What is Truth?

Written by: Gene Washburne

Was Hitler really evil?  Does it depend on who you talk to or is there some universal standard by which we can say definitively his actions and indeed the man himself were evil?  It is very popular nowadays to be skeptical about absolute truth claims.  While individual truth claims should be investigated and not taken merely at face value, the idea of an absolute truth is one with a great deal of merit and plausibility.  For example, Christians claim that Jesus is the only way that an individual can transcend her present reality and plug into the force that governs that reality. Well how can that be true if there are some people who live their whole lives without ever hearing about Jesus?  It seems there would have to be another way.  People take ideas and questions like that and form a kind of fuzzy belief that there are many ways to commune with the divine.  Truth becomes plural and/or relative.  There are many truths and they are relative to a person's experiences.  While this is certainly an attractive and appealing thought, it is in and of itself an absolute truth claim.  As such, it should be examined.  If it is true that all truth is relative to the individual, then there is no standard above the individual.  On that basis, we cannot say that Hitler was wrong.  Indeed, we cannot say that anything is wrong, nor, for that matter that anything is right.

At this point, as this is an old discussion, some attempt is made to discern between right and wrong without resorting to a religious archetype.  Several attempts are made to offer explanations apart from God.  Bertrand Russell, the late noted atheist, would say that decisions should be made on the basis of how they will affect our grandchildren.  Friedrich Nietzsche would say, in essence, might makes right.  Less devoted thinkers offer that Hallmark Hall of Fame, country music, ABC after-school special sentimental answer that all good people go to heaven, all bad people cease to exist as the concept of hell is distasteful.

Betrand Russell's answer must be dismissed.  He attributes all so-called evil and violence to world religion.  This is similar to John Lennon's sentiments in his song "Imagine."  This is a completely irresponsible, willfully ignorant view of human nature.  We are not basically or fundamentally good.  The whole sorry scope of human history cannot be attributed solely to religion.

Friedrich Nietzsche's sentiments are the most consistent.  If "God is dead", then there is no morality.  A person may do whatever she is strong enough to do and concepts like right and wrong simply do not apply. Few embrace this concept but again, apart from a religious worldview, this is the most consistent.  This is why religion of some kind will always accompany civilized humanity.  God will never "die" because the alternative is nigh unspeakable (I am fully aware of the irony of that statement).

I won't even remark on the third alternative.  Just think about it for about half an hour and you should see how false it is.

So, some standard above humanity must then exist.  There is moral good and moral evil.  How can we know which standard is the true standard?  First of all, be honest about reality and human nature.  We are not in good shape.  We are not getting better.  We are not leaving the world in better shape for our grandchildren than we found it.  That's not pessimism or religious rhetoric.  It is a fair assessment.  Are there religions which honestly recognize that humanity is helpless to transcend our reality?  In truth, as an unbiased thinker would expect, there is only one.  Our individual liberty, consumer mindset expects there to be choices but if there is a standard that is true, there won't be versions of it which are more and less true or more and less effective.

The true standard would acknowledge human incapability.  On this basis, the true standard would not expect humanity to participate in our transcendence.  Whether you realize it or not, all world religions save one become obsolete at this point.  Any belief system which teaches that the supplicant or person desiring transcendence must perform some task or tasks in order to earn transcendence must be dismissed because we are incapable of transcendence.  So is there a belief system which offers a transcendence that is already accomplished or earned?  Again, there is only one.  This is not a version or facsimile of itself.  In true, undiluted Christianity  Jesus substituted Himself in place of humanity to be punished for our failures.  Every society, regardless of how primitive, has a system of crime and punishment.  It is foolish to assume the force that governs reality would not.  Jesus lived perfectly according to the transcendent standard of moral good and evil and then offered Himself freely and willingly to be punished in our place.  He then gives credit for being perfect on the basis of His death to anyone He wants to regardless of anything particular to that person.

Finally, the reason this system seems evil to people like Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche is because humanity is all they see and so human good becomes their standard.  In the same way that my good is more important than the good of a blade of grass, the good of the force which governs reality is greater than my good.  We all understand that the good of the community is greater than the good of the individual in many cases.  When a policeman gives his life in the line of duty, we see this as a heroic act.  We see Dr. Martin Luther King as a martyr.  Well, there is a good that is higher than the good of humanity because there is something above humanity.  I can definitively say by this standard that what Adolf Hitler did was evil.  If someone lives their whole life and never hears about Jesus and does not transcend his reality but rather is punished for his failures, this is justice which is a good concept.  Who among us but a guilty criminal would dare suggest that it is better that people not have to pay for their crimes (Again, I see the irony)?  If someone wrongfully takes my son's life that person should be punished.  How is it bad when a criminal pays the price for her crimes? It isn't bad. It is what should happen, even according to Nietzsche.  What is most sublimely beautiful however is the idea, even the reality that a person's crimes may be punished without the person being punished himself and furthermore in the punishment of the crimes a way is made to rehabilitate the criminal and ultimately usher in an existence where it's as if the crimes were never committed.  Only the pure, undiluted, unadulterated, graceful gospel of Jesus of Nazareth offers this sublime transcendence.  Romans 3:21-26