What is Truth?

I was laying awake pretty much the whole night from the jet lag cause I just got back to Germany in the recent 24 hours. Needless to say my transition to the time is less than smooth. While I was thinking in my bed amidst uncomfortable silence I gathered thoughts about life and its meaning. Well, not so much the meaning of life for me, I settled was a while ago. However, the significance of Truth in this world, I did come to some interesting thoughts. How do I know Truth exists? How can Truth be known?

I know there is a Truth for two primary reasons. First, I am aware of this thing we call conscience; there is a part of us that knows how things should be. The knowledge of what the world should and ought to be like that I believe to be present in all people is very similar at the most fundamental stages. Typically as we mature our ideas of how things should and should not be gets tainted by our own selfishness and personal interests. While some call that growing up, I think that is us realizing who we are. Upon learning who we are we all choose to live for ourselves or for someone/something else. Secondly, the mere existence of the attitudes of "should" or "should not" instantly implies that there is right and wrong. I'll explain that more in the following paragraphs. The biblical reason for knowing Truth exists is from Romans 1:18-20, although it does not say Truth in its exact words but it describes it quiet clearly.

Since I made such a bold pronunciation that there is Truth I should probably attempt to explain how it can be known. The first point that comes to mind I classify as common sense. Why would there be Truth that cannot be known? After all if there is Truth then there must be a Truth Giver (God), and what is the purpose of having something that cannot be known or utilized? The only option would be a sort of cynical or twisted Truth Giver that likes to treat us like rats running through the maze of life. Good thing I don't believe in such a God that treats the creations like that. Coming to such conclusions about God is not even needed by Scripture. In modern philosophy a similar deduction is known as the Teleological argument, it too points to a caring personal God independently of any religious bias.

The first question I pose to people whom claim to deny Truth is, "How do you tell right from wrong?" The answer is usually somewhere between "I decide" or "based on what society holds to be right or wrong", although many people disguise their explanations in fancier terms I have yet to encounter a relativist that has an answer that cannot be answered by the following points. The only other answer to "what is right and wrong?" that people might claim is there is no such thing.

For those who claim to hold to their own truth the mere ownership proves their definition to be false. By definition, truth is independent of what it is applied to. In English, if I hold to my own personal truth then my truth has no authority over anything or anyone including myself. The truth I might pronounce can only apply to what I control, which is nothing. Since I can change my own truth then I don't even abide by my own reality. Aside from a personal truth holding no authority, it is very easily false. I can claim it is my truth that the earth is not round. However, there are a number of scientific methods that can prove my truth to be false. One can claim anything as truth, whether it can be verified as true is completely different.

For those who claim their truth to come from society, which very few actually do, all one needs is history. What society values changes as time passes. Truth is static, it does not change. This is mostly true of any developed nation from which one would most likely encounter people in such a mind set. For the United States the Dred Scott case was not one of the most proud moments in modern history. For the Supreme Court to pronounce an African American a non-person is rather outrageous in today's worldview. However, it is rather common in today's worldview to pronounce an unborn child a non-person; a view which taken back 100 years ago would be seen to be just as absurd as we see Mr. Scott’s judgment. Aside from a society's inconsistency in what is right and wrong, the authority might apply only to members of the specific society. For example, the ethnic cleansing between the Hutus and Tutsies in Rwanda shows that what is acceptable to one society is not necessarily acceptable to another. This might be an extreme example, but it is the extreme examples that such logical flaws which also scream the loudest.

For those who are willing to claim there is no such thing as right or wrong, they are either in denial or simply trying to take the logical upper hand by throwing a curve ball. If they are in denial simply violate some commonly held principles to prove to them that they do indeed believe in right or wrong. Suppose Bob pronounces there is no right or wrong, I therefore proceed to take his TV, unplug it from the wall and load it into my vehicle. I continue this process until Bob makes an objection, which unless he has sworn off personal property; he will do at some point. When questioned what I am doing I reply that I am taking his stuff. The natural reaction will be one of passionate objection, Bob will likely then claim that is not right! Point proven, now I must unload Bob's possessions from my car. In the event that he has sworn off personal property figure out something that he holds dear and violate it. It is upon violation of our rights and values people are most clear of what we do value and believe.