Absolute Truth and the Lie of Postmodernism

At the dawn of a new year and, indeed, a new decade, it would seem that the concept and definition of ‘truth’ is one which continues to evade humanity and remain an unfathomable mystery. For all the advances of scientific thinking, technological innovation and philosophical discourse, mankind remains haunted by what it perceives to be a universal absence of ‘absolute truth'; a vacuous gulf that we yearn to fill with definitive purpose, with reason, with certainty and yet, for all our reasoning and searching; our experimenting and our deliberating; our rationalising and hypothesising, nothing; no practise, no theory, no invention, no experience, no relationship and no argument seems to satisfy. And yet still we yearn after it. After what, we seem not to know; but we yearn after it nonetheless. It is, perhaps, what makes us human: a desire for meaning, for purpose, even for significance in a world in which we have all found ourselves, without apparent explanation or, it would seem, mandate. This quest for truth; for reason and for purpose, that would appear so particular to the human race is, I believe, a healthy and a positive characteristic and one which we should not, in spite of all the heartache and headaches it may cause, deny ourselves. It should therefore be a matter of both considerable concern and justifiable indignation to us that a culture and a philosophy of postmodernism (or if you subscribe to the theory, post-post modernism) is rapidly diluting and sanitising this human right of passage, transforming it into little more than an academic exercise with little or no meaning and significance beyond oneself. Postmodernism would assert – and many of us are subscribing to it – that there is not and has never been any such thing as ‘absolute truth;’ that everything in this life is purely subjective, carrying no universal meaning or sense of purpose beyond that which individuals might subscribe to it; that truth itself is a personal notion and that all interpretations and perspectives are equally valid and equally ‘true’ for their occupier. This is a lie. Moreover, it is a lie which is robbing humanity of its right to search for and, hopefully, discover meaning. Not subjective meaning; not individualist, self centred meaning but universal, collective, certain and definitive meaning: absolute truth.
Postmodernist thinking has negated the possibility of ‘absolutes’ and it is this that I wish to challenge firstly. It seems to me, that if we are going to deny the existence of ‘absolutes’ then we must do so universally. That is to say, we cannot reject any idea of an absolute reality or meaning in one area and allow for it in another. If the world, and indeed the universe, is devoid of ultimate meaning, purpose and truth then this must necessarily pervade all aspects of life from the grand philosophical questions concerning the ‘human condition’ down to the minutia of everyday existence. Any subscription to such thinking forces one to the conclusion that nothing is certain, nothing is definitive and nothing is true. Something may well be ‘certain’ for you as an individual but as a universal principle there can be no absolutes. And I mean, no absolutes. It is important that we at once come to such a recognition and an understanding of precisely what postmodernist philosophy is teaching us in relation to ‘truth’ and that we take its fundamental principles to their logical conclusion and there judge it on its merits before we even contemplate buying into it. To fully accept the notion of a complete absence of absolutes is firstly to accept that the universe is entirely chaotic; that it is without order, logic and predictability. To say anything other is to argue for an overarching and external sense of ‘absoluteness’ in so far as it would be to accept that the universe is founded upon principles of certainty and an inherent sense of ‘normality.’ In other words, that the universe was purposefully created along a set of logical, quantifiable and consistent principles. At this juncture, the postmodernist thinkers rub their hands with glee and exclaim “Precisely!” They point to world in all its painful and confusing reality; they site natural disasters, human genocide, disparity of wealth distribution and carnivorous cruelty in the animal kingdom. They site instances where ‘good’ men have died prematurely whilst evil and abhorrent individuals have triumphed; infant mortality and debilitating physical conditions. “There” they cry “is a world of chaos and disorder, without values, principles or ‘rules.’ There is a world where everything is completely arbitrary; random, uncertain, unfair, illogical, unpredictable and contradictory!” Its a convincing argument. Unfortunately, for the Postmodernist, it is deeply flawed and nowhere more than in its failure to take into account the wider picture. Such an existentialist belief in the futility of life falls apart due to the disproportionate focus and significance it places on the dysfunctional tendencies of both humanity and the natural world. It defines the universe by its freak accidents, tragedies and systemic failures rather than by its fundamental mechanisms. Indeed, the very fact that we remain so appalled by suffering, injustice, violence and disaster would suggest an innate sense within our beings that something is not ‘right;’ something in the universe has, if you like, ‘malfunctioned.’ It is not that the world is acting according to its designed purpose – or that is it acting with a lack of designed purpose – but that it is acting contrary to its designed purpose. It is much like a computer with a virus. All computers are made to work in a certain way; to operate according to predefined and encoded principles. They are designed to be consistent, predictable and logical and, for the most part, they are. There are occasions, however, when a PC will, for whatever reason, act contrary to the manner it is designed to. To the laymen observer it will appear chaotic and dysfunctional and we would be rightly angered and frustrated by this. But no one in their right mind would suggest that such a technical malfunction was ‘normal.’ We don’t define computer systems by their failures but by their intended purpose; not by what they shouldn’t do but by what they should! It would seem logical therefore to take the same approach with the larger and more complex mechanism of the universe and, whilst our perspective is inevitably clouded by the very real and present manifestations of chaos and disorder around us, we must surely conclude that the universe itself is ordered and purposeful. The greatest error we make is to equate instances of disorder with absolute disorder. Put another way: we live in a highly ordered universe but one which isn’t operating at optimum capacity; it is, we might say, infected and thus it displays symptoms of chaos and disorder without itself being chaotic or disorderly. If such a position seems nonsensical, please bare with me whilst I corroborate this stance: Notwithstanding the many instances of disharmonious and irrational behaviour demonstrated by both humanity and the wider natural world there remains a definite pattern, a logic and an order to the workings of the universe. Day follows night, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, the seasons follow one after the other in the same order as they always have done and always will. Even this simple illustration of the passage of time would indicate that, at least our solar system, is governed by quite fixed and absolute rules and fundamental principles. The sun, for instance, does not sometimes set in the east; winter is not sometimes followed by summer and so on. The universe adheres to a quite strict and definite ‘code of conduct’ and it is a code which we can both identify, quantify and, therefore, to some extent, predict. If this were not the case then science and scientific research into the workings of the universe, would be utterly pointless and yield no meaningful results. If the universe were completely arbitrary and chaotic, it would be impossible to measure; impractical to quantify. Every experiment would produce wildly inconsistent results; the whole exercise would be a lottery. And yet this is not the case. Admittedly, there are occasions when nature will throw us a side ball and there will seem no rational or reasonable explanation but, for the most part, the natural world would appear to adhere to a set of rules and operate in a consistent and therefore quantifiable manner. The implication here therefore is that the universe is ordered. Far from being devoid of purpose and logic it is highly purposeful and profoundly logical. It is not arbitrary, nor is it accidental or anarchic and when it appears that way, it is simply an indication, as if we needed one, that our universe and our species has been corrupted; it has been damaged. Exactly why and how this damage has occurred is a subject for another essay, but for the purposes of this argument we must accept that the universe is ‘broken’ and prone to uncharacteristic behaviour that is contrary to its designed purpose. I say all this because I believe it is important to establish that the universe is founded upon a principle of absolutes. There remains a definite sense of ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ in the workings of nature and in the genetic make-up of humanity itself. For example, when a hole appeared in the Earth’s ozone layer due to excessive carbon emissions (predominantly on the part of the human race) the Earth did not contend with this state of affairs; it did not ‘accept’ this puncture in its defences as ‘ok’ or ‘normal’ but rather it fought against it and, sure enough, the hole is now greatly reduced in size. Similarly, if the human body contracts an infection or a breakage, its defence system immediately sets to work to combat it. The body does not ‘embrace’ a broken bone or an infection rather it increases its capacity and streamlines its resources into restoring the defect in question. The point I am so elaborately trying to make here is this: the universe, the natural world and even our physical bodies are governed by objective principles; by definitive absolutes; by an uncompromising sense of what is ‘normal’ and what is ‘abnormal;’ what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong;’ what is true and what is false and if this is the logic that governs the cosmos, then surely it must govern us also.
Postmodernist thinking has sought to, and largely succeeded in, muddying the waters and blurring the boundaries of ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ so that the two have become almost interchangeable. ‘Fact’ is fast becoming a taboo concept and wrongly, I believe, equated with narrow-mindedness and ignorance. Increasingly, those things which were once accepted as ‘absolutes’ are now up for debate and scrutiny. This is not, in itself, a negative thing; indeed we would do well as a species if we more frequently questioned and discussed such issues. It was once ‘accepted’ thinking that women were inferior to men, now we scoff at such a idea – and rightly so. But the point is this: postmodernist philosophy is not so concerned with ‘redefining’ something as it is with ‘un-defining’ it. Put another way, we are being encouraged, not to abandon our notions of reality but rather to accept that they are only our notions and not universal absolutes. At first glance this may seem perfectly reasonable – even sensible – but it is nothing of the sort; it is not only incredibly irrational but extremely dangerous and I will explain why this is the case shortly. Let us first take an apparently inane example of a table. Postmodernist thinking would dictate that the table, need not necessarily, be a table! If you or I believe it to be a table, then to us it is a table – that is ‘our truth.’ However, if a third person believes it to be a television then, to him, it is a television – that is ‘his truth.’ What has happened here is that the once clear dividing lines between ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ have given way to a murky and hazy state of uncertainty and subjectivity. That the table is a table can no longer be accepted as universal fact; now it is, at best, a ‘personal’ fact and, at worst, nothing more than an opinion. The problem with this theory, aside from it being unspeakably ludicrous, is that it defies all reason and logic which, as we’ve already discussed, consequentially means it is at odds with the universe itself! A table is a table. We might call it something else, we might even use it for something else, but its designed purpose is to be a table. If we call it a chair – even if we sit on it – it still remains a table. It is certainly not a television, as anyone who has attempted to tune one into Match of the Day will tell you! It seems evident to me therefore, that what is needed is a redefining of the boundaries between what is fact and what is opinion. A thing cannot be both fact and opinion any more than it can be both true and false. Either a thing is true, or it is false or it is an opinion.
