Truth or Dare

by Deana Chadwell1/19/19
More and more any foray into the news feels like a trip to Bedlam – rational thought is nowhere to be found; the inmates are screeching inanities, drooling at the mouth, and throwing excrement – both literally and figurative – at anyone who dares to speak truth – at anyone who even dares to say the word “truth.” It’s not fair, however, to point out your opponents’ faults without some back-up. So allow me—

Ravi Zacharias, world-famous Christian apologist and philosopher addresses the issue of truth by breaking it down into 3 requirements:

  • Logical consistency
  • Empirical adequacy
  • Experiential relevance

Those are a good place to start, but they need some elaboration.  So, what is logical consistency?  Loosely speaking, it means that the argument makes sense – like so many left-wing ideas don’t. Note the mess the rabid feminists are in having become bedfellows with the transgender crowd; now women have to compete with men pretending to be women. They have to compete in wrestling matches, soccer games, track meets. Women are not only being robbed of the chance to win, but are also likely to get hurt. But the feminazis are not walking away from their bad bargain, and so far they don’t seem to notice the even worse covenant they’ve made sidling up to Muslim activists, who will eventually see to it that as many American women as possible will be raped, mutilated, and beaten.

Is this logically consistent? No. Just recently Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made the remark that she’d rather be morally correct than factually correct. She fails to realize that being factually correct is part of being moral. To use loose, sloppy, or fictitious “facts” to support something you think is ethically awesome is to undercut your own argument. Truth evidently is not part of her moral zeitgeist.

You see, a lack of logical consistency leads to divorcement from reality, and that leads to insanity. So we should step aside from Zacharias’ list to look at the three age-old Laws of Logic:

  • The Law of Identity
  • The Law of the Excluded Middle
  • The Law of Non-contradiction

The Law of Identity merely means that a thing is what it is and it isn’t anything else.  In other words, it’s unethical and deceitful to pull a Newspeak definition shift on people. Our language is a contract that we have with others in our society and we mustn’t breach that contract. Remember back during the post 9/11 Iraq war when American soldiers were court martialed for making Muslim captors parade around nude with women’s panties on their heads? Remember that? It was a nasty, disrespectful, and un-American thing to do. But do you remember what the press called it? “Torture.”  That word has historically referred to the act of causing another person maximum pain either as punishment, or as inducement to spill secrets. Torture involved ripping out fingernails, pulling people apart on the rack, nailing them to crosses. Panty-hats don’t even come close.

The left has been majoring in language re-assignment for decades.  Their favorite is to label absolutely anything a lie. Oh horrors! Trump said Obama had a 10-foot wall around his house and it’s only 8 feet!. Perhaps he should have crept up to the Obama house at midnight, toting a steel tape, and gotten an accurate measurement. But a lie?

The next of the laws of logic we need to look at is the Law of the Excluded Middle. Both the left and the right have failed to adhere to this and are making less and less sense as the days go by.  The Law of the Excluded Middle merely points out that in most issues there is no neutral.  If you take 5-year-old children and you plug them into a public school system that never mentions God – not in discussions of origins in science class, not in historical analysis, not in psychology classes, not in ethics discussions – and you leave those kids there for 12-16 years, they have been taught, by default, but taught nevertheless, that God isn’t. He has been excised from their world. That is not neutral. If the only teachers a school employs are politically left of center, that’s not neutral. We fool ourselves if we think that news reporters and judges and pastors – or imams — are neutral. In fact, the clergy’s efforts to be neutral have sadly broken the church.

The last law is the Law of Non-contradiction. A statement cannot refute itself and be true, be logical.  The post-modern mantra, “There is no absolute truth!”   — usually said with great didactic gusto, is such a statement. “There is no absolute truth,” is an absolute statement and therefore argues against itself. How can one stay sane if one actually believes such tripe? One can’t. College professors love to play this dishonest shell game with their students. Slip ideas around fast enough, which is easy once ideas are distanced from their source, and you can convince anyone of anything. Do we wonder why our young people drink themselves through high school and college? Why the drug overdose problem is what it is? They are being driven to madness.

