Apr 29 2008
Does absolute truth or absolute morality exist? Part 1
This is one of those blog posts I’ve been thinking about for a LONG time. I know I’ve taken stabs at this subject in the past, yet I feel as though I’ve never really done a thorough job of covering it. It’s likely I’ll fall short again, but it’s been bothering me too much lately to neglect any longer. I’ve had various drafts of this post saved on my blog for a long time, as well, so it’s about time I completed one of them and posted them.
Before I begin, I would like to state (perhaps quite unnecessarily) that I am a Christian. This post is going to be concerned with Christianity, and how the concepts of absolute truth and absolute morality are related to Christianity and the Word of God.
First off, what do we mean when we talk about “absolute truth” or “absolute morality”? It’s very simple, to be honest, and should not be confounding as many people as it is. Absolute truth is a truth that is always true, for all people, in all circumstances. Likewise, absolute morality is a set of morals that applies to all people regardless of their religious beliefs or culture. Having defined a what we mean, we can now use these words in our discussion.
Any discussion of absolutes like morality or truth of necessity must begin with epistemology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Epistemology asks the question “how do we know what we know?” It is a question worthy of consideration, is it not? After all, if Joe Schmoe in Podunk, West Virginia comes up with a set of morals and declares them to be absolute, ought we not ask someone who holds to those morals how they came by them? Ought we not question the source of our knowledge? (Now, I’m not going to get into the formal study of epistemology as defined by Plato, though it’s fascinating stuff.)
In the case of Joe Schmoe’s foolproof moral system, we ask what authority Mr. Schmoe has. Who is he to determine, after all, whether a given action or set of actions is moral or not? How does he know that his set of morals applies to all people at all times? We would state that Joe Schmoe does not have the authority to claim absolute morality for his little set of beliefs. He has neither the requisite experience of all of mankind nor the authority to speak for all people at all times.
Now, here is where I’m sure some of my readers will diverge, though I hope they will continue reading simply to see where I’m going with this. When it comes to absolute morality and truth in light of Christianity, questions of epistemology are even more important. There are a lot of things foisted upon the world in the name of Christ that need to have this kind of thing asked of them…especially in the more experiential (not experimental) branches of Christianity. Many cults have been formed and continued simply because those who follow their leaders did not ask the question, “where did this come from? How do we know this?” Mainline evangelicalism isn’t asking the questions of epistemology. They aren’t asking what the authority is for certain practices and/or beliefs. Or if they ARE asking these questions, they are not very selective about what the answers ought to be.
The ultimate epistemology of Christianity is God. But we don’t have God speaking to us through a burning bush, or a pillar of fire. It’s all well and good to say that God speaks to us, but if we don’t examine HOW we gauge the authority of such communication, then anything could be God speaking. We end up with a nebulous definition of God’s speaking. People hear voices all the time. How do we know that the guy who was told to shoot up his parents wasn’t hearing from God? Too extreme? Well, I think it’s useful to show why a line of reasoning isn’t helpful, but I can get less extreme. What about if “God” told someone that they should stop seeing their family? That they should no longer celebrate any family events or spend time with them at all? This is not far from what happened to some people I know, and it’s the kind of thing that makes the questions of epistemology very important. Anyone can say that anything they thought they heard are from God. How do we know? How are we to examine whether a “message” is from God? There are insane people that hear voices. They hear things that are decidedly not from God. There are people who are insane, who have not been diagnosed as such. If they hear voices, how do we know they’re God? Ultimately, I’m asking how they know that what they’re hearing is from God.
The most common answer is that we must compare it to the Word of God to ascertain its divine origin. Even in this answer, there are two schools of thought, neither of which I can devote much time to. The first is that we must be sure that this message from God doesn’t violate any aspect of Scripture that we know about. This view says that the canon (or divinely authored list of books in the Bible) is still open. This view says that we still get new revelation from God, and as long as the Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn something, it must be ok. The problem with that is that there are numerous verses in the Bible pointing to the fact that the canon is closed. The Lord has revealed to us everything we need for life and godliness. The second school of thought, which I find infinitely more reasonable, is that we ought to examine teachings and messages from God and see if they’re found in the Bible. If they’re not found in the Bible, then we reject them. This is what we are told to do in Scriptures. We are to test everything by Scripture. That doesn’t mean we see if it’s found in Scripture, and if not, we embrace it. Rather, the Lord has declared how He is to be worshiped, and if a method for that is not found in the Word of God, we reject it. The canon is closed, and there is no new revelation.
I’ll continue this either tonight or tomorrow. I want to explore what we do once we know what our epistemology is.

