You’re making my argument for me. I’ll grant you that truth might exist, but because we may not ever know the answer, you have to treat truth as an abstraction, as something that can’t ever be known, only approached.
I was not making your argument for you. I did not mean to imply that truth was unknowable. I meant that just because a particular group or a particular person may not know the truth, that doesn’t mean it’s not out there to be known. It most definitely can be known. Furthermore, if truth can’t ever be known, it is somewhat futile to try and approach it.
You can say that one MIGHT be truth and the other not, but for practical purposes, you can’t ever treat either as truth. That’s assuming a God-like ability to percieve reality. None of us should be so bold.
If believing something to be true and believing that other men should live according to this truth is playing God, then why argue for any opinion or creed at all? Why hold those opinions or adhere to that creed.
For example, let’s say that someone is Baptist and believes that his views on God are correct. So, he argues with people of other faiths that he disagrees with. Is he being too bold? Is he being disrespectful to people of other religions? Ofcourse not. If he did not have enough faith to discuss religion with others, then he wouldn’t be a Baptist.
If one doesn’t believe in the things they belong to or claim to adhere to, then one shouldn’t belong to that denomination or political party or political magazine, etc. He should be quiet. If a person advocates things that he does not believe to be true, then he is denying the existence of truth and is thus a relativist. And relativism is a belief that we are all here on earth to get the house with a two car garage and nothing else. It denies the existence of virtue or the need to pursue virtue. That is not the world I want to live in. No, I will continue to be bold and posit that truth exists, is knowable, and is attainable.