Let’s go back to Zacharias’ breakdown of truth. His second standard is empirical adequacy. You can’t find truth without facts. AOC doesn’t grasp that, but most of us do. From its inception the global warming farce was troubled by the lack of information. In order to know what the average temperature actually is we have to measure everywhere – tops of mountains, middle of oceans, the steppes of Russia, the jungles of the Amazon. The temps also should be at ground level, not up in the stratosphere. And we need data from all four seasons, night and day, rain or shine. We need to factor in cloud cover, etc. Since most sampling stations are located in heavily populated areas, that variation has to be factored in as well. And then we need similar data from hundreds of years ago. The best we could do was computer models and they haven’t proven reliable. We need empirical adequacy to know what is going on here and we don’t have it. But the left plows on anyway and since they deny the existence of truth, I guess that isn’t difficult.

And what about Zacharias’ third criteria – experiential relevance? What we actually observe in our own lives has to factor in to the concept of truth. I love the leftist canard that people are all basically good.  My experience has taught me that most people are capable of at least brief periods of being nice, but nice is a long way below good.  If we believe that all people are good, then we aren’t worried about MS13 gang members, ISIS warriors, or pedophiles snatching our kids, because they’re all just misunderstood and they just want a better life. The left assumes that all people think like they do, and live according to their standards. But the illegal crime stats tell a different story. So how do you process such data when you start with original goodness instead of original sin?

I want to close with a standard of my own. Truth must line up with the Word of God because truth is God; it is embodied in the persons of the Trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all incapable of the lie – in fact the head defecting angel, Lucifer (to whom Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is dedicated) is called “the Father of Lies.”  What God tells us about Himself, and therefore about truth, is the final arbiter, and right now I see a complete distancing of the Democrat party from anything even close to godliness. They booed Him three times at their last convention – and then believed they could win the election. They have walked away from absolute truth and therefore from sensible policy and therefore from sanity. Without truth they cannot prevail – I dare them to try.


Deana Chadwell blogs at ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking.
About Author Author Archive Email • (139 views)

Share
Deana Chadwell

About Deana Chadwell

I have spent my life teaching young people how to read and write and appreciate the wonder of words. I have worked with high school students and currently teach writing at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. I have spent more than forty years studying the Bible, theology, and apologetics and that finds its way into my writing whether I'm blogging about my experiences or my opinions. I have two and a half moldering novels, stacks of essays, hundreds of poems, some which have won state and national prizes. All that writing -- and more keeps popping up -- needs a home with a big plate glass window; it needs air; it needs a conversation. I am also an artist who works with cloth, yarn, beads, gourds, polymer clay, paint, and photography. And I make soap.
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Truth or Dare

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    The laws of logic date back to Aristotle, from whom Ayn Rand got them and used them as the section titles for Atlas Shrugged (in order, “Non-Contradiction”, “Either-Or”, and “A is A”). Each played a major role in its section. She included a discussion of absolutes, and their increasing absence from modern thinking.

    One aspect of several of these precepts involves the leftist tendency to treat their opinions as unchallengeable fact (and contrary opinions as lies), and contrary facts as mere opinions. This is especially popular among leftist “fact-checkers”.

    During the O. J. Simpson trial, Tammy Bruce was the head of the LA chapter of NOW and campaigned actively against Simpson being acquitted. She then found out that this was unacceptable to the femocrats in general. Leftist ideology trumped the interests of women, and blacks ranked above women in the identity politics hierarchy — so the left wanted him acquitted regardless of whether or not he was guilty. (J. Neil Schulman once wrote a book on the case that actually made a case for the real killer being someone else, who also was the one who framed Simpson.) So the leftist, and even femocratic, sacrifice of women to leftist ideology is nothing new.

    • David Ray says:

      Wasn’t Tammy kicked/pressured out of NOW? I’d heard that was the result after she endorsed Clinton’s impeachment.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        It may have been because of the Simpson matter. At any rate, she was too heterodox for them in the end.

