One of the most rewarding endeavors of my many college years was to persist in reading some of the great philosophers until the intention of their messages became clear. What most people take for granted at a basic level, the perception of the world they see, philosphers take upon themselves to explain in minute detail. A very good question is to ask why. Why does it matter? How does any of what these people think and write affect my daily life?
On a conscious level, the meaning is not so visible, and thus the reason for the question. Yet it does matter a lot, for the ideas and thinking processes that philosophers ponder over for lifetimes change the way we think in hidden, subtle ways. That’s why we don’t notice it. A very clear example of this is with the scientific need for empirical proof. Today’s world for the most part takes nothing at face value without this type of proof–and in many cases this is rightly so. After all, who would want a physician basing diagnosis and treatment upon vague symptoms when often a simple test can provide conclusive information?
There is the current notion coming from philosophy, pluralism, that has the guise of making the world a better and more harmonius, homogenous agreeable society. The model, however, falls far from its intended mark and in reality actually causes more division and more anger.
Pluralism is based upon a concept of truth. The concept says that no truth is absolute. Truth that exists only is true for the social group who holds to the tenets that make their truth reality for themselves. Herein lies a first issue among the truth brokers. Let’s take for example Christians, who all say that the Bible is their guide and ultimate truth, for it is through the Living Word of God as found in Scripture, that is the Holy Bible, that God comes to us through the Holy Spirit. That is, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, speaks to us in a personal, intimate way. Unfortunately for Christians, though the One Truth is proclaimed as the only truth, they cannot agree upon which Christians actual really know the truth.
So, here we have it. One truth in the world of pluralism, that is One God as the Holy Trinity is the truth for all who name themselves Christians, but the truth exists–where and how? Within the group who believes as all in the group believe. WHO THEN are the Christians? Here is a real sticky wicket. There are many, many groups who call themselves by name, Christian, and multiple groups named Christian who believe that the group they are in holds the only true truth. I ask again, WHO THEN are the Christians? We could add another name to each group–if each group had an additional name to add, but that isn’t the case.
Continuing on religion-wise, should we take another group (looking at only the huge-member major groups) who call themselves by one name, we would again find the same problem. Hindu, Muslim, Budhist, all have groups within their groups. How far does the watering down supposed to go, before a group as a whole splinters so fine that the unit no longer exists?
A belief system of any sort requires a group to have at least one belief. That one belief or multiple beliefs, howsoever far the group has thought the beliefs through, will at some delcaire “This is what I believe,” thus forming for the group their credo. Certainly, the word Credo does have particular religious connotations, as the word has evolved over time, that being Christian credos, such as the Apostles and Nicene creeds. Even so, just by stating, “I don’t believe,” or “I don’t believe in anything,” there has been the formation of a credo.
It is very safe to conclude that for there to be a group there must be a basic agreement of what is true. This statement of what a particular belief system uses as an agreement for normalcy is the group’s credo. The credo is what the group represents to others, their ultimate truth.
It is quite a circle of confusion, isn’t it, when a group has multiple sub-groups that declare their own truth? How can that be, though? If we agree to have groups with their own truth, and many groups with many truths, what are we to do with the truths that allow for no other to be agreeable as another truth? What will be the acceptible truths, the unacceptible truths? If a belief is a truth then can it be unacceptible? Does truth by nature of its definition have to be acceptible?
If there are multiple truths, what happens in a court case when a person must promise to tell the truth? Does the person need to add on a claim form stating which truth is true in their belief system? If a truth is only true if it can be emperically proven, where then do all of the truths go that stem from perception, experience, and conclusion through the process of thought? What of the truth of any religion without logic? None can be proven by any defintion of empirical evidence.
Another example has to do with creation. Though the process of evolution is used to differentiate between two groups of thought regarding the origin of life and its development, many who belief that all was created by God initially believe also in evolution–only with a different definition than the one used by evolutionists. From this debate has come a new term, that of “intelligent design.” This doesn’t contain the truth into two groups, however, since there is still more dissenting opinion that divides and splits the two groups.
