A friend of mine told me recently that he had received an invitation from a London borough, in which he was a parish priest, that had at the top a statement proclaiming that the borough was “multi-cultural, multi-faith, multi-truth”. The first two were clearly descriptive of the number of distinct cultures among the population, and the reality of the existence of churches, mosques and gudwaras and their communities in that borough. What was much more questionable was the commitment to “multi-truth”. Taken to its logical conclusion (and that phrase implies that we have some common measure of what is true) it would be impossible to have a dialogue about any issue because there would be no ground rules. There would simply be assertion. “Your truth” and “my truth” ends in subjective affirmations. In fact, when two people meet, discuss, argue and try to convince one another they are, for all the passion with which they maintain their positions, trying to convince the other of the truth of what they hold. Our convictions are shaped by our experience and upbringing, but also by the understanding of the world that we inherit. Although the scientist needs faith to test a hypothesis, to set up the experiment the very hypothesis is framed in a tradition of scientific understanding. “Your truth” and “my truth” does not work in understanding either the Universe or our human genetic make-up.
First rate piece. The line near the bottom, “The powerful can be more concerned with position than truth…”, in paraphrase can be applied to many situations, for many people are more concerned with defending or preserving certain positions/situations than with allowing the truth to correct or sanctify them.
It’s a form of nihilism. If all truth is true, then no truth is true. You cannot know anything and you cannot communicate. Words no longer have any meaning because they cannot communicate anything. As Ian+ points out all you have is power.
And we see this being played out in the culture wars and elsewhere.
I think the trend these days is to confuse “truth” with “point of view.” We do each have a unique point of view that may contrast or even conflict with someone else’s point of view. But the point of listening to each other is to test these points of view and refine them closer and closer to the truth – on which neither of us may have a complete grasp.
An example would be the famous elephant story, used by relativists everywhere: Several blind men touch an elephant at different places, and each comes up with the different idea of what the beast is: A tree trunk (elephant’s leg), a snake (elephant’s trunk), etc. The point is supposed to be that none of us comprehends the whole truth. However, in “my view,” the real point of the story should be that there IS a truth – the creature is an elephant!
Moral of the story? There is a Truth, and His name is Jesus.
I could not help but think that in TEC all roads lead to 815. It has the power without the truth.