        • David Ray says:

          You’re correct. Though outspoken against the Commander in Heat, she resigned in May of ’96 . . . long before Monica came to light.

  2. Rosalys says:

    “…it’s unethical and deceitful to pull a Newspeak definition shift on people.”
    The left destroys everything, even our very language.

    “They have walked away from absolute truth and … therefore from sanity.”
    Yup! The left is stark raving mad. You can’t reason with them, and you can’t understand them, because you can neither reason nor understand crazy.

    “I want to close with a standard of my own. Truth must line up with the Word of God because truth is God; it is embodied in the persons of the Trinity.”
    I have long been a fan of Mr. Zacharias, and I believe he would also agree with this statement.

    Increasingly, especially because I am not particularly articulate when speaking off the cuff, I don’t try to convert anyone. I try to see them for the poor, lost souls that they are and pray for them. I am often amazed (though I don’t know why I should be) to see that being still and knowing He is God moves mountains!

    Deanna, all of your articles are precise and well written, and I always very much look forward to the next one. Keep ’em coming!

  3. Steve Lancaster says:

    In years long past reporters came from the ranks of those who desired to be writers. H. L. Mencken comes to mind, also Hemingway, Faulkner, and Fitzgerald. The last three remaining in literature with adolescent flurries into the news business. To become a reporter, say 100 years ago, you started as a “cub” reporter and learned the trade from professionals in the business. Who, what, when, where were the standard, a why was only added in articles that were found on the editorial page.

    Now that is not to say that reporters and media did not express various opinions, but for the most part they were honest about it. Bias was expressed aggressively and readers knew where media was coming from. No one believed that William Randolph Hurst’s newspapers were the same as the NY Times, or the Wall Street Journal. The Daily Worker was unashamed in its support of the USSR. Media was neither fair, nor balanced but it was more honest about its place. Then the big change happened.

    News became an academic pursuit. Suddenly about 75 years ago schools of journalism appeared at universities. At first in the Ivy League and later Stanford, UCLA and U of Chicago. The pseudo-academic profession of journalist was created and the long road to Gomorrah is tread with increasing traffic.

    If you go to any journalism school anywhere in the country and ask the students why they are there. The answer will be repeated parrot-like, “I want to make a difference in the world”. The concept of reporting the truth, if mentioned at all, will be way down the list. So, today we have hundreds of political operatives pretending to be “hard-nosed” reporters claiming the heritage of Mencken, Edward R Morrow, even Walter Cronkite without the virtues earned by actually doing the work, but with academic credentials, and they are paid much better.

    • David Ray says:

      Nice observation. It reminds me when that pompous “journalism” instructor (Jensen from UT, I believe) took a group of students to protest at Crawford ranch.

      I’m sure it cemented their bias to a honed edge. (Unlike Leslie Stahl who had hers “surgically removed”.)

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    If you go to any journalism school anywhere in the country and ask the students why they are there. The answer will be repeated parrot-like, “I want to make a difference in the world”.

    One wonders why the important act of “informing the public” is not seen as “making a difference”?

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      The most insidious power the media has is the power to ignore. The academic instructors, I won’t say teachers, have a political agenda rooted in communist ideology, thus they only want you to know, what they want you to know. They consider the masses in flyover country to be, “bitter clingers to their religion and guns”, (thanks Zero) They consider you and I incapable of handling the truth.

      A change for the better on all sides, would be the admission of bias. The Times could, for example, change its masthead from, all the news fit to print; to “only news bashing Donald Trump is fit to print”. Or, the feds could insist on truth in labeling. I’m sure that would work just fine.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        My description of the New York Slimes‘s actual practice is “all the news that fits our agenda, even if we have to invent it.” I’ve noticed myself that the lies by omission are their worst, because so many people know enough to discount what they say. But if a tree falls in the forest and everyone refuses to report it, does it really happen?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *