Atheist: “The problem is you’re an advocate of absolute truth.”
Answer: Of course I'm an advocate of absolute truth, and apparently you are as well because the message behind all your responses is that my view/claims/inferences/premises are WRONG and doesn't correspond to reality/absolute truth.
Are you saying "there is no absolute truth?"
Truth is inescapable: The very denial of its existence ("there is no absolute truth") is an affirmation of its reality (that denial itself is an absolute truth claim). If you say you do not believe in the laws of logic you actually believe in the laws of logic--assuming you came to that conclusion logically and not randomly. Since the laws of logic, laws of mathematics, and laws of science exist and were discovered (not invented), then absolute truth does exist.
If you are still not convinced of absolute truth please read on.
Just as the scientific method has a way of testing the legitimacy of a hypothesis (in the natural world) through experimentation and observation, the truth of any propositional statement can be tested by taking the statement to its logical conclusion (i.e. testing it). If what follows is incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction--with no way of reconciling the contradictions with more information (i.e. upon deeper reflection)--then we have good reason to reject the legitimacy of the statement.
I will provide two examples below that demonstrate unequivocally that absolute truth exists and the more adamant one is in denying it, the more egg they get on their face. One was a formal debate in front of a live audience between a Christian apologist and a professor, and the other is a casual conversation during lunch between a Christian philosopher, and a professor.
1) Greg Koukl, a Christian apologist, debated Dr. Marv Meyer over the issue of absolute truth. The title of the debate was, “Is Truth True?” Greg Koukl defended the resolve “Objective truth exists and can be known,” while Dr. Marv Meyer took the opposite.
Dr. Meyer tried to argue against Koukl’s view and in favor of his own. What Dr. Meyer didn’t notice was that with each argument for THE TRUTH of his view, he was actually sawing off the branch he was sitting on. Koukl pointed this out to the audience. He mentioned that Dr. Meyer was forced by the nature of debate itself to make use of the very thing he was denying in the debate, dooming his effort to failure from the outset. Just by showing up, Dr. Meyer had implicitly affirmed the resolve Koukl was defending, effectively conceding the debate to him from the beginning.
The audience would vote on who won the debate. Koukl pointed out to the audience that every vote cast for Dr. Meyer as the winner of the debate meant the voter had been persuaded that Dr. Meyer’s view was (objectively) true and Koukl’s was (objectively) false. Therefore, every vote for Dr. Meyer was really a vote for Koukl.
The audience laughed, but the point wasn’t lost on them. When the final tally came in, Dr. Meyer got only one vote. This wasn’t because Koukl used better rhetoric. It was because the view Dr. Meyer was defending was obviously false.
Just as the scientific method has a way of testing the legitimacy of a hypothesis (in the natural world) through experimentation and observation, the truth of any propositional statement can be tested by taking the statement to its logical conclusion (i.e. testing it). If what follows is incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction--with no way of reconciling the contradictions with more information (i.e. upon deeper reflection)--then we have good reason to reject the legitimacy of the statement.
I will provide two examples below that demonstrate unequivocally that absolute truth exists and the more adamant one is in denying it, the more egg they get on their face. One was a formal debate in front of a live audience between a Christian apologist and a professor, and the other is a casual conversation during lunch between a Christian philosopher, and a professor.
1) Greg Koukl, a Christian apologist, debated Dr. Marv Meyer over the issue of absolute truth. The title of the debate was, “Is Truth True?” Greg Koukl defended the resolve “Objective truth exists and can be known,” while Dr. Marv Meyer took the opposite.
Dr. Meyer tried to argue against Koukl’s view and in favor of his own. What Dr. Meyer didn’t notice was that with each argument for THE TRUTH of his view, he was actually sawing off the branch he was sitting on. Koukl pointed this out to the audience. He mentioned that Dr. Meyer was forced by the nature of debate itself to make use of the very thing he was denying in the debate, dooming his effort to failure from the outset. Just by showing up, Dr. Meyer had implicitly affirmed the resolve Koukl was defending, effectively conceding the debate to him from the beginning.
