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.