Articles
Critical Thinking Skills - 4
Perhaps the most contemporary dogma that has contributed to the erosion of critical thinking skills is that “truth is relative” or “truth is personal or individual.” We have been told time and again, and from a variety of sources, that there is no objective truth. Truth is individually crafted to suit each individual’s “reality.” Here is a typical framing of this ideology:
“One of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths. And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths …
“[This] allows us to start having conversations about the truth in a way that focuses on what we believe rather than what can be known. And that is a definition that is deeply divisive and harmful … Perhaps for … tricky disagreements, seeking the truth and seeking to convince others of the truth might not be the right place to start. In fact, our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done” (Katherine Maher, NPR CEO, via TEDTalk).
OK, let’s try to untangle this mess. First, without a doubt we all have different experiences and viewpoints influenced by a variety of factors from genetics to nurture to socio-economic status to politics to education to religion – and a thousand other factors that shape our worldview. This does lead to various opinions, preferences, assumptions, etc. But these individual variables have no bearing on whether there is such a thing as objective or absolute truth.
And we all “instinctively” – better, experientially – know this: physical science is built on the notion of objective truth: chemical reactions, gravitational forces, distances, seasons, atmospheric and oceanic properties and a thousand other observable, measurable elements of this world and our celestial environment testify to an unbending, unyielding reality. This is why scientists all over the world can share their research and open it up to peer review because the scientific “truth” in China is the same scientific “truth” in the U.S.
But even scientific research is affected by scientists who have their own biases, blind spots, fallible logic, concerns for funding, tenure, publishing, etc. But what shall we do in view of this? Pretend that “scientific truth” doesn’t exist because reaching a consensus on it is challenging?
Further, Ms. Maher mistakenly thinks that embracing relativism will somehow magically solve our disagreements. It sounds so broadminded to say that everyone’s individual truth must be respected, but in reality this is a recipe for disaster. If we abandon the concept of absolute truth, we also sacrifice our ability to discern a lie. And if we can’t distinguish truth from falsehood, we are vulnerable to evil, which is by nature duplicitous.
Consider this observation by Hannah Arendt, a German-Jewish historian and philosopher of the early 20th century: “Constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at insuring that no one believes anything anymore. A people that can no longer distinguish between truth and lies cannot distinguish between right and wrong. And such a people, deprived of the power to think and judge, is, without knowing and willing it, completely subjected to the rule of lies. With such a people, you can do whatever you want.” This is the insidious outcome of rejecting absolute truth: without an objective standard, and considering everyone’s opinions of equal value, there is no practical way of achieving true unity based on objective reality. “Unity” becomes merely “union,” and this will suffice until some begin to insist on their own way.
But let’s transition to a spiritual application. We do not read such cockamamie ideas in the revelation that proceeds from the mind of God. The laws, ordinances and statues of the Law of Moses are rational and irrespective of the personal views of the Jews. In following the Law all Jews were expected to observe the same feast days, offer sacrifices according to the same criteria, follow the clearly expressed instructions concerning waging warfare, execute the objective blueprints in making the ark and other tabernacle furniture and the tabernacle itself, etc. In Ex 39-40 phrases such as “as the Lord commanded Moses” and “thus Moses did; according to all that the Lord had commanded him, so he did” are repeated over and over again. God gave objective instructions, Moses understood them, and his actions, as well as the artisans, matched the specifications.
Consider two other striking examples:
The man who violated the Sabbath – Num 15:32-36. God had been clear in issuing the restrictions of work on the Sabbath (cf. Ex 20:8-11; 31:12-17). But for reasons not explained, a man decided to violate God’s Sabbath law by gathering sticks. Others saw this behavior, determined it violated objective law and brought him to Moses for judgment. God settled the matter: “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones …”. How the man justified his disobedience and what the people thought about the penalty were irrelevant. The truth was absolute, understandable and resulted in unity when followed.
Zelophehad’s daughters – Num 27:1-11. In this case God had given instructions concerning inheritance that specified sons and excluded daughters. This objective law was understood, but it was rightly determined by Zelophehad’s daughters to unfairly deprive them of their father’s inheritance. Rather than argue subjectively or from emotions in order to circumvent the law, they made a rational appeal to Moses concerning the matter who then presented it to the Lord. God replied, “The daughters of Zelophehad speak what is right; you shall surely give them a possession of inheritance among their father’s brothers, and cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them” (27:7).
These examples illustrate the fact that God communicates to man objectively and that He may respond favorably to rational objections. True unity is achieved by rational appeals to objective standards. God approves of critical thinking and condemns relativism that circumvents His law.
