Cody Wood September 14, 2011 PHIL-104 Bo Sutherland Truth and Arrogance When fighting an argument, we must first

decide whether or not the premises that are given are indeed true statements. Immediately following this first step, we must then verify that the conclusion follows logically behind the given premises. In the case of this post-modernistic argument, saying that, "Truth is relative to ones culture and upbringing. It is arrogant to believe that you have THE Truth," both statements can be broken down logically and found to be fallacious. But first, a brief introduction to the core beliefs behind this post-modernistic doctrine. Post-modernism is a philosophy in which there is absolutely no absolute truth. Followers of this belief may sometimes claim, "What may be true for you, is not true for me," or something of the like. They simply eliminate absolute truth and make everything relative to an individual's beliefs and desires. The dangers of such belief can quickly be seen as a difficult problem for Christians (testthespirit.com.) Since the core truth behind post-modernism begins with the rejection of absolute truth, and everything becomes a matter of opinion, or via one's cultural upbringing let's say. Then it becomes impossible to make meaningful distinctions between interpretations since there is no standard that can be used. Now that there is no absolute truth and there is no way to discern between different beliefs, it follows naturally that every belief must be given equal amount of credence and validity. Once these ideas are combined into an argument, they collectively decide that God's word has no real authoritative standing over mankind and absolutely no ability to show itself as true against the many other doctrines of our time (testthespirit.com.)

Again, the first premise states, "Truth is relative to one's culture and upbringing." The post-modernist claims that truth is whatever culture defines it to be; everything is simply just made up and can be redefined through time as there is a cultural necessity for the change to occur. For arguments sake, let's say that there is a culture in which it is a truth for them that it was required by law to murder your parents when they reached the age of fifty. Their reasoning behind such a truth is that we will have a more comfortable experience in the afterlife if we pass away while still maintaining capable bodies. If the post-modernist were to reject this absurd notion, they would be turning against their own doctrine. In order for someone to maintain structural coherency while defending postmodernism in their argument, they would have to say that, "Yes, murdering your parents when they reach the age of fifty is justifiable and okay, in that specific culture of course." But what if President Obama were to say the very same thing, and try to get it passed into the constitution? Would a post-modernist still say, "Yes, that's okay?" That truth is true for him, and pretend it is true for the majority of the voters as well, a post-modernist has no foundation in which to say, "No, that is wrong," seeing as how the absolute truth of "murder is wrong," is simply only a cultural truth brought about from necessity to survive, and that it really holds no validity as a truth statement. Another prime example of how silly the notion that all truth is relative truly is, comes from one of the more intellectually grand philosophers of our time, Bo Sutherland, "In theory, the post-modernist must believe that it really is true for the Christian that God exists, and also that it really is true for the atheist that God does not exist. It is almost like he is saying that one can walk from the atheist student union to the Christian fraternity, and in that short time, God has magically came

into existence because you have crossed into a community that believes Him into existence." The Post-modernist is saying that truth does not come from a relation to reality, but rather, it is an attribute who's origin is the person at hand (Sutherland.) Christians believe that truth is discovered, discerned or revealed, rather than created by humans. We are not the source of truth, God is, just as Jesus said in John 14:6, "I am the truth," or in John 17:17, "...Thy word is truth." Truth is not a matter of attitude or preference, and when closely examined, the foundations and philosophies of post-modernism quickly crumble and reveal Christianity's to be much more compelling as well as plausible (testthespirit.com.) Isn't it arrogant to insist that you have THE truth and that your religion is right? Attacking this premise begins with the definition of arrogance. The charge of arrogance is only applicable when one displays an unearned sense of superiority over someone else, due to the truths they have come to learn. Let's say that one answers this question with, "No, I don't think it is." Would a post-modernist have any right, while staying true to their own beliefs, to say that they are wrong (Shenvi?) Imagine that you were about to eat a snickers and the moment before it entered your mouth, it was knocked out of your hand by your friend. Your friend claims that he knew it was a poisonous snickers. His action would indeed be very rude and maybe even arrogant to an extent, unless of course, the candy was actually indeed poisoned. Even if you felt that your friend did not have sufficient reasoning to say that it would harm you, if the snickers had really been poisoned, you would be extremely grateful to the friend for saving your life. It follows that if indeed there was poison in it, then the friend must have also had sufficient justification for his actions. Thus, the point of this farfetched analogy, if Christianity is true, which of course a post-

modernist has no right to refute, seeing as how, "truth is relative," then, it can clearly not be called arrogant to actually claim it as the truth (Shenvi.) Since Christians have good reason to believe Christianity is true, the it would follow logically that non-Christian religions are indeed false. The post-modernist throwing out words such as arrogance, and narrow minded, has himself made a commitment to the road of neutrality. This path of staying neutral on every subject can be nothing else other than narrow minded, since it is at least possible for one of the many worldviews to be correct opposed to the others. It's funny though, when a Christian thinks they are right, they are arrogant. However, when anybody else thinks they themselves are the correct party, they are, just right. Thus, simply claiming to know the truth about something does not make one arrogant (Dulle.) To conclude things, Christians claim to be universally true in what it says regarding many large philosophical ideas. In Acts 17:30, Paul states, "Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent." This is not a, "this is true for me but not necessarily true for everyone else," statement, but rather a universal command from God to everyone. Any post-modernist whom says this is a false reality, once again is committing an error against his own doctrine, that says, "every belief must be given equal amount of credence." In the same way that it is not arrogant for a math teacher to insist that "2+2=4," it is not arrogant for the Christian to stand against post-modernist thinking and insist that Christianity is true and anything opposed to it is false.

Works Cited Dulle, Jason. "Aren't Christians Arrogant?" onenesspentecostal.com n.p. September 11, 2011. <http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/ArrogantChristians.htm> Shenvi, Neil. "Apologetics." shenvi.org March 1, 2009. September 11, 2011. <http://www.shenvi.org/Notes/Apologetics/Week3.htm> Sutherland, Bo. "Lecture 2: Challenges to Education, Part 1, Postmodernism." monomaniacy.blogspot.com June 14, 2010. September 11, 2011. <http://monomaniacy.blogspot.com/2010/06/lecture-series-lecture-2-challenges-to.html> "What are the dangers of postmodernism?" testthespirit.com n.p. September 11, 2011 <http://testthespirit.com/dangers_postmodernism.html>