Also regarding creation is the “how” of how it happened. With multiple true religions, each with its own creation story, are there then multiple creations? Well, the answer is … of course not! What of the god or gods that each religion believes is the creator? Do we have multiple creations? hmm…. back to the same answer.
Here is an example. There was an item stolen in Osseo, Minnesota recently, and the police were called. The truth is, there was a theft, for which under any law in the United States of America is a punishable act. When the police came, however, they defined the theft act by adding another term to what the truth was that happened, that of “cultural differences,” and thus nothing has been done. Where then does this stop? How far do we go in adding definitions to truth, changing essentially laws that have been in place since the dawn of time (and certainly in the U.S.A.) regarding property, before it brings harm on many? What then is the purpose of law? Are our laws now follow the pluralistic definitions within truth also? How does this benefit all who are affected? It seems to me that it can’t.
Another example is the proposition 8 voted upon in California. The voters placed their ballots to continue to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Yet, there are people who didn’t like it and don’t accept what the majority of voters voted in–who are now vocally and disruptively seeking to have their truth put into place. Where does that leave truth? Is it in the largest group who was agreeable, or in the smaller group who seem to get their point across in a stronger voice?
There are valid reasons for concluding that pluralism of truth doesn’t equate with a more respectful, tolerant society. With everyone having their own unit with its own truth, there must be equal respect for all. Yet, that isn’t the way it’s going, is it? One group speaks their belief, another disagrees. The first claims lack of respect and feel insulted. The other group feels slighted for not being able to speak their truths without being defamed. Where does it all end? Why hasn’t this system where every group has the right to believe, live and speak as they wish created one big happy family of citizens? Why are so many slighted, emotion dripping from their eyes, feeling secluded and not understood?
It’s time to look at the definition of “truth” or “true.” Here is a fact, folks. The “great thinkers” throughout the ages cannot even agree upon what it is–to the point of there being five major theories about how to define/describe what is true CLICK HERE to read more about TRUTH at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia.
Continuing on this pass that at present is seeming to go anywhere but forward, let us attempt to move on. I suggest looking at truth from more of a sideways angle. If the possibility exsists for concurrent truth, why then is there such disagreement over what is true–what is acceptible as truth?
As an example, I will use the eBay discussion board conversation that went on for several day. A thread was opened up to put forth “principle wiccan beliefs.” The intended purpose was to clear up misconceptions, as the the original poster (OP) indicated are common. In our pluralistic society, the unspoken rule is to accept all truths as agreeable, or the disagreeable person will be subject to the denunciation of the opinion presented.
At the same time, though, to be accepting is also the underlying premise of agreement. It cannot be helped–with any form of discussion there is agreement, neutrality or disagreement.
Taking a different position, for lack of a better representation, SIDE B offers a response to the wiccan beliefs from the Christian point of view. Following the Christian’s presentation an outcry rises up–and it is the normal of circumstances–not only between Christian and non-Christian, but anywhere opinion is voiced that disagrees with someone else’s truth. The reason for using this particular discussion is because I was a participant. The opposition viewpoint (mine) was for the most part denounced quite thoroughly.
Herein is the first problem. Either all truths held by each individual group are allowable, or none are allowable. Why? Because, for pluralism to be viable it is the way it must be or the model of a plural society doesn’t work. If one group decides that how their views differ from someone else’s beliefs, that should be quite alright. Surely, a person should be able to put forth viewpoints that differ without being called judgemental, not respectful or closed minded.
Why? Because all truth has been made acceptible–not some, but all. When denying the right to speak, the denier has chosen a superior role. When one truth is acceptible and another is not, the group has been denied. When no truth or the group defining that truth is denied, the whole notion of plural truths is negated.
Yet, it cannot be. When, such as the city of Osseo ignores the law, they have set themselves up as (a) lawbreakers and (b) deniers of a group or party’s validity to exist. When one group denounces another’s truth they become that which they have denied exists, which is that a truth is either a single entity only, or that there is superior truth. To not discuss differences in truth is a silent acknowledgment that the truth a group has taken as their own is not defensable, and therefore not a truth.
