Meditations

Relating to truth in a post modern society is difficult if not utterly impossible. In a society where there seems to be no absolutes and dialectic reasoning is used to justify any position the truth seems to become relevant to the time. In paraphrased form it has been said [there is no ideology or life style so extreme that one can not fly in a professor with great credentials to give it approval and creditability.
Does this mean that there is no truth. To the contrary there is truth and truth is an absolute. But this is only true to those who love truth. As established in scripture and elaborated on in blog, truth should be a thing that one would wish to seek out even at a price. Prov. 23:23 Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding. Truth seems to be arrived at in many different ways. One that is very interesting and holds merit worth examination is the Hegelian dialectic. This type reasoning is usually described in the following way:
· The thesis is an intellectual proposition.
· The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis.
· The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.
Simply put one has an idea another has an opposing idea and in investigation there comes a position in which both see the conflict resolved by a reconciling of common truths. Only problem is this leads one to think there can be dialectic thoughts or separate truths. This is not a certainty as one might consider that both only held partial truths that needed each other to reconcile an absolute.
So how does One actually come to decide a thing as true. There are three things which come to mind
One, Truth must have logical consistency. A statement or position which contradicts it’s self is not and can not be true and to argue the “law of non-contradiction” does noting more than to prove the very same law by arguing an “either/or” position.
Two, Truth must have an empirical adequacy. Evidences which can be seen and or demonstrated. Is this always necessary to determine truth? One could say no but in the end one will see that yes was the honest answer.
Three, Truth must have relevance as it relates to experience. Does what one is believing match with the experiences which establish opinion and conviction in one’s life.
These three separate from each other generally have a point of argumentative relevance. But together they support each other in argument. One might ask, What about Faith? The answer come in the form of a question. How does faith come. Faith comes by hearing. Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh hearing, and hearing by the word of God. When One listens, One of reason will look for logical consistency, One will look for empirical adequacy and One will have a need for relevance to experience. These things seem to be necessary for one to establish truth.
One of fame asked “what is truth” A seeker of truth would have already known the answer. But even in One who seeks not the truth, in the truth he will find no fault. Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Joh 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
Will find no fault, yes no fault at all!
David