution. As far as the scientific establishment is concerned life on earth evolved spontaneously billions of years ago. Popularised by Darwin in the last century and furthered by biochemistry research in the last 50 years, evidence is still scarce to support the theory of evolution. And thats precisely what it is, yet it is TAUGHT AS FACT in every biology curriculum in Australia. If faith is mutually exclusive with knowledge (if you know something, you don't need to have faith to believe it) then convictions on evolutionary science are built upon faith. And that is hardly a scientific process.
Another observation about evolutionary science, or perhaps just science in general, is what while it is very good at positing HOW things came to be, it is comparavitely bad at understanding WHY. Proponents of there being no why essentially state that there is no meaning to life, and they state this in the face of very obvious dissimilarities with the world as it is at the moment. Among scientists who believe that there is a why, there is almost universal agreement that the causative agent is based on a metaphysical assumption. Therefore one has a choice about hte metaphysical assumptions they can make, but they cannot escape making that choice.
Prescribing to an evolutionary viewpoint, for all intents and purposes, is a step of faith. And I invite any pro-evolutionists to challenge me with groundbreaking, earth-shattering and life-changing (puns intended) discoveries about abiogenesis or the like (it is technically true that abiogenesis is not evolution, but procedurally, they relate to the same continuum and use similar supporting evidence). After all, if you can prove me wrong I am obliged to accept your point of view, right?
Creation. The Bible declares that evidence for a God is found all about us in nature. That is the ongoing, daily miracle that we are subjected to. It is interesting to note that more and more scientists who seek to challenge this account of creation are actually finding reason to believe in an Intelligent Designer.
Among the Bible's strongest declarations apart from the contrasting account of creation is the authenticity of the historical Jesus Christ and his exploits. It finds its strongest detractions to natural science in the area of supernatural occurences, or the miracle-working ministry of Jesus Christ and his followers. I neglect to mention other religions here because a careful look through their holy books finds a paucity of evidence that can be validated or supported in our current circumstances. The Bible however (as I pray you will find) has a whole lot more substance than just a nice story.
To successfully challenge the Creation viewpoint, evolutionary theory must become evolutionary fact. To challenge the Christian viewpoint (which I will assume is synonymous with the Creator), one must debunk the existence of Jesus or the meaning and validity of his ministry on Earth. And once again, I accept any challenges on this.
And this is the note that I am going to leave you with to ponder about what I've written. In respect to the circumstances that caused me to write this, it doesn't matter whether you think that life once existed on Mars. It doesn't matter whether you think that having multiple sexual partners is the way we were designed to be. It doesn't matter what you think about genetic predisposition. All of that is wasted, accessory thought. Because once you question the absolute truths, you will find that your conclusions carry through to the PERSONAL TRUTHS (perceptions) that you have built your house upon.
I think this saying (made by me! copyright!) nicely summarises the topic. We (humans) can always shape a reality that embraces our needs. Be we cannot always embrace a reality that shapes our needs. Because the truth hurts.
In Faith, Hope and Love!
PS> I did mention in a previous posting comment that I would do a posting on my findings about the deity of the Trinity. This is still in the works, however, I did not anticipate the complexity of the issue. That will still happen, but not in the near future.
0 comments