Truth and Logic in Modern Thinking

1.1 – What is universal truth?

                Universal truth is a statement of which can be proven without dispute or altercation.  The declaration that 2+2=4 becomes a universal truth once the terms are explained. In an exemplification in which one does not know math, once the person is taught the concepts of a system of terms designed in order to measure or aggregate a group of units, the declaration becomes universal truth. Rather, it is inevitably known once the terms are described. In logic, something becomes universally true or “valid” when a proposition is made that has no fallacies or contradictions. 
1.2 – Whether it matters that there is universal truth.

                Yes, the modern mind today tries to deny that there is universal truth, thus denying any type of moral truth, in order for them to set up the idea of Moral Relativism. If one can come to an argument on universal            truth and universal law, they can put an end to modern day arguments about morality.

 1.3 - Truth in modern day thinking

The modern mind cares little about what’s actually true. If one were to state that they had proof about something, of which disagreed with what one’s previous assumptions, the person would be very unlikely to actually listen. Contrary, if one had proof about something of which assent to their notions of truth, they are far more likely to pay attention. This is a major problem, for truth should not depend on personal beliefs whatsoever but rather on the universal truths, which are not proven by your personal desires, but rather by logic and philosophy. 

1.4 - Why should I believe in truth?

                If one does not yet agree that 2+2=4 there is no point in reading the rest of my explanations. Although I have not yet made the argument for universal law, nor moral truth, I think I have made it clear that there are some things that are inevitably known once the terms are defined. If one goes as far to say that “There is no truth” who is to say that the proclamation of “there is no truth” itself is true? One must therefore admit at some point that there is at least one truth, and that truth of which being “There is no truth” however, since those statements contradict each other, they are not free from logical fallacies. I thus see no objection to why one would not believe there is truth.

 Pertaining to Logic.

               

 2.1 - What is Logic?

Logic is the study of valid reasoning.

 2.2 - Logic to the Modern Mind.

Ultimately, logic is dead to the modern train of thought. Instead of believing what can be implicitly proven, the modern mind seems to only care about what best fits their personal interests. For example, if one, of who was a Protestant, was given significant evidence that God did not exist; the Protestant would most likely ignore any type of logical or philosophical reasoning for any number of apocryphal excuses. This would most likely be because:

                -Their family, friends, and acquaintances are all Protestant.

                -They like the morals that come acquainted with being their religion.

                -Faith is so habitual to them it is nearly impossible to break with logic and or reason.

This would also be true to that of an Atheist who was given evidence that a god-like being existed. Although many Atheists may claim they do not believe in God because of logical reasoning, it is possible that they could just be ignoring religion based on the same principles religious figures don’t believe in atheism

                -Their family, friends and acquaintances are all Atheists.

                -They do not like the idea of being acquainted with rules and morals.

                -They think that religion is stupid or inferior to modern thought.

One can therefore be religious or non-religious and still be bias of beliefs. In order to be un-biased to both religion and non-religion one must have an open mind and the ability to admit they are wrong. This is why, throughout my arguments, I will try my best to remain neutral between both the religious and the non-religious until such point in my argument that either can be universally proven without altercation. I will also attempt to eventually put an end to modern day issues by appliance of these universal truths. Because of modern day thought, most people are either religious or non-religious based upon the fact that they were taught that way from youth.

               

 2.3 – What becomes of issues that require logic?

                Because of the lack of logic and philosophy in modern day thoughts, one cannot get a clear interruption of what is right and wrong.  Let’s take something like abortion which is a major contention in modern day thought. Although I have not played out my arguments enough yet to the  point where I can make a un-biased decision on abortion. One can clearly see why such a matter would require logic. Nevertheless, I can still play out the situation of abortion in the mindset of the modern mind without using any type of logical truth. Without logic, this issue to the modern mind becomes a combination of influence, personal experience and emotion. From one side of the controversy, you have people with these experiences:

                Influence

                -Mother/Father/Parental figure teaches oneself from a youthful age that abortion is murder.

                -Media has drilled in the persons mind that abortion is murder.

                Personal Experience

                -One has a traumatic experience throughout their life in regards to abortion.