Insisting that ‘opinions’ constitute a third and quite separate category is immensely important because, by their very nature, they can neither be true or false – they are unquantifiable. I am an ardent socialist and, as such, I believe passionately that front-line service (schools, hospitals, public transport and so on) are better off under state ownership. That is my opinion and it is one which I hold most dear. Given the opportunity I could, and would, argue the validity of this position with enormous conviction and, though I say so myself, I suspect, rather persuasively. However, many of my close friends are quite adamant that capitalist private enterprise is the superior option and that our public services would be better off under private ownership. I don’t doubt they would argue their case with equal force and be just as convincing. On both sides of the debate we could undertake case studies, collate data and theoretically scrutinize the finer points of each and yet, if we were both skilled enough, we could manipulate all of these things to substantiate our point of view. The argument would run on indefinitely and we would be forced to conclude that no consensus could ever be reached; there is simply no way to quantify or qualify the evidence from either side to make the matter conclusive. The issue is a purely subjective one. Our notions of what constitute a ‘successful’ public service are poles apart and yet, in their own way, equally valid. But this is not the same as the previous debacle concerning our definition of the table. Either this physical object is a table or it is not. It may well be other things besides a table. We may even choose to call it by a different name, but the ‘absolute truth’ is that it is a table!
If it appears that I have laboured this point somewhat, then I have done so intentionally, because if we cannot agree on something as trivial and seemingly insignificant as a table then we stand little hope against issues of greater importance and profundity. It is here that I would like to return to my assertion that the postmodernist negation of absolute truth and fact is dangerous. Let us move on to something altogether more sobering and significant: the Holocaust. There are those who would have us believe that the Nazis’ systematic annihilation of over six million Jews and countless other ‘undesirables’ is a fabricated myth; that it never happened; that it is not ‘true.’ Postmodernist philosophy holds this stance not only as valid, but as acceptable. More than that, those who propagate such a view are permitted to label their contorted version of events as ‘their truth’ with all the legitimacy and respect that this entitles them to. This is a chilling and repugnant thought and something which, I believe, we should vehemently oppose, but it is the horrifying and yet logical conclusion to a postmodernist approach to ‘truth.’ I cannot help but wonder, if this is the kind of world we wish to live in? Where nothing is certain; where morality itself is allowed to be fluid and subjective; where nothing is held in common and universally adhered to? Maintaining a sense of ‘absoluteness’ is, therefore, something I believe to be not only important but essential. We need ‘definites’; we need universal principles and we need an objective and external notion of truth. I say all this as a passionate liberal and one who despises our country’s prescriptive education system and the all- too- often pious narrow mindedness of religious institutions. What I am not advocating is a dictatorship or, for that matter, an end to necessary and much needed debate on the issue of truth. Quite the opposite, I am calling for more rigorous debate; deeper and more meaningful discussions of the kind that postmodernist philosophy has largely extinguished or sanitised. If there really is such a thing as ‘absolute truth’ then we cannot afford to continue permitting falsities or opinions to masquerade in its stead. This may appear like a recipe for a quiet life but, as we have seen, it is not only precariously risky but utterly illogical. Entertaining the belief that truth is a personal and subjective enterprise is also enormously condescending. It is tantamount to saying “You can believe that if you wish to, but please accept that its only true in your own head!” You can’t get much more patronising than that! However unpalatable we may deem it to be, the only rational and sensible conclusion we can reach is that there is an ‘absolute’ truth; one that transcends time, place, culture, politics, colour, nationality and all other imposing factors.