Where does respect for the truth end? How far is this notion of multiple truths supposed to extend? Are we to accept the ideology of street gangs as their truth and acknowledge their right to live as they see fit? Are we to extend the notion of cultural differences to the point of breaking the law? If one law is to be broken and it is okay, then how many laws are breakable? Should we accept terrorism because it is part of a groups culture? Should we accept forms of abuse of diverse groups who might accept their behavior as the norm?
The question is this: Where does it end? When does acceptance turn into compromise of a moral, ethical society that coexists at least on a most basic level harmoniously? Without a doubt, I believe that compromise has demonstrated itself to not be the viable answer and humanly impossible. From a societal point of view, it is impossible without ramifications that will damage and endanger society as a whole.
A very good example of this was this year’s presidential election. All agree that never before has there been such polarity in our country, never have such extreme opinions come to the fore and produced physical violence over who would be president. This model of behavior exhibited here in our United States of America is what the philosophic blanket of pluralism has produced, and the election is no isolated occurrance, it is ongoing and happening across the board.
There is one more element that is very important. It is that there is a difference between the acceptance of one truth as the only truth by a group or society as a whole, and being able to converse, live and interact with all or some who enter our lives. That this difference is not recognized is one of the three reasons why Christians are constantly bombarded with insults and hatred–and why the premise for pluralism is flawed. It may even be what will be the downfall of the United States of America.
America, built on the concept of many freedoms for all had turned its back upon the one truth necessary to make it work. That truth is One Nation Under (One) God. We are the country that accepts many cultures, accepts the right to worship as one sees fit for all, the right to live a life in freedom within our laws–these rights are not the same as pluralism. The unified whole under the one supreme truth with the same rights for all from many cultures has become skewed. It is to the point of a speeding train going down a dark tunnel with no light on the other side unless we change. We are now so focused on group and individual rights that there is no place for God anymore. It has allowed for greed that is destroying us financially, and rights that are killing us physically and emotionally. God help us before it is too late.
********************************************
There certainly are many in today’s society who believe that multiple truths are not only feasible but completely doable. What this does from a religious standpoint, however, is make for many gods who created the same universe, life, and world. It makes for the possibility of believing our world came to be by chance, or essentially from nothing–yet, something can’t come from nothing. It allows not only for multiple theologies with differing essential beliefs, but for the enactment of those beliefs whatever the consequences may be to society as a whole.
The Christian God, as the First Commandment tells us, is the one and only God, creator and maker of all that is seen and unseen. He is a jealous God, allowing for no other Gods–whether universally spatial or an object or a thing. The Christian must answer as Peter did when asked, “Who do you say I am?” If the answer is anything but “Thou art Christ, the son of the Living God,” then the person has a problem.
It is not always easy, folks, but it is way it is. To acknowledge or acquiesce to another way of thinking is to deny God. To do any less than love all, including those who don’t believe, by praying and caring for them when sick, poor, or in need of basic life necessities, is also to deny God, as Jesus said… “To have done to the least of these, you have done it unto me.”
It may seem harsh, but believe me when I tell you this: that by acknowledging Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life is in no way forcing your beliefs upon anyone. Just by someone stating that you can’t force your beliefs is the person telling you that you are not doing it. Second, each person must come before the Father, ask forgiveness of their sins and accept the invitation to life with a future.
It would be really nice to say that all groups with their only set of truths are okay, opening the door to universal salvation–that is, everyone being saved. That, however, is not what the Bible states. It says that the invitation is open to all, but that are those who have and will deny God. God is faithful to His promises, and he is for justice.
The harshness that seems to be is just that–an appearance of what is not real or true. The reality of God is a world of beauty in all circumstances, richness in all that is before us through the fact that its very existence glorifies the One who created all. It is the hope of a future filled with brilliant light and harmonious peace that we cannot even imagine possible.
There is no reason to limit ourselves to a world with multiple truths where everyone and anything goes. God is limitless. There is a past with no beginning and a future with no end. I invite you to come out of the here-and-now world and enter the world of truth–that there is One Father, One Son, and One Holy Spirit–forever!
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
….babamarusia