                -One has seen an abortion take place and was horrified/disgusted of the experience.

                Emotion

                -One had an ultra sound and was taken away by the human likeness of a fetus.

                -One couldn’t harm a fly, let alone a fetus with a beating heart.

                -One can’t stop but think of the possibilities of the baby as it gets older.

On the other side of the controversy you have people with the opposite influences personal experiences and emotions.

                Influence

                -Mother/Father/Parental figure teaches oneself from a youthful age that abortion is a part of life.

                -Media has drilled in the persons mind that abortion is a part of life.

                Personal Experience

                -One has had a traumatic experience throughout their life in regards to a rape.

                -One has seen first-hand what it is like to deal with a child in an unfortunate set of circumstances.

                Emotion

                -One does not want to take away sixteen year olds rights to give up a child she cannot take care of.

                -One does simply doesn’t care about an unborn fetus or what happens with its life.

Assuming that there is objective truth one of these choices has to be correct. However, arguing from this standpoint is an obvious deadlock. Someone might be right about the argument, however, their influence, personal experiences, and emotions (although may be correct) have no valid reason in proving without question whether abortion is right or wrong. While one may be able to persuade someone to their side of the contention, simply by their personal experiences or emotions, it will not lead to a universal truth. One must therefore let go of their personal opinions and find universal reasoning through natural law, despite the fact that one’s emotions might have been valid in the first place.                Regardless of all of this, if one finds through objective truth, that something is right/wrong they must change their opinions in order to universally correct. This means that although it might be hard to change their opinion from being pro-life, to being pro-choice (or vice versa), they must do so for the sake of undeniable truths. Thus, both logic and philosophy need to be addressed in modern thinking to resolve modern issues. 

Use of instruments in mass.

Throughout the early Church, the idea of instrumental music in mass was considered pagan-like. The early Church wanted the highest amount of respect they could have in presence of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Although the idea of a organ or a guitar in mass might not seem wrong to Christians now, this is because the Christians have been desensitized to the idea of music in mass over the last couple hundred years. Consequentially, the assertions of organs and guitars have accrualed into drums, trumpets, electric pianos, and even clapping throughout the mass. Below, are quotes that range from 139 A.D all the way up to around modern time. The earlier quotes see music within the mass as an evil meant for pagan worship, while later quotes just see them as inappropriate in the mass in front of the body, blood, soul and dignity of Jesus Christ.

Justin Martyr (139 A.D.), an early church Father
"The use of [instrumental] music was not received in the Christian churches, as it was among the Jews, in their infant state, but only the use of plain song.... Simply singing is not agreeable to children [the aforementioned Jews], but singing with lifeless instruments and with dancing and clapping is. On this account the use of this kind of instruments and of others agreeable to children is removed from the songs of the churches, and there is left remaining simply singing."

Tertullian (200 A.D.), an early church Father
"Musical concerts with viol and lute belong to Apollo, to the Muses, to Minerva and Mercury who invented them; ye who are Christians, hate and abhor these things whose very authors themselves must be the object of loathing and aversion."

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), one of the greatest Catholics
"Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize."

Adam Clarke (1760-1832),

"I am an old man, and I here declare that I never knew them to be productive of any good in the worship of God, and have reason to believe that they are productive of much evil. Music as a science I esteem and admire, but instrumental music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music, and I here register my protest against all such corruption of the worship of the author of Christianity. The late and venerable and most eminent divine, the Rev. John Wesley, who was a lover of music, and an elegant poet, when asked his opinion of instruments of music being introduced into the chapels of the Methodists, said in his terse and powerful manner, 'I have no objections to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen.' I say the same."

"But were it even evident, which it is not, either from this or any other place in the sacred writings, that instruments of music were prescribed by divine authority under the law, could this be adduced with any semblance of reason that they ought to be used in Christian worship? No; the whole spirit, soul, and genius of the Christian religion are against this; and those who know the Church of God best, and what constitutes its genuine spiritual state, know that these things have been introduced as a substitute for the life and power of religion; and that where they prevail most, there is least of the power of Christianity. Away with such portentous baubles from the worship of that infinite Spirit who requires His followers to worship Him in spirit and truth, for to no such worship are these instruments friendly."

