The Objectivity of Truth, Part I

Most, if not all of us, would readily agree that there are objective truths in the world. For instance, almost everyone would agree that Newton’s Law of Gravity is an objective truth in that its truthfulness is not dependent upon our acceptance of it as being true. Its authority over our lives exists whether we believe in it or not. Unfortunately, the voices of those who would designate these “objective truths” to Natural Law only, are increasing at an alarming rate in our society. Like those unwavering truths that exist in the natural order of creation, there are moral objective truths that are equally unfaltering and steadfast whether we deem them to be so or not. These moral objective truths are not reliant upon our feelings, our experiences, or the passing of time. They are unwavering and resolute in character.

For years we have been bombarded with the messages of “Tolerance”, “Relativity”, “Political Correctness”, and a new one “Kindness” – it’s the new tolerance message. The constant pounding of these messages over the years have had a penetrating effect on the minds, vocabulary, and behavior of the Christian and non-Christian alike. I am not concerned with what was desired, but with the paralyzing effect that these messages have had on our society. They have effectively brought to a slow crawl the unfettered proclamation of the Gospel message in the public square. If you doubt the validity of this last statement, then walk out of your front door, walk up to your “un-churched” neighbor, and proclaim to them the full Gospel message of Jesus Christ. Even if we are lead to do so and have the resolve to carry it out, it is hard to fight back the constant parading of these messages from the forefront of our minds. Again, the messages of tolerance, relativity, political correctness, and kindness, just to name a few, have been successfully woven into the fabric of America. Not only have these messages had an impact on the Church but also in every walk of life including to the board room, to the court house, and to almost every individual home in America.

What do these messages really say? In and of themselves, they sound idyllic. Why would anyone protest them? In their infancy, most things are cute and cuddly. It’s not until we see them at maturity do we understand their full gravity. With that in mind, allow me to challenge each of us to think long term when confronted with any set of beliefs. Every choice we make and every ideology we espouse carries consequences that reach much farther into the future than today, touching countless generations to come. For instance, when we’re considering the message of “relativity.” We should view it from a lens that carries it out to maturity, at which point, we must decide if this is a message that we can live with, or better yet, “future generations” can live with.

Each of these messages implies that everyone has feelings and everyone’s feelings are equally valuable. Although this statement sounds fair and just, it cannot possibly be true in the ebb and flow of society. Perhaps in your individual home this is your mantra; however, it does not work in the functioning of a group of people. If one person has a strong urge to punch you in the nose, are his feelings valid? Are they just as legitimate as the one who would like to give you a rose? Of course the first person’s feelings are not valid. However, if we legitimize all feelings and opinions as valid, who could then stand in the seat of judgment to declare that feelings to punch someone are not valid? Are you not then making a judgment? Declaring something to be right or wrong? If we discredit objective truths, on what grounds would we base any judgment? Who would we elect to sit in the seat of judgment to proclaim what is an acceptable value to keep and what is not? If unwarranted violence is found to be contemptible, then violence against an unborn child(i) or an elderly person(ii) is equally contemptible? The nihilist Friedrich Nietzsche himself said, “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet.”(iii) The problem the world must address when stating all truths are subjective, is how do you retain any system of values in the absence of a divine order?

By design, the example of punching someone in the nose is silly, because the statement that everyone’s feelings are equally valid, in the operation of society, is also silly. If everyone’s opinions are equally valid and everyone’s feelings are just as legitimate as the next, there would be complete chaos. Even more, there would be no room for judgment on any behavior. There would be no room for stating what’s right and what’s wrong since every value is elusive. In fact, no value or moral judgment would ever be concrete. Perhaps this is where some individuals intend for society to be. However, if we say there should be no judgment on anyone’s behavior, then we must take it to its ultimate conclusion. That is, all values, everything we consider right and wrong, are relative based on each person’s individual opinion. And, we know what they say about “opinions” – everyone has one and it changes all the time. Truth cannot be subjective. Either it is what it says or it isn’t. Like gravity, either truth exists or it doesn’t. But, if it does, we would be wise to order our lives accordingly or face peril.