The audience would vote on who won the debate. Koukl pointed out to the audience that every vote cast for Dr. Meyer as the winner of the debate meant the voter had been persuaded that Dr. Meyer’s view was (objectively) true and Koukl’s was (objectively) false. Therefore, every vote for Dr. Meyer was really a vote for Koukl.
The audience laughed, but the point wasn’t lost on them. When the final tally came in, Dr. Meyer got only one vote. This wasn’t because Koukl used better rhetoric. It was because the view Dr. Meyer was defending was obviously false.
|
2) Please see video |
|
Consider the irony of anyone who, out of one side of their mouth, denies absolute truth, and then out of the other side of their mouth says, “You are (absolutely) WRONG.” When someone says you are “wrong” they are implying that their description of reality (how we interpret math, logic, science, and our experience) is closer to absolute truth than you. Anytime you say to someone "you are wrong" you are affirming some absolute truth exists and the person who is "wrong" is further from it than you. And if relativists don't believe any absolute truth exists then why do they continue wasting their time disagreeing with anyone?
The major flaw in the reasoning of the relativist is they are using what we don't know to interpret the obvious ("since we don't know x, how can we know ANYTHING absolutely?"). In short, they disregard the obvious for the sake of the mysterious. What if we did this in all areas of life? We would then disregard all the mathematical truth that has been discovered (trigonometry, calculus, etc.) because of all the unsolved (mysterious) problems of math that we are not absolutely sure how to answer. We don't do that because we see the absurdity that follows.
So how can we be so sure about ANYTHING with so much uncertainty? We have all taken multiple choice tests and have been faced with questions that we did not know the answer to. But there were usually some answers that were obviously false, and by eliminating them you were that much closer to the right answer. As Sherlock Holmes put it, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." You cannot have a married bachelor--that is impossible. That is an absolute truth because its antithesis is IMPOSSIBLE. You start with the basics (mathematical truths such as 2+2=4, logical contradictions that must be ABSOLUTELY false). Once you have demonstrated that some truth (math and logic) is absolute, you know that absolute truth exists and some things are closer to it than others.
The bottom line is: we don’t disregard the obvious for the sake of the mysterious--we interpret the unclear (what we don’t know absolutely) from the clear (what we do know absolutely).
Lastly, the reason we establish absolute truth on level one of our logical chart is because as much as you can try to help someone see that absolute truth exists, if the relativist refuses to acknowledge the obvious (there is absolute truth) then it will be impossible to reason with them further. Talking about God, the Bible, and life's fundamental questions (origin, meaning, morality, and destiny) is calculus level stuff meant for those who are not calling into question everything we know about the most basic laws of mathematics. If someone doesn't accept the most basic laws of math as true, how will they understand the complexity of calculus? Similarly, if someone denies the most basic axiom of thought and reason (the laws of logic are objectively true), how can you reason with them on matters as deep as God?
Those who don't accept the law of non-contradiction as absolute are stating implicitly that they have no problems with contradictions. No matter how much logic and reason you use, those who deny absolute truth (and with it the law of non-contradiction) can shamelessly contradict themselves with reckless abandon. Additionally, they will inevitably pull the relativism escape hatch whenever the light of truth becomes too much for them to bear. And just like that, the conversation will dissolve into meaninglessness. It is simply impossible to have a meaningful and coherent discussion with someone that considers contradictions just as viable and useful in conversation as logic and reason (i.e. the person who makes an absolute claim that there are no absolutes).
Some atheists claim “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." I disagree. I believe a more accurate statement is, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually short-sighted atheist." Postmodern relativism, on the other hand, has made it possible to be a comfortable, intellectually BANKRUPT atheist. Why are they comfortable in such intellectual bankruptcy? Some people are more interested in legitimizing a worldview that allows them to be their own god than actually arriving at the truth.
"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed."--John 3:19-20