[current thought]
[thoughts index]

March 29, 2001

Does absolute truth exist? In an earlier thought, I claimed it didn’t. I said that in order for absolute truths, rights, and wrongs to exist, there would have to be some kind of ultimate objectivity, such as a god or a higher power, and since religion is a personal thing, leaving it aside, we have a serious problem defining objective truth. Therefore, everything is relative.

Now, I wish to revise my position slightly. The real question isn’t whether G-d, or absolute truths, or absolute morals or ethics or rights or wrongs exist. Because none of that matters. Why not? Because whether or not they do exist – and they very well might – we as human beings have absolutely no way of knowing. Therefore, whether or not absolute truths and ethics exist, we as humans live our lives in a completely relative world.

Some people claim that G-d doesn’t exist because His existence cannot be proven scientifically. However, this doesn’t mean that G-d doesn’t exist, it only means that our current scientific knowledge and capability is not advanced enough to prove it. Maybe the shortcoming is not with G-d but with science. Perhaps our entire assumption that something is only true if proven scientifically is faulty. Now, this doesn’t prove that G-d does exist, only that arguing that He doesn’t exist because science can’t prove it is an invalid argument. In other words, science has nothing to do with it, because human beings do science. Therefore, any shortcomings of human nature are passed on into science.

Another argument against the existence of G-d, or absolute truths and ethics for that matter, is that everyone sees them differently. Ask a hundred people if they believe in G-d, and chances are that any given proportion, say, seventy-five percent, will say yes. Of those seventy-five people, there might be two Jews who believe that G-d is one and eternal. Twenty Christians may claim that G-d is a holy trilogy consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Another twenty-five Muslims will claim that Islam is the only true religion and that G-d favours their interpretation of biblical history. Some will claim G-d is benevolent, others that He is just, others that He is cruel. Probably five or so will claim G-d is female, and another large proportion that He has no gender or substance. Every individual has personal opinions and thoughts about the nature and existence of G-d. Therefore, how could He exist, if He is an absolute and yet there are so many conflicting versions of what He is like?

This argument is backwards, however, because all the conflict proves is that human beings have differing opinions, not that G-d is different for everyone. It is akin to claiming that the Earth revolves around the sun. Or, to use a better example, picture a white light, and people looking at it through pieces of coloured cellophane. One person will claim the light is red, the next will say it’s blue; a third will argue that it’s yellow. None of that changes the fact that the light is actually white. The problem is that none of the people can possibly know that, because all are limited by the cellophane we call perception.

Perception. It’s a powerful thing. Each and every human being, from the Pope to the soapbox orator on a New York street corner, is only human and is therefore limited by perception. Nobody has the clear view of the white light. We all have blinders on. Therefore, the white light may very well exist, but as human beings, we have no way of knowing its nature. Perhaps it does not exist at all, and we are only imagining that it does because of perception.

If there are absolutes, they are useless to us because we don’t know what they are. Therefore, we define our own. Picture the same white light, but now a billion people, all living in the same area, all see it through red cellophane. Well, the light is red, isn’t it? It must be. I mean, a billion people said so! Nobody is disputing the absolute truth that the light is definitely red. But of course, this is simply a perception that is shared through consensus by a large number of people. And what if two or three of the billion saw the light as blue? They would probably be locked up and called crazy.

Consensus is no way to define absolute truth. The same goes for morals. We have various levels of making moral and ethical decisions, ranging from personal to group to societal to worldwide. Even so-called worldwide morals, such as murder being wrong, are relative. Relative to time, relative to place, relative to context and circumstance.

Murder is considered wrong by an extremely large majority of people, but again, nobody can see whether the white light of the heavens considers it wrong. And in some contexts, murder is not so clearly wrong. Abortion, for example, is considered murder by some, and a matter of free choice by others in current North American society. Elsewhere in the world, and only a few short years ago in our own backyard, it was more universally condemned. Capital punishment is considered by some to be a form of legally sanctioned murder, and by others as an appropriate punishment for certain crimes. Murder is clearly a relative term, depending on the circumstance.

Only a short while ago, it was considered acceptable to enslave human beings simply because of the colour of their skin. Clearly, morals can change over time. And one needs only to travel around the world to see the vastly different ideas that are held by various cultures. Some North American would decry other ideas as “wrong” and their own as “right”, but this ethnocentric view, understandable as it may be, is only a result of being raised with the values and ideals of North American culture.

In Canada, driving a competitor out of business is not morally wrong, it’s capitalism. Except when you drive ALL your competitors out of business: then that's illegal business practice. Exaggeration in advertising is commonplace. People cheat on their taxes and sleep soundly at night. Abortion is legal. Homosexuality is a matter of pride, not shame. Euthanasia is being wildly debated. Some people play moral police and condemn these actions as wrong, but they are simply expressing their opinions, validated by a broad consensus known as the Catholic Church or similar religious affiliations. These are not clairvoyants who somehow know the divine rights and wrongs. They are simply a large number of people, all of whom happen to be wearing the same colour cellophane on their glasses.

It does not matter whether absolute truths exist, because we have no way of seeing them. For our purposes as human beings, we have no choice but to live our lives relatively, since as human beings, we are limited by perception.