Presbyterian Catechism of 1842
"Question 6. Is there any authority for instrumental music in the worship of God under the present dispensation? Answer. Not the least, only the singing of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs was appointed by the apostles; not a syllable is said in the New Testament in favor of instrumental music nor was it ever introduced into the Church until after the eighth century, after the Catholics had corrupted the simplicity of the gospel by their carnal inventions. It was not allowed in the Synagogues, the parish churches of the Jews, but was confined to the Temple service and was abolished with the rites of that dispensation."

Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is the belief that there is no universal justification for moral actions or objective truth. Furthermore, since there is no moral standard for actions, moral conduct becomes relative to the beholder of the action. This presents three main problems: first, by invalidating the sense of right and wrong, one becomes tolerant to thoughts and actions of others that may be coherently wrong; second, truth transforms from natural law to a delineated variation of one’s personal beliefs; and third, by disestablishing oneself from any sort of objective reasoning, any action or thought becomes justified. I will show these ideas through an assimilation of C.S. Lewis’view on Natural Law while both explaining and critiquing moral relativism itself. Relativism, today more than ever, plagues American culture because of degradation of morals by means of popular society and media; the divination of secular ideals and temporal power; and the dis-allowance of religion by the younger generation, all masked under tolerance and co-existence.
As I have already alluded to, moral relativism presents three main concerns. Although these concerns may start moderately, they gradually domino into precarious thoughts that are susceptible to individual desire, as well as threatening to modern day thought.

The first thing moral relativism implies is the tolerance of truth based upon beliefs from personal experiences. This leads to norm of statements such as: “Pro Choice, but personally opposed” in which one believes something to be wrong, but does not impose their beliefs upon someone who thinks differently. Although this does not fault the personally opposed pro choicest’s to the same degree as the abortionists doing the action, it still indirectly allows, what they believe to be murder, to be permitted. In addition to this, allowing something you believe is wrong seems like a ridiculous stance to take in the first place. This would be the equivalent of stating “Pro Child-Murder, but personally opposed.” Regardless of whether the personally opposed murder children or have abortions themselves, the indirect allowing of the action is still morally wrong. These stances, therefore, become a failed attempt at trying to appeal to both sides of a dissertation without actually taking a position.
Once one submits to the tolerance of others beliefs, the second domino will fall. The relativist will soon see that there is little alteration between oneself tolerating others, and others tolerating them. This is to say that as long as one shows beliefs that can be delineated by their personal feelings, those beliefs are personally justifiable. This idea is even more dangerous than the personally opposed pro choicest, for it allows abortionists themselves to exclaim in defense: “Abortion is right for me, if it is not right for you do not have one.” Using the same example from above, one can discern see why this statement would alarm someone who personally believed abortion was murder. “Murdering children is right for me, if you don’t like it, don’t murder children.”
Once one’s logic gets them thus far, it is not hard for them to disestablish themselves from reasoning all together. To the degree that if one wants to kill their two year old daughter, who are they to judge their decision. At this point, not only ideas that are contended topics become permissible, but rather, any action that can be explained through any form of reasoning. “I shot my wife because she didn’t make me dinner” Although this does not seem like a legitimate excuse to shoot ones wife, since it is the man’s personal belief ‘Who am I to judge.’ While ‘pro-choice but personally opposed’, might not believe these statements, they are indirectly accepting the premises and are prone to believing in the ideas themselves.
Once one agrees that disestablishing oneself from objective reasoning is wrong, they are left with natural law. Natural law is basically the belief that there is right and wrong, and the knowledge of right and wrong is naturally known through reason. Natural law is proven just by the fact that people believe that there is right and wrong. If one were to walk into a bank, and take his place in the front, of a relatively long line, people, who had been previously waiting, might state. “You can’t do that, it’s not fair.” This is to say, that there is a general presumption of truth in which people believe to be “fair.” Stemming from this standard of ‘fairness’ one is able to determine universal meanings for what is right and wrong, much like the laws and rules set forth by every society. Because there is free will and relativism, one has the option of disobeying these laws and doing what they believe to be right, however, their actions can be punished by the majority if they believe the action  to be wrong.