Quote of the Day, February 20, 2014: “Truth is truth. There is no truth for you and truth for me. You may have beliefs. I may have opinions. But both of those are designed to reflect reality, so when they don’t (which is often), then that’s called being wrong…which is ok, but it’s not the same as true.”

Now this type of assertion is most commonly found coming from some sort of religious entity or a politically conservative one, however usually because of their religious ties, and it is used as a weapon in the argument against the acceptance of multiculturalism in the sense that multiple religious viewpoints are accepted within one society. While I do assert Christianity to be true, I am not coming from a particularly religious angle when I say this, and that is because I believe that any particular religious affiliation is secondary when it comes to the logic necessary to assert that there is in fact a universal truth and that truth in its denotative form does not exist in a particular personal or customisable manner. one of the great follies, hypocrisies, and plan out fooleries of our modern society is the temptation to accept the notion that there may in fact be a truth for me and a truth for you, both of which can be differentiated from each other. To use that phrasing there is in fact a truth for me, and a truth for you, but only in the sense that both you and I have a relationship to the world around us and must come to terms with the same truth as we go through life.

The idea that there is not truth in a denotative sense, but only perspective is fundamentally incorrect, not only from a Christian or any other religious viewpoint, but also from any type of agnostic atheistic, or for that matter, anyone whose thinking has any semblance of logic at all. The reason the line of thinking that there is only perspective is a temptation is because from a human standpoint there is only perspective. Humanity has 5 senses naturally, and has developed even a few more with which it can discern and extract observations about the world. These observations can only be made from a particular vantage point in space and history and particularly from the locality of our own minds. But the idea that we because we can only view the world from particular vantage points and therefore the world only exists encapsulated within those vantage points is not only arrogantly human-centered, but its hubris goes beyond naiveté to sheer foolery. They are mixing up an individuals inability to se and discern universal truth with the idea that perhaps universal truth does not exist. This is like a person who is color-blind stating that true or more vibrant colors do not exist simply because they as an individual cannot see them. It is not their truth that sees different colors than others who are not color-blind but in fact their handicap that keeps them from seeing the whole truth that is there because of their unique perspective. And therefore perspective as a word is in a way, synonymous with the idea of a handicap because it means that our ability to observe the world around us has been narrowed down by our particular locality and experiences, keeping us from seeing the whole of what is truly there.

Therefore anyone person or any society for that matter is far better off claiming that one cannot ever know truth because it exists independently of our perspectives than claiming that there are multiple truths depended on an individuals perspective.

In honesty, the only way an individual or society that has locality can ever hope to obtain any type of universal truth is for it to be revealed to them by a source that is not limited by perspective. This is why the idea of truth is so important to religious peoples and why frankly religious peoples are the only ones with the intellectual right to claim any type of universal truth at all. Simply because by being religious peoples in the first place, they claim to have tires to a god or creator that is not limited by perspective neither in space nor in time. And while religious peoples may annoy us with their quibbling about their different interpretations of what truth has been revealed to them, they are the only ones that can even enter the ring of debate in the first place. The rest must bow out at the get go if they want to maintain any type of intellectual integrity.