About a year ago I started to go full force in trying to convince people on various internet forums and Facebook that truth is a real thing. I kind of knew that it would be somewhat difficult but to the level it has been, is really shocking to be totally honest. I used to think that if I just built up a case well enough that I would be able to convince people that I was indeed correct. Sounded so simple...wrong! I soon learned that when I used logic to prove that someones assertion was untenable, I usually got some sort of response in return that had absolutely nothing to do with either: A. The assertion. or B. My proposition that their assertion was not possible.
Having no idea how to combat these sort of attacks I started to look for resources that could help me understand discussions and how they worked. The first step I took was taking a course called "the Ambassadors Course" by Greg Koukl. It was an awesome course that went through all kinds of "tactics" on how to diagram conversations and understand logical fallacies on the fly, then use that to make a convincing argument as to sway the person toward your point of view, I highly recommend it. However, as I started to use the tools as outlined in the course, I found that most of the people that made fallacious assertions had already made a conscious choice to abandon traditional forms of logic altogether in order to make claims like "there is no truth". On the other hand, they also usually state that they came to their conclusion logically. The most frustrating thing is that logic is based on the foundation of ultimate truth being a reality outside of our own subjective viewpoint. Logic is a standard that has within itself a set of rules, checks and balances that really dosen't care at all about your personal opinion or point of view. If it isnt, then what is it? Mere opinion? If it is just opinion then why call it logic? If it is the truth as it claims, then declaring logic is asserting truth which destroys the claim that "truth doesnt exist" altogether. Its like saying "math makes no sense, let me prove it to you...mathematically."
I didnt understand until recently how it is that someone would want to be so self deceived as to make such a statement. I have come to the loose conclusion that it mainly is due to a couple of things: 1.Social standing and 2.Personal gratification.
First I'll address the social standing issue.
If you hold a view, any view at all that gains any level of acceptance, we are more likely to accept it as being true. The appeal to popularity is one of the most alluring forms of logical fallacy. In other words being in the popular group gives us a sense of security. It also works like this: adopt a view of an existing group then after a certain level of status is acquired, implement a view of your own (if you have one other than that of the group), as long as it adheres mostly to all currently held views of the group(or is presented as such). Try to suggest a view too contrary to currently held views and risk rejection. For most, the risk of rejection is more than they are willing to wager, so it is simply easier to accept the status quo and keep out mouths shut. I think most of us can relate to this supposition to one degree or another.
Second, the personal gratification issue.
This is very close to the first issue but it differs in that it is more of a motive for the social status issue. It goes like this: For various reasons I like; fornication, drugs, stealing, the idea of ruling my own personal reality, etc. Therefore I wont accept any view that says those things are wrong.
While most people dont literally say "I wont accept any view that says those things are wrong." the fact is you dont need to. You get the same outcome merely by not scrutinizing your conclusions logically. The end result is a rejection of things that may be true regardless of your personal viewpoint, i.e. 1+1 always equals 2 if you are using basic rules of addition.You may not like or even believe in the rules of math but none the less, they exist and work quite independently of your opinion or viewpoint. Logic has similar laws that cannot simply be ignored because one simply does not prefer them.
The real issue is that saying that things like "there is no truth" is an appeal to truth in the same way 1+1=2 is an appeal to truth. If you dont want to agree that logic is a real thing then you must abandon it altogether. You cant use a mathematical equation to prove that math is false. By using an equation, you have already agreed that math is a valid form to explain your point thus math is valid. To use an old adage "its like cutting off the branch you are sitting on."
If you happen to be one of those that are so deceived, then riddle me this: If I was sitting on a bus stop reading my bible, would it bother you? You might answer "No it wouldnt, your just minding your own business." Ok, how about if I were reading it aloud? You might be tempted to say something like "as long as you're not doing it too loud, it would be ok." To that I must ask you a simple question...why? If you tell me that it would bother you then Id say that it couldn't possibly bother you, and you would say "of course it does!" Right there is the problem. I could just say "You said there is no truth so that cant be true." and you couldn't say I'm wrong. According to your claim I cant be.
Like I said before, people that make an assertion like that are either being dishonest with themselves by choice or they are deluded. Let me explain: If you say that "there is no truth", you are saying that "truth = X and X = nothing." Then I come up and say "there is truth" what Im saying is "truth = X and X = something." How can these contradictory proofs both be true at the same time? The simple answer is that they cannot. If they could, then I should never have had many of the arguments I've had over the last few months. In fact, what I should have had is some sort of celebration of the diversity of truth with those that espouse their relativist views. But obviously the reality has been quite different.
If I believe no war is justified, but then get angry and protest that we need to do more to feed the homeless, A.K.A:"The War on Hunger", I have just told a lie. If no war is justified then a war on hunger cannot be justified. What in fact is being said is: "War is not ok." "War is ok.". Clearly contradictory terms.
Now my brother would say I'm nitpicking but I only do it to prove a point and it is this: If you say things in such a broad manner, it is very likely that you are thinking in a broad manner. When we think this way we end up with silly contradictions like this.
I am aware that a person who says that no war is justified, then says they are for "The War on Hunger" is most likely really saying that they are against violence. But that is not what they said and because of the contradiction we are left to assume what they mean. The reason that we need to be more specific and not assume about things like war, truth, abortion or religion is because of the implications of the reality of these things. If no war is justifiable then a war on poverty is not justifiable. If a history book doesn't tell you about the past then its not history therefore cannot be useful in teaching history. If truth is not real then there is no purpose in saying something isn't true i.e. the Bible is not true. If abortion is only about a woman's choice then what about all the female babies that have been aborted? If red is your favorite color and if I were to offer you two identical cars, one red and one puce, the implication would be that you would choose the red car. My point is that ideas have implications/consequences when acted upon(or not acted upon).
That being said, as I have tried to explain this to relativists, atheists and agnostics (not the "I'm just not sure but I'm trying to figure it out" agnostics but the "I believe we can't know" agnostics) I usually don't get the type of reasoned, rational response that you'd think that I would get. The reality is, believe it or not, they seem to get really, reeeeeeeelly angry for some reason. What happened to my reality is true for me? I guess that universal truth doesn't apply here...but I digress.
My guess is that they dont use specifics because the more specific they get in defining any assersion, the closer the walls of the narrow hallway of truth become. The closer the confinement of context gets, the less "wiggle room" there is to define things any way we please. The more we want to be unaccountable, the more we defy authority of any kind, be it logic, God, parents, accurate definitions etc..
At this point you might be wondering why I titled this "How you can tell when you are winning a battle but loosing the war." , well let me explain...next post.