C.S. Lewis, in his book “The Abolition of Man“, provides a historic collection of objective truths that he calls the “Tao”. His point in doing so is to show that whether Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, Christian, or Oriental alike, each doctrine has set before them “moral objective truths or values” to live by. These values are beliefs that certain attitudes are really true and others are really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.(iv) The Tao is not one among a number of value systems we can choose from; instead, “it is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory.”(v) He goes on to say, “if my duty to my parents is a superstition, then so is my duty to posterity. If justice is a superstition, then so is my duty to my country or my race…. The rebellion of new ideologies against the Tao is a rebellion of the branches against the tree….The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary color, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in.”(vi) Yet, we find ourselves looking at Lewis as though he was a prophet — foretelling the times we would surely find ourselves if we hold loosely those things we should cling to (i.e., our values). Today, we find ourselves among those who are rewriting our value system even as you read this now.

For example, on April 7, 2010, the White House announced President Obama’s latest initiative of achieving “Political Correctness” with his plans to remove language such as “militant Islamic radicalism” from all documents outlining his national security strategy.(vii) It appears that in the mind of our President, if we change the vocabulary we use to fight terrorism, start investing in Muslim businesses, support scientific research, and combat polio in Muslim countries, we will change the Muslim view of America. Somehow, in the mind of this administration, this strategy will cause the Muslim world to cooperate with America. This significant change in strategy is in light of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad stating Israel should be “wiped off the map” (October 2005).(viii) It is on the heels of Ahmadinejad saying Israel could not do a “damn thing” to stop the Islamic state’s nuclear program (December 2009); a program that we (the West) reportedly believes to be “aimed at developing an atomic bomb” (April 2010)(ix). This change is also in the face of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent statement that “a radical Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons could bring an end to the era of nuclear peace the world has enjoyed for the last 65 years” (March 2010)(x). Yet, in view of these statements which are reality, there are those who are rewriting reality and replacing it with their own set of beliefs.

I am not making a call to take arms, to be rude, to be disrespectful, or to be unnecessarily confrontational. Instead, it is a call to seriously consider the world around us and the direction in which we are headed. It is a call to do more than just politely nod our heads in consent of a moral objective truth. It is a call to take to the street of public opinion our firm belief that certain things are right and certain things are wrong. We must stop using the vocabulary of the left and openly reject certain doctrines that do not line up with our core beliefs. When all that says “this is good” is debunked, what says “I want” remains.

i Partial-Birth Abortion: According to the Library of Congress, the Senate introduced the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act” of 2007. Congress defined partial-birth abortion as “an abortion in which the abortion practitioner delivers an unborn child’s body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child’s skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child’s brains out before completing the delivery of the dead infant.”
ii Newsweek, September 21, 2009, “The Case For Killing Granny”, pg. 35-40 – Although the article does not blatantly tell us to go out and kill our elderly, the doctrine is being set, as the case is subtly made that our explosive health care budget is due to “UNNECESSARY and (according to them) unwanted care” given to seniors. And, in an effort to reduce our economy’s budget, “a significant portion of the savings will have to come from the money we spend on seniors at the end of life…”
iii trans. Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale; Twilight of the Idols, Expeditions of an Untimely Man, sect. 5 – Although Nietzsche understood this dilemma he was not swayed from it; instead it propelled him to look for a lower foundation on which to base human values.
iv C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, ‘Men Without Chest’, pg. 18
v C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, ‘The Way’, pg. 43
vi C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, ‘The Way’, pg. 44
vii www.cnsnew.com/new/article/63838, ‘Islamic Radicalism’ Phrase to Be Removed from Obama’s National Security Documents, April 7, 2010
viii Reuters, March 29, 2010, Timeline: Israel and Iran statements
ix Reuters, April 7, 2010, Iran’s president attacks Obama on nuclear “threat”
x Reuters, March 29, 2010, Timeline: Israel and Iran statements