Truth defined HERE! When you try to define the most basic things of life, it requires understanding of the definition of some of the words used in the original definition – such as, the word “facts” defined HERE!

People have said, “My mind’s made up; don’t confuse me with the facts!” Other people have said such things as; “Trust the science!”. Science means knowledge, and through multiple experiences and investigations, “knowledge” can expand and therefore what was once considered “settled” becomes “unsettled”. In the case of science that’s likely, in this technologically advanced age, a daily event.

Science cannot be legislated – it is immaterial, although very real at the same time. What’s in the brain cannot be held in the hand, and yet it is held by the person who has it. Knowledge can be shared, and utilized. It can be held in the drive of a computer, and therefore in a clever and not entirely literal way, it can be held in one’s hand.

Assembling that knowledge in various creative applications becomes even more personalized, although AI has demonstrated a very limited form of creativity. Whatever creativity AI exhibits, will always be rooted in the creativity of the mind that programmed the software of the AI. So, originality is exclusive to the individual.

Let’s go with established science (truth) for a moment. Water is wet! This applies to water whether it is a solid, liquid or gas – the only three forms in which it comes. For someone to argue against this would be to distrust the science to say the least. Science, by itself, is empirical. That is to say that it can be demonstrated on a repeatable basis.

But, not all science is so cut and dry, pardon the expression. Now, if we add to the word science the prefix “con”, we end up with the word conscience which literally means “with knowledge”. The word conscience also is a human attribute which is immaterial. Now something that is immaterial cannot be formally and absolutely demonstrated to exist. You cannot hold a conscience in your hand or put it in a box. There are many other “immaterial” attributes such as love, joy, patience, kindness to name a few, which are immaterial, and yet they are undeniable in their existence.

So, what is truth? Firstly, it is either material, or immaterial. When it comes to “material” truths, there is somewhere between a very narrow, and no, window with which to find argument. Immaterial truth, such as honesty verses dishonesty, has much more latitude. It opens the door to subjective interpretation, and is often used to dismiss the possibility of objective interpretation. Next, it is self existent meaning that it exists apart from anyone’s feelings or opinions. As one saying goes, truth is truth even if everyone’s lying! This view would tie truth to an objective interpretation, but not necessarily would all agree.

The battle (debate) between objective and subjective has gone on for ever! This writer was married once to a person who said something that made no sense to this writer. The question was posed by this writer; “Why do you say that?” The response was incomprehensible – “because that’s the way I feel!” This writer said; “That’s not how I feel, so how do we reconcile our differences?”

This brings us back to truth. Are we talking about your truth verses my truth, or is there such a thing as absolute, unequivocal, without a doubt, no possible argument truth? Well, we know water is wet, and that won’t get much argument. On the other hand, some people believe certain things are wrong, and certain things are right, and there should be no argument about it! What we’re talking about here is the immaterial aspects to the idea of right and wrong.

Let’s take for an example the Libertarian Party’s philosophy that in politics, one should not do anything to harm another person. That all sounds well and good, and indeed, with a few absurd exceptions, Republicans, Democrats, and probably even Communists and socialists would agree with that premise. The difficulty arises when you define your terms.

For example, what is “harm“? As you can see the definition is rather limited and very non-specific. This writer will try to elaborate in order to set out some guidelines for how not to “harm” another person. I might add in the book of Romans, St. Paul says “love does no harm“. We are told to love our neighbor as ourselves. That’s two indications of not to do harm.

Now, what is harm? From the above comment, it should be clear that harm would, at the very least, be something you would not want to have to experience yourself! If I don’t want to suffer pain from a beating, then I would do well to not beat anyone. That’s sort of obvious, but there are other less obvious examples.

Let’s say that I don’t want to have my money taken from me by force i.e. robbery, fraud or thievery. I would consider that harm to me. Yet, how often do we vote for someone who promises to take our money by force to use on something we don’t want it used on i.e abortion or religion? Yes I have no problem with the idea of government. And as such, I have no problem with having a force that protects me from harm i.e. police and military which would protect me from robbers, burglars, thugs, muggers, rapists, arsonists, drunk drivers, con artists, foreign invaders, and so on. Likely nobody would reject protection from these listed pursuits.

As an aside, it’s interesting that former U.S. President Thomas Jefferson once said; “If men were angels, there’d be no need for government.” Obviously, men are not angels, and therefore, we need government. That is certainly buttressed by the book of Romans Chapter 13 as well as many other points in the Bible and throughout secular world history.

But, what happens when bad men/women get their clutches on the reins of power in government? Is it possible that they might do some harm? The question answers itself. In fact, the chances of someone getting into government who is “NOT” bad, is somewhere between none and “0”.

For that reason, we need protection. How shall that protection manifest itself? If all we have are subjective laws, then injustice and harm will not only result, but they will prevail! What we need are “objective” laws. That is to say, we need laws that do not show favor for one person or group over another person or group. We need not only laws that apply to all equally, but we need laws that transcend man’s nature toward corruption. We need laws that are fixed in time immemorial. We need laws that do not change, because they recognize man’s temptations, and limitations when regards his professed perfection.

The United States Constitution was an attempt at that, but it fell short because human nature is such that it will act to subvert and circumvent those laws. The laws of the Bible have suffered the same kinds of assaults. The difference is twofold. One, the laws of the Bible were given by GOD and have been around for millennia. Two, the laws of the Bible are objective and show no favor toward any man, group of men, or entity.

So what we have is an important truth which is that man is not to be trusted. Trust is immaterial, but it is very important. Without trust, marriages don’t survive, businesses don’t survive, governments don’t survive, economies don’t survive, organizations and institutions don’t survive. Without trust, nothing survives, and everything becomes chaos.

Therefore, we can say that there is no truth without trust. Now, we know man is not to be trusted, so who is to be trusted? The answer should be obvious. GOD is to be trusted, and His word as He handed it down through the inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT to mankind is to be the vehicle for trust and understanding. Jesus Christ said; “I am the TRUTH, the way and the life, and no man comes to me except the Father draws him.” Jesus Christ is the truth, and without Him, we have only injustice and chaos.

Pensiamento Peligroso