Can We Be Certain of Absolute Truth?

Possibly the most basic principle in all of our thinking is the law of non-contradiction. It tells us that if certain ideas, statements, beliefs, etc. are true, then they cannot also be false at the same time. Logic teachers and professors put it this way: "A cannot also be non A." In other words, if Peyton Manning is the quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts, it cannot also be true that he is not the quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts.

This logical rule of non-contradiction is vital to countless ideas, processes, mathematical equations, scientific formulas, etc. Significantly, it allows us to understand the meaning of the words "either/or." In fact, because of its inherently basic nature to all thinking, it is not possible to think in a way that contradicts or skirts the law of non-contradiction. This would mean that the sentence which began this paragraph is incorrect. It should read: the logical rule of non-contradiction is vital to all ideas, processes, mathematical equations, scientific formulas, etc. Quite simply, if you try to think in a manner that violates the law of non-contradiction, you will still end up being bound by its rules.

Many Eastern philosophers have tried to think in a way that contradicts the validity of the law of non-contradiction. In fact, many intellectuals from the Eastern background today point out that there are two systems of logic: Eastern and Western. These people say that Eastern logic is a system of relative truth and each individual can conform it to his wishes. They also tell us that Western logic is the logic based off of non-contradiction and is too restricting.

Ironically, in trying to prove the Eastern system of logic, Eastern intellectuals apply the principle of non-contradiction by placing a dichotomy (or "divide") between Eastern and Western logic. In essence, when Eastern scholars try to defend their relativist system against the non-contradiction system, they say that one is true and the other false. Therefore, they apply the principle of non-contradiction even when they are trying to disprove it. There simply is no way to skirt the law of non-contradiction in any method of thinking whatsoever, which is quite an excellent proof for its validity.

At this point, some of you might be asking "Why are you talking about this? Of course, it's a given that the law of non-contradiction is so fundamental. The law of non-contradiction is no new discovery and people still use it in everything they do. What's your point?"

Quite honestly, that is my point.

Many people have either forgetten about it or ignored it. Why? Because it slices up the fuzzy warm feeling you get whenever you see a new Hallmark movie which tells someone to believe in themselves and find their own path. There's just something exciting, mysterious, and sometimes spiritual about that concept. It's easy to believe that as long as someone is a "good" and "sincere" person, that they will go to Heaven, have good karma, or meet a nice afterlife in the form that they desire. Yet, it is brutally false because it establishes the precedent that A can also be non A at the same time, and it is implied that there's no problem with that. In other words, what is right for you may not be right for me, or what is true for you may not be true for me.

This is completely absurd as it is impossible to accept two mutually incompatible concepts at the same time as true. If we could, we might as well accept the idea that water could be made up of any chemical buildup we wanted. Why restrict ourselves to only a chemical makeup of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen? Maybe E = Mc² works for you, but it definitely doesn't work for me. Why should the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter always equal pi? And what about gravity? Why should we be restricted to the earth's pull? Why should the earth be restricted to orbiting the sun?

We could go on and on, but the the point is obvious: if we can deny the law of non-contradiction in certain belief systems, then we must deny it in everything. As we already know, this is impossible. In light of this understanding, modern society's current fascination with equalizing incompatible belief systems at the same level of truth is flawed. There is gross inequality in truth value among atheism, agnosticism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Postmodernism, Taoism, etc. Instead of casually shuffling them all under the rug and saying "Hey, whatever floats your boat," we need to realize that such a mindset is lazy and unacceptable when placed before the law of non-contradiction.

Of course, when we decide to accept the law of non-contradiction (as reason dictates we must), it means that some people--no, many people--are probably wrong and misguided. For many of us that's tough to swallow, because it's easy to say "Hey, if it works for you, then that's great!" But usually when we have to say, "No, you're wrong," we usually prefer to keep silent and not cause any headaches.

For all of us, that mindset must change. There's a lot of people that don't understand what truth is or why it's so important to know it. Others don't even see how the concept of truth can even exist.

It's time to take that bull by the horns.

Supporting Links

Aristotle on Non-contradiction by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Responding to "You're just Using Western Logic" by Gary C. Burger

Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn by J.P. Moreland