It is argued in these forums, and in other places, that morality is a concept based on relative perspectives; a subjective not rooted in any one supreme belief, nor maintained by a grand master keeper of right and wrong. Arguments for this often include pointing to the stark differences between moralities in different cultures, that there is no one supreme being on Earth that could dictate such morality, and that any reference to a supreme supernatural being capable of dictating morality has fallen apart”due, I would guess, to the inability to show that such a being as believed to exist in one culture is any more likely to exist than a being believed to exist in another culture, or the inability to ultimately show that this supreme being's morality is ever enforced by him/her or his/her subjects and is thus irrelevant to us and not worthy of concern, debate, or even mention.
Now, I would propose similar arguments to be usable in showing truth to be relative”no, not Truth, but simply truth. I find it difficult to place a high standard on 'truth' as being something objectively verifiable. First, I would like to introduce an example: John. John is a good, if often lazy, little boy, who, hungry one day for a small snack from the local convenience store, sneaks his little hands into mom's purse to pull out a $5 and make his way to the convenience store. John returns home, eats his snack(s), and goes on about the day like usual. Later at night, whilst his mother, in all her meticulous nature, is managing her finances”down to the penny”, she finds missing from her purse $5. Interrupting John at the television set, she begins questioning him about the missing money, knowing that he seemed a little disinterested in his food at suppertime.
What really happened to Mrs. John's Mom's money? I have given you my version of the story. John is likely to give his mother his version, which will undoubtedly be different. The purse, if it could talk, would tell you what it thinks happened. The clerk at the convenience store could recount her day to you. Even John's mother has her own version of discovering the missing money, and the thoughts that went through her head when she did. Who is to be believed? John? The purse? The clerk? Me? Alternatively, are all these stories somewhat biased in the sense that they are limited to a single reference frame? Is there a reference frame outside of this where exists the 'actuality of events', the 'truth' to what
really happened? Can we believe in a findable, knowable truth unlike morality? My answer: no; and let me explain why .
From our good friend Webster:
quote:
truth . n. 1, conformity of assertion to fact or reality; the state of being true.
.
con”form'i”ty . n. accordance; agreement.
...
a”gree'ment . n. 1, concord; harmony
That should do; I think we've gone deep enough into the definition. Now, my problem with the idea of 'truth' is that it is only as good as the body determining the conformity of a statement to the reality. It is also subject to the biases of those determining the conformity. This is the case, unless we are to believe that there is an ultimate authority capable of determining the conformity of a statement to reality. Consider a green triangle. Now, I can see it is green, and pretend you see it to be green. Mr. Ecks says, "The triangle is green." From our perspective, we might say he speaks truth. Other people might be unable to see the triangle, and cannot determine the truth. The triangle, it would have a great deal of trouble telling us its colour, and if it were able to, it could be biased on the subjective quality of the mirror into which it may look. Is the triangle green? I can't tell you; all I've got is the unreliable testament of my subjective eyes. But, I think such subjectivity of truth is no ways limited to simplistic situations such as the colour of shapes. It can come down to the very principle parts of any situation, and calls into question whether there ever is a truth.
Is evolution truth? Is Creationism truth? For many centuries, the latter was so virtually across the board. Today, the former is in some areas, and the latter in others. Some might say that to worry about the possibility that what we take for knowing might not be true, is somewhat of a waste of time, but I find it significant enough, when we consider under who's truth we send a man to prison for life by convicting him of murder.
Is the truth of everything relative?
Jon
__________
The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary, 3rd. Ed.
In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin
On the Origin of Species_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. -
I Corintios 14:10_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells
Sailing from Byzantium
™ Version 4.2