“What is truth?” - Pontius Pilate (John 18:38)
What is truth? Such a simple question, yet one that has garnered deliberation and debate from philosophers and theologians for millenia. While they may seek some esoteric explanation or religious rejoinder, we do have a common, basic definition that we all share. As Merriam-Webster puts it, truth is “the body of real things, events, and facts.”
Anyone who has ever asked someone a question regarding something that happened and told that person the consequences will be lighter if he “tells the truth” understands this definition to be “true.” Of course, this truth is objective - it is what really is or actually happened, regardless of what we believe or feel.
Enter relativism. With relativism, we now each get to have our own truth. No longer is truth based solely upon reality and independent of each individual’s perception; instead, truth is now whatever you believe it to be. This is the underlying premise of a TED talk given in 2022 by Katherine Maher, the former CEO of Wikimedia (curators of Wikipedia) and now CEO of NPR. In this talk, speaking on the virtues of Wikipedia, Maher embraces this relativism:
…in our normal lives, these contentious conversations tend to erupt over a disagreement about what the truth actually is. But the people who write these articles, they're not focused on the truth. They're focused on something else, which is the best of what we can know right now. And after seven years of working with these brilliant folks, I've come to believe that they are onto something. That perhaps for our most 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.
That’s right, truth is irrelevant. Just find common ground. What can we agree on? We’ll call that “our truth.” Otherwise, you keep your truth to yourself, because I have mine. That’s what made Wikipedia so successful dontcha know? That’s what makes Wikipedia ready to face the challenges of the future, according to Maher:
…my tenure coincided with a very strange time for information. A global crisis of fake news and disinformation, which meant that our free-knowledge movement really sort of stood alone. At the same time, too, we saw a collapse in public trust around the world in many of our critical civic institutions. And one of the reasons for this collapse in public trust, in things like public science and an independent free press and even perhaps in the idea of democracy itself, is that people around the globe are increasingly skeptical about the ability of these institutions to respond to our future challenges and changing needs. And yet, during this time, trust in Wikipedia actually went up.
Isn’t this a little self-contradictory? If you have your truth, and I have mine, what is “disinformation”? Doesn’t the very word imply a lack of “truth”? So, who determines what is disinformation? You? Me? Maher? Consensus?
But her statements belie other issues with her line of thought. She is correct that there has been a collapse of public trust in institutions. But is it really because we are skeptical whether they can respond to future challenges and changing needs? No! It was because they lied, they played fast and loose with the truth. It was these institutions that were the primary purveyors of fake news and disinformation. This is the reason for the loss of public trust. And I really must question whether trust in Wikipedia has increased (of course, starting from zero, any move in the positive could be described as “went up”).
Reality doesn’t stand in the way of Maher though. She insists we each have our own truth:
But... I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, 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. And so when we try to use our personal truths to come to conversations around collective decision-making on important issues, we start to run into problems.
So, if there are different truths, and we each have our own, how do we “come to conversations around collective decision-making”? How can we decide on something together if we each have our own truth? We can’t. And even those, like Maher, who have strong enough doublethink to believe this drivel, show themselves to be hypocrites. As Maher goes on to lament:
I think about our lack of urgent action on climate change. We've known for a very long time now about the negative impacts of man-made carbon in the atmosphere. But ...[the] implications of that data challenge our identities, our industries, our communities in ways that have led and created resistance and even disinformation, and the resulting public debates about the truth of climate change have prevented us from taking specific and concrete actions that could mitigate the harms to us around rising seas, increasingly deadly waves of heat and cold and powerful storm systems.
Who has known about man-made carbon in the atmosphere having negative impact? Is that true? Whose truth is that? But again, she brings up disinformation, which she is spreading - whether wittingly or unwittingly. Those who oppose the climate change cultists do not do so because of identity; they do so because of science. But…truth.
And that’s just it, isn’t it? If there is no objective truth, if you have your truth and I have mine, then there is no truth at all. There is no good or bad, right or wrong. Is it true that murder is wrong? If truth is not objective, then the answer to that question is “no.” A person who believes another should die and so kills that person should not be prosecuted. After all, that the other should die was that person’s truth. We could apply the same logic to any issue, any heinous crime. When truth is abandoned, all that remains is lies.
Nevertheless, this thinking has become pervasive and it is undermining the fabric of society. This is the rationale that leads to elevating equity above equality. This is the intellection that leads to the beliefs that men can be women, theft is just wealth redistribution, and Joe Biden is a good president. As Maher puts it (again relating to information disseminated by Wikipedia):
…I think one of the most critical things that I found really important is that its model pushes us to work together into deliberation and into conversation so that the end result is something that most of us feel is reasonable and fair.
Truth be damned! Reasonable and fair is what we need. Reasonable to whom? Fair by what standard? Again, this progressive poppycock is shown for what it is - poppycock. And this is the woman who will now be heading up National Public Radio, a broadcast news organization funded by your tax dollars. Can you say, “propaganda”? Can you say, “organ of the government”?
Truth is truth, no matter what you feel or believe. It exists outside ourselves. It is not a matter of consensus. There is no “your truth” and “my truth” - there is simply the truth. This is why, when a witness is sworn to give testimony in court, the witness is asked, “do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?” It is the truth the court is looking for. It is the truth that brings (or should) real agreement between people. Truth should never be set aside. Truth is the ultimate common ground.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” - John 14:6 (emphasis mine)
In case you missed it above, here is a link to the TED talk:
It is more of a progressive word salad than I can express in this post.
Yes. "Truth" has been replaced with "MY truth" which is a phrase that I hold in absolute contempt.
There are a number of truths that I don't particularly "like." I just turned another year older - don't like it. I am obese - don't like it. There's nothing to prevent people from being stupid - don't like it. I have to fix my car - don't like it. No religion or philosophy in the world says that I have no LIKE the truth, nor is it said that Life Is Fair. But acknowledging truths offers me the opportunity to make choices. I can choose to get old with dignity and Grace. I can choose to lose weight and work on getting fit. I can choose to forgive people's stupidity - exercise compassion. I can choose to live without a car or (not likely ever) buy a new car.
Truth - real truth - has no debate, negotiations, or alternatives. Truth, like Chrit being The Way, just is.
It's rather vital that we understand the concept of "viewpoints". There are few "facts" (truths) in the world. Most of our world is made up of viewpoints (such as "vaccines are dangerous"). We must look at evidence not oratory.