Truth is relative

We all believe in many things - we as humans are the only creature on earth with a belief system, ranging from religion to philosophy. I don't place science as a belief system simply because it does not assume something unless it can be proven though some atheist like to twist this most basic tenet to suit their anti-God beliefs (the irony). Atheism is simply the belief that there is no god(s) - it absolutely does not translate to science.

Anyway, we are told, taught, informed of many things throughout our lives. Our first most important influences are the family, followed by our friends (and their friends), then school teachers, onwards to other people throughout our lives.

There things that happens to be true because they are - if you have one apple and you took one away, that leaves no apple. It's a fact. The Earth revolves around a sun in approximately 365 days. Gravity make things fall downwards.

Natural Law of the Universe - it's just the truth.

Then comes things that we perceive as true, most of the time, because it normally is - if one eats, it's because he's hungry. Most of the time, if not always, it's true. If the sky is filled with dark clouds, it most probably means it would rain some time soon, if not later. A man will die if he gets shot in the head but we have stories of people defying that inevitability.

Rule of the Thumb - things that follow a pattern that are not necessarily correct but most of time, are.

And my favourite and pretty much everybody's too, things that we think is true but is inconclusive because there is no way of knowing unless one is there when it happened. Truth pieced together from evidence that could have many different intepretations depending on what one's background, bias, prejudice, knowledge, upbringing etc.

It is this third category of 'truth' that we debate voraciously about, sing songs to, go to war over or starve to death to defend - things that cannot be proven to be truth but taken as truth because one believes in it.

From a scientific angle, it's utterly illogical. Why would one abandon the concept of 'survival of the fittest' to help the weak and needy? If someone is dead, it's because they died, end of story.

If anything, the above pretty much sums up life for humanity - the journey to discover the meaning of life itself. When life no longer have any meaning, people die. Reason becomes nothing, so existence becomes irrelevant.

Why are we here? No one can seriously answer beyond how it happened. We turn to the teachings of prophets, wise men and even lunatics to establish the reason to why one exists - even in this we differ in intepretation to the point where there is no one version that is better than the other.

It never ceases to amuse me whenever I hear anybody who using the 'authority of God' to justify their actions, regardless of whether I share the same faith as that person or not.

This position of mine has its roots in the problem of a person's ability to tell relative truths. For instance, if a person is on trial to answer to the charges of having committed a crime, his answers will depend on what he believe is true - if he lied, he's going to hell (in some cases he's probably already halfway there due to the crime itself); maybe he thinks the court or authorities have no jurisdiction over him because God 'mandates' him to or even because he was taking justice into his own hands.

So many combination of variables shaped by so many different kinds of environmental influnences - if we were all born the same, brought up the same then we can follow one clear and simple rule then things would be many, many times easier.

However, the fact is, truth is subjective.

I simply do not believe in 'God said so'. To be honest, if God were that easy to dissect and completely described in just the Torah, New Testament and the Koran, then we're overestimating our abilities to the point of being utterly arrogant - the direct opposite of what these holy scriptures are teaching us.

Millons, if not billions, of people lived through the ages at different eras in relative to these holy texts and it is absolutely impossible for every single one of them to have learned the same thing and arrived at the same conclusion. I need only find one proof of this and the argument is made baseless.

If you were born into a Jewish family, you are more likely than not be brought up a Jew, believe in the Torah and proclaim it to be the absolute truth. What if he were born Hindu or Muslim? Would that mean the truth from the Torah is now false? Says who? And how do you prove that? 'Because God said so' is a lousy, if not ridiculous response. 'Because the holy texts said God said so'. Ok, so who wrote the books? '... it is inspired truth'. By? 'By God'. Says who? 'The holy texts'. And who transcribed them? 'People inspired by God'. Ah, so how did we know God inspired them? 'Because God said so, in the book'.

Ok.

I am in no way saying that the teachings in the holy books are false - rather I am questioning that the holy books are the only truth there is about the Universe, more so about God. When one fervently puts his own beliefs above others as the only truth, that is when I stop listening.

If anything I'm more spiritual than I am religious. Whilst being brought a Catholic, I am actually closer to that of a non-denominational now than I was in the past after being exposed to different type of cultures and people from different backgrounds. I still believe that abortion is wrong though and that the salvation of the human soul is not by faith alone, but I don't think that's the whole picture. I'm willing to bet that not a single one even the most fervent Catholics would be guaranteed a place in Heaven for following the New Testament to the letter. If there's a 'heaven' that is. If that is what 'heaven' actually is supposed to mean.

I don't argue there is no God though - I would argue that an omnipotent Creator exists because it is necessary. I could even argue this point using scientific methods but would ultimately be futile - the argument, not the idea that God exists - simply because there is no way to prove it. It's technically not possible because no one can quantify God like we can Creation, so there is no scope to measure God to. We can only do so through evidence of his existence in Creation. I am of the belief that this is true because I think it is true based on what I believe - via evidence - that God exists and is necessary for existence.

Politics is one other topic apart from belief system that fall into this category. Growing up during the Cold War would probably have some believing in the American propaganda of democracy crucifying communism as evil. Those who don't bother to actually learn about what communism stands would view the Soviet Union as a bunch of godless people who are waging war against the world to subdue humanity in a hegemony.

I'm not defending communism by the way. I certainly don't agree with the 'opiate for the masses' idea but there are times I do think that it applies perfectly to groups who believe that they were carrying out atrocities against their neighbours in the name of God.

"What good is democracy to an empty stomach?", a statesman once quoted. "War is not about who is right, but who is left", a play of words that signify that winning a war doesn't justify the victor's position. "History is written by the victors", is another oft-quoted line. "A government is ruled by those who are present", meaning that the composition of the authorities make up the government.

Churchill once commented that all forms of governance are crap, with democracy being the least lousiest of them all. Whilst it opens up the nation's administration to the representative - the people - it also allows some of the undesirable elements to take root; extremism, bigotry, intolerance. Not a single government in the world is immune to this. Even in dictatorships you have people below him or her whom would be more than happy to take over when the opportunity arises, be it in a legal or non-legal manner.

And politics being what it is - the art of public relationships and persuasion - can never be ascertained as absolutely true unless one is directly involved in it. One's bias will immediately push him or her towards one end of the spectrum with little room in the middle for compromise - that party is either the best there is or absolutely untrustworthy. Being the game played with the people's mind and hearts, rumours are without doubt one of the main medium of dissemination of truth, half-truths and outright lies - depending on how good the person who are responsible for this dissemination of information, one might not be able to tell the difference, so they rely on their prejudice and and set minds to do so, inevitably if not accidentally, bringing about the wrong conclusion in relative to the actual truth.

I have always loved to quote the following to illustrate the reason not to take everything you read, see or hear at face value:

If a lie is repeated enough, it will become true.
If a story is repeated enough, it might eventually end up different in the end.

So personally, I have been picking splinters off my backside from sitting on the fence and adopting a pretty useful method in dealing with things like these - I'll believe it when I see it.

So the next time somebody shrugs quietly in dismissing what is an opinion in contrary to their own beliefs, be it physically or meta-physically, think again. While it's not wrong to stand at the position of disagreement, it is wrong to consider oneself non-disagreeable.

Especially when you can't prove it.