It is at this point that so many of us turn to philosophy or religion to provide these ‘definites’; this sense of absoluteness; of a predefined and prescriptive code of morality, purpose and destiny. We do so, I consider, to our detriment. This is perhaps a surprising statement coming from someone who would call himself a Christian and a life-long member of the Church, so allow me to explain myself. Whatever their motives and however noble their intentions, the fact remains that all philosophies and all religions are the creations of human-beings. True, they may be rooted in ‘divine revelation’ or even on scientific theory but nevertheless, the religion or the philosophy itself is the invention of man. It is a school of thought, or a code or practise, or an ideology or a set of ethics or doctrines formalised and propagated by men (or women). If the previous examples have highlighted one thing it is that if there really is an ‘absolute’ truth, human beings, on their own, are incapable of discovering it. To return to the analogy of the computer, it would be comparable to asking my laptop to define the purpose of its being – without any human input. Impossible! Much the same applies in the case of us humans and yet, we remain arrogant enough to believe that we can discover this ‘greater meaning’ in isolation! The more we search for meaning and purpose the more introverted and introspective we seem to become. It would appear than mankind has come to a preposterous and completely nonsensical conclusion that ‘the answer;’ that ‘the truth’ lies within. Considering the enormous amount of disparity and variety in human thinking and the wild contradictions that exists between all the world’s major philosophies and religions it would seem to me that within is the very last place we should be looking! Rather, if ‘absolute truth’ really does exist, it will be found without; apart from and quite distinct from ourselves.
So what is it? Well, to be more accurate: Who? I believe I have found it; or to be more precise Him. Jesus Christ made, what to me stands out as, a particularly bold assertion. He said “You will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free” (John 8:32). And when He said ‘Truth’ He was referring to Himself. His claim therefore, was to be Truth itself; the very incarnation; the embodiment of Truth.
Am I really being so bold then as to assert that all other so-called ‘truths;’ all other faiths and philosophies are wrong? Put simply: yes. This does not mean, that I don’t hold a great amount of respect for those of other differing faiths and even admiration for much of what they practise, which I believe is borne out of good intent. Nor does it mean that I am entirely closed minded or that I refuse to listen to conflicting arguments – quite the opposite. I have a profound respect for devout men and women of all faiths who make the choice to live out their convictions daily in a world which so often despises and mocks them. I think we all, of whatever faith or none, have much we can learn from those members of differing religious groups. Indeed humanity would be all the better if we each took the time to educate ourselves about the wide ranging beliefs and practises of those we live alongside. I also have a great fascination for philosophical thought and, unsurprisingly, I find myself allied with many great philosophers and deep thinkers in some of their musings on the complexities of the human condition. I find the philosophy of existentialism enormously interesting and am intrigued by the writings of dramatists and academics such as Samuel Beckett and Albert Camus. I would never be so arrogant as to presume we have nothing to learn from them or even that their assertions are not well thought through. But if Jesus Christ is the absolute Truth – and I believe that He is – then there simply cannot be other ‘absolute truths’ existing in parallel. Of course, other faiths or philosophies may elude to the Truth or even be based on aspects of the Truth, but they themselves are not the Truth.
“Ah” I hear you cry “but how can you be so sure?”

In fact, it is remarkably simple! Surprisingly, it has nothing to do with my ability to prove the existence of God. Any attempt to prove God’s existence is doomed to fail – not because there is insufficient evidence (in fact the opposite is true) but because the very idea is a complete paradox. If there really is a God who created all life forms, who laid in place and now governs the workings of the universe and who holds time itself in the palm of His hands, can we really suggest that his existence could be either proved or disproved by human reason; my manmade logic and argument? We have already seen just how fragile and whimsical human ‘logic’ is! There is no reason to suggest that for every apparently convincing and fool-proof argument invented for the existence of God an equal plausible counter argument could not be formed. God would never leave the validation of such an Absolute concept as Himself to the inadequate and erratic arguments of human beings! It is this last point that really brings all that has been discussed to a head. Absolute Truth does not require human substantiation. Absolute Truth is, by very definition ‘absolute’ and not in any need of external confirmation or justification. Absolute Truth is self evidential; is self referential. Absolute Truth simply Is.
So to return to the original question, I can be sure Jesus is the Truth because I know Jesus and therefore know Him to be True. That may sound like a self effacing argument but it is fact precisely because I cannot prove it. If I were able to prove it then inevitably someone else could just as easily disprove it. Rather I know it – or, to be more accurate, I know Him. I know The Truth and The Truth has indeed, as He asserted, set me free. How and to what effect Christ has ‘set me free’ I fear is the subject of another discussion, but, suffice to say, I do not make such a statement likely. Furthermore, if The Truth promised to ‘set you free’ then this promise, by the necessity of its speaker, must apply universally. The Truth does not set only certain people free some of the time, but rather The Truth sets free all those who know Him. It remains a source of considerable relief to me that ‘absolute truth’ is not a thing to be found in human argument, in reasoning or in our perverted notion of ‘logic.’ ‘Absolute truth’ is not a product of our subjective and therefore warped perspective of life and it is not dependent upon the whimsical and unpredictable state of our human psyche. Absolute Truth is not a philosophy or a science or even a religion. Absolute Truth is a person; a person we can know and who can know us. A person who can deliver us from the otherwise mindless and futile existence we are forced to accept. A person in whom we find meaning and purpose. Absolute Truth is Jesus Christ.