Examining Whether "Absolute Truth" is a Reality

Is it possible to be certain about anything? Can we truly know for sure, without a doubt, anything at all? These kinds of questions have puzzled even the greatest thinkers for as long as the human race has existed. What is real? Is it what we can taste, see, smell? I would argue that there is an absolute truth, but perhaps not one we will ever find by the scientific method.

Post modernism for Beginners, by Jim Powell, is a epistemological survey and introduction to the idea of Post Modernism and what it entails: the quest for knowledge, the perpetual uncertainty, and the impact on science and theology that can result from Postmodernist thought.

We really begin to dig into the subject, however, with Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. His argument boils down to the idea that there is no ultimate truth, and he pretty much stays with a relativist point of view for the entirety of his long and not-so-easy to read work. The main issue I would take with Rorty, of course, is that if there is not ultimate truth, how can we say that and know it to be ultimately true? The logic just doesn't add up in my mind. Rorty could say that logic is just a human creation, that it doesn't really exist and holds no meaning as far as truth is concerned, but it seems like he attempts from a fairly logical point of view. This weakens his argument, in my opinion. Rorty states that "edifying philosophy... can only be reactive...it falls into to self deception" (p. 378). He goes on to argue that this isn't a reason for abandoning philosophic discussion. Apparently, the philosophic way to describing our perceived reality still has some value, since it may work for some people.

It seems to me that no matter what Rorty argues, he has firm belief in the improvement of the quality of life for human beings, and that pain and suffering is generally a bad thing, etc. One way I would respond to his arguments is that a general belief that all truth is relative not only makes humans uncomfortable, but in some cases even decreases their quality of life. Does this mean that Rorty's no-truth theory is fundamentally detrimental to the human race? If so, would that how does that affect it's worth and it's acceptance as a valid theory? The paradoxical nature of his arguments just don't hold water in my mind.

Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, by Edward O. Wilson, takes a different approach. He proposes that there is a coherence to the universe, encompassing philosophy, science, and art. He takes a completely biological explanation for everything, saying, "The true evolutionary epic, retold as poetry, is as intrinsically ennobling as any religious epic. Material reality discovered by science already possess more content and grandeur than all religious cosmologies combined." He argues from a primarily evolutionary standpoint. I find his way of thinking much more convincing than Rorty, however as person of faith I cannot completely accept his explanation for the need for something greater that seems so apparent in all cultures.

This is how I resolve the issues brought up by the aforementioned authors: All of this works, up to a point, but then the evidence seems to falter. All of this requires an element of faith. Some would argue that some theories require more faith than others, but that is also a subjective judgment. I use a combination of logical thought process and subjective experience to come to the conclusion that there is ultimate truth. Like everything else offered in the world, it is without a foolproof, scientific system to prove its worth, so this discussion cannot be 100% objective and logical. I make the most logical, best decision I can. Then when it comes down to it, I have to make a judgment call, and I choose to believe in truth.