So, we have defined truth and determined it does exist, which is the objective of this interrogation. We have been looking at some denials or objections, and so far, they have not held up. We are not through yet, because there are still some denials coming.
More Denials (Objections)
- You should doubt everything.
- Our response: Should I doubt that?
- You should not judge.[1]
- Our response: Is that not a judgement?
- If this one is confusing, consider that the person stating this is judging the information you are conveying, and may feel judged so they are in turn judging you for this. This is also often misused by Christians, but we will save that sub-claim for a future spin off interrogation.
- Our response: Is that not a judgement?
- That may have been true once, or for another cultural group, but is no longer valid now.
- Our response: Is that statement true now, or how long will it be true?
- If we interrogate this claim one needs to use the technique of gaining more information. We use probing questions such as, “What do you mean it was once true? At least we know this person is ascribing to some form of truth, but we may ask, “What do you mean by true?” Why is it no longer valid? Help me understand.
- When we interview or interrogate, we also seek to gain information and to understand. Part of this process involves hypothesizing about and determining the motive. This claim is often hiding the motive of an underlying agenda that a person is hoping to justify or build a case for. If I can legitimize a position, belief, or behaviour and make a positive case for it then it may cease to be wrong. If we think back to how we defined truth, we are talking about claims of facts that correspond to reality. If I tell you I typed this on an old fashioned manual typewriter you would probably seriously doubt the claim because it does not match the reality of how this information is being delivered. And when we speak of truth, we are referring to those objective truths that are true for all people, at all times, in the same sense, and the same way. To use a bold example, at no time was or is child torture for fun ever right for any people. I think most can agree to that and those who do not—well that is another conversation. Again, with some work, we can see what is wrong with this claim and some strategies for dealing with it.
- Our response: Is that statement true now, or how long will it be true?
A final point, notice that the denial of truth contradicts itself as well. The person denying the truth must, in fact, recognize that there is truth in order to deny it. As the Road Runner would say, “Meep, meep!” Or translated, “You are in violation of the law of non-contradiction!” This leads to both the question of knowing the truth and the answer. The truth is self-evident and suffused in our day to day lives. Think about someone telling you not to drink from a particular bottle because there is poison in it. Do you gulp it down letting out a big, “Ahhhh!?” Or do you instead grab a glass and take some water from the sink to quench your thirst. This simple example demonstrates that you can know truth and understand it.
Over the last three blogs, we have established that truth exists, dealt with some objections, and established that we know and can identify truth. Next blog we will hear from Laurie about playing hide and seek.
[1] Geisler and Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Kindle.