Absolute Truth?

 

In my humble opinion, everything can be viewed from more than one point of view. In one discussion with a loved one of mine, I like saying, "it depends bla bla bla."

 

He: "are you sure there is no truth in whatsoever?"

 

I: "in my humble opinion, there is no absolute truth in religion."

 

He: "how about in other than religion?"

 

I: "such as?"

 

He: "what do you think about 'killing'?"

 

When hearing that word, I automatically remembered one case called "honor killing"; one case that left me in horror. More than 20 years ago, I talked about this with someone living in the US, online, the first time I knew there was such a horrible disgrace. He condemned this for sure. This kinda 'killing' absolutely can be viewed from minimally two sides: first from the family who think that one member of the family has done something very shameful, therefore they think they have right to kill the one who has done shameful thing; such as a girl having sex with her boyfriend, in order to keep the family's dignity. Second, from those who think that the girl 'just' has sex with her boyfriend to show some love.

 

In this case, the so-called honor killing can be justified if it happens in some certain countries (especially Islamic countries) , or even in some certain family, although perhaps the family lives in a western country, such as the US. The family will think that other people do not have right to interfere the family's decision. They believe that the dignity of the family should be prioritized more than just a disgraceful daughter.

 

However, my loved one in fact gave another example (which is even easier to digest): "I am terribly poor, my kids need money to go to school. I think I'll kill my neighbor to grab his belongings."

 

Well, of course in such a case, the killer is wrong. He should have done his best to look for a job, to get money to support the family, not 'just' to take that impossible step: killing the neighbor. Although of course when someone is dying due to hunger, and he/she lives in a community, isn't it the responsibility of the community to take care of the hungry neighbor who lives in poverty? But killing a neighbor to take the belongings is absolutely wrong all the time. Killing is acceptable only when someone accidentally does that when defending himself/herself.

 

Another case he gave was: some years ago when some members of FPI forced to close down food stalls that were open during Ramadan month. They did not only close down the stalls, they also sometimes took the food and threw them away plus beat the diners. If we view this using FPI's point of view, the act was supposed to be acceptable because FPI did it in order to make people respect Islamic teachings.

 

In the world of 'it depends bla bla bla', my loved one thinks that we cannot force other people to accept our way of thinking whatever it takes. Therefore, the idea 'it depends' is dangerous.

 

On the contrary, I am of opinion that whatever we think, we are not allowed to make other people in harmful situation. Because of thinking 'it depends' does not necessarily mean we tolerate crime. Closing down food stalls, throwing away edible food, and beating people are included into crime. Killing other people is always a crime, even in a case such as honor killing, except as I wrote above: when someone kills another accidentally when defending himself/herself.

 

Furthermore, my loved one cited what Bertrand Russel said:

 

To summarize: Our decisions must be made on truth; not wishful thinking, and we need to learn to be tolerant of people whom we disagree with or we will end up destroying one another. It’s simple advice, but it bears repeating.  (I cited it from this link)

 

Talking about 'truth', I remember around a decade ago, I discussed 'truth' in 'Religion' class. Truth can be divided into five categories:

 

• Aesthetic truth
• Historical truth
• Moral truth
• Scientific truth
• Religious/spiritual truth

 

He asked, "are those 5 truths all not absolute?"

 

He then said history is said to be written by the winner. However, later on, when the winner becomes culprit, the history then changes. In Indonesia, the case of '30 September 1965 PKI', was Suharto really a hero? And Sukarno a culprit? When the New Order regime collapsed, people view 30 September 1965 differently.

 

Scientific truth also can change during the course of time. Remember long time ago people thought that the Earth was the center of the universe? When I was a little, my teacher taught me that atom was the smallest particle. You may look for other examples by yourself.

 

While aesthetic/moral/religious truth must be very flexible, it depends on whose point of view.

 

PT56 12.12 27.09.2023