"Is it true that no truth exists?"
Truth is an endangered species nowadays.  There's a strange desire for us moderns to wallow in uncertainty and relativism, occasionally swimming on to agnosticism (i.e. "We cannot know what the truth is").  This is especially poignant in the area of values, faith and - surprise surprise - God.  Obviously, if we cannot know any 'bigger-than-this-world' truth, then it becomes pointless to speak about knowing the true 'bigger-than-everything-in-existence' God.  Block the path to truth and the path to God will be that much tougher to see.

And so the philosophical apologist has his work cut out for him; he's gotta knock down these barriers where he finds them.  Like for example:

1. "There is no Right and Wrong"..."There is no Absolute Truth"..."We can't be DOGMATIC about anything"

This is one of the most frequently heard phrases coming from the mouths of modern man (and woman). The funny thing is that people who say this never stop to ponder the fact that they obviously believe they're CORRECT in making these statements - they've surely taken that for granted.

We could ask, "Is it ABSOLUTELY TRUE that there is no absolute truth? Or is what you say only RELATIVELY true?"

Or perhaps: "Are you right when you say there is no right and wrong? Or could you be wrong as well?"

Finally: "How come we're so dogmatic about not being dogmatic?"

It should be clear that in fact there is a Right and Wrong, and the very denial of this ("It's wrong!") merely illustrates the fact.
 

2. "It all depends on perception"..."Everything is subjectively intepreted"..."We can never be sure of anything"

This is a variant of the first one. Here the objection against Absolute Truth is 'toned down' and at least some alternative 'explanation' is proposed in the form of perception, interpretation, etc.

But it's clear that it still self-destructs somehow.

Because if EVERYTHING depends on perception, then even my belief that 'everything depends on perception' will itself depend on perception(!).

And is our certainty that 'everything is subjective' a result of our own subjective interpretation as well? Or did we get that from some Absolute Source?  And why are we so sure that we can't be sure of anything?

It should be clear by now that the very saying of these sentences destroys their validity.
 

3. "What you know is only what your SENSES tell you"..."Your knowledge is only an INTERPRETATION"

The above was more or less propounded by this fella called Kant (sounds like a name from Dungeons & Dragons, eh?).  He believed that our perception of the world depends on what ‘comes in’ to our senses, and that 'true knowledge' is unattainable because we will never be able to 'escape' our senses i.e. we can never 'stand outside' of them and see the world with 'sense-free' lenses.

The obvious problem is that Kant seems trapped in the very own knowledge-problem he claims the world is in. We only need ask whether or not his theory is a RESULT of his senses, and if NOT(!), then just exactly how does he know what he knows?

Is his theory independent of his senses? Was it 'filtered' in by his interpretative frameworks as well?

In that case, why is he so confident of his theory?
 

4. "Religious beliefs and truth are all conditioned by culture, history, society, evolution___(insert whatever you like)"

Everytime you hear someone say that absolute truth and belief is CONDITIONED by anything, be always careful to see if the speaker himself is SIMILARLY conditioned as well. In other words, is he himself affected by the condition which he speaks so confidently about?

If he IS, then why should we listen to him?

If he ISN'T, then maybe he should explain how come this is the case.

Like in the above statement, we could ask if the speaker is himself conditioned by culture, society, last night's pizza, etc. He will HAVE to say he's differentiated somehow (unless he doesn't mind people calling him a fruitcake for contradicting himself), requiring some explanation of how come he - unlike the mass of humanity - possess some 'window' to truth which we all apparently don't.

Even if he flashes some Ph.D in History & Religious Beliefs (or whatever), he still needs to explain how come he's exempt from his own diagnosis of the problem of human knowledge.
 

5. "All knowledge and truth is IMPERFECT"

We should ask what is meant by 'imperfect' here. If the speaker is simply saying that we don't know EVERYTHING which can be known, then that's just stating the obvious.

But if it's being suggested that ALL our CURRENT knowledge is somehow 'deficient' - such that we can't be ABSOLUTELY SURE of anything (sound familiar?) - then we're back to the question of why the knowledge-statement "All knowledge and truth is imperfect" is so PERFECT.

Again, the statement 'wraps back' on itself, so to speak.
 

6. "Everything is an illusion"

Including the speaker and what was just spoken? Hmm...interesting...
 

Conclusion:  Every proposition demands a form of 'justification', and that it really isn't as simple as "The truth simply cannot be found" (How do we know that? We wouldn't happen to be watching too many 'X-Files' episodes, would we?)

Christians aren't the only ones with a burden of proof, you know...*smile*.

(See a question asked regarding this essay)

Regards,
AL


Back to Main Page