Truth by Consensus

Remember that little "global warming" thing? You know, the one that today drives policies and politics around the world as we seek to save the planet from mankind. The original (audible) alarm was sounded by the well-known expert, Al Gore. Yes, Al Gore ... politician, Harvard graduate with a bachelor's degree in government, didn't do well in science or math, oh, and invented the Internet. Okay, let's not get hostile. Still, the question remains, "Now how did Al Gore earn the right to warn us all about global warming?" Well, it's simple. Al Gore had a consensus of scientists, and, as everyone knows, a consensus is the same thing as the truth.

You might protest that last statement. I mean, there was a consensus among many white people that black people were inferior, and that wasn't the truth. There have been lots of consensus on things that turned out to be false. Yet, do a search on "global warming consensus" and you'll find lots of folks arguing that consensus makes it true.

The global warming controversy is not my point here. Truth by consensus is. Take, for instance, the story about the Gallup poll finding that 53% of Americans think that "same-sex marriage" is a good idea. I pointed out then that a consensus does not make a fact. Still, most people will tell you that if the majority want it, it must be. That is, "Don't bother me with truth; we're all in agreement here."

It is, I believe, an understandable position. The Internet phenomenon called "the wiki" is all the rage. A wiki is a piece of web-based software that allows users of all sorts to edit web content. The most famous is Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia that boasts over 3.5 million articles from 8,000 editors. "Editors" is misleading. Wikis operate on the concept of truth by consensus. If I see what I believe to be a mistake in an article, I can edit it. If someone else thinks my correction is wrong, they can edit it. Eventually articles settle into a consensus and that, in the wiki mind, constitutes truth. Truth by consensus.

By democratizing information and then using that vote as a measure of truth, we've managed to create "truth by consensus". In so doing, we've countered such values as "authority" or "expert" and bypassed such safeguards as "fact checking" and editorial control. We've created a world where "Facebook said it so it must be true." In a society whose primary reference for political perceptions is the sound bite, whose best information is derived from the commercial, and whose best source of reality is "how I feel", it is little wonder that we would surrender "truth" to "consensus". I need to point out, however, that consensus can be wrong, and I think I can get a consensus on that.

Pilate asked, "What is truth?" He asked it of the Son of God who said, "I am ... the Truth." Truth, to Christians, is God. That is, truth is defined as that which conforms to reality, and reality is defined as "How God sees things". It is not a function of consensus. Truth issues from the nature of God. It is a "top-down" truth rather than that which drifts up out of the masses. But try to put that in a wiki. Still, if you're a Christian, you would do well to keep it in mind. God's truth is all truth. Settle that and you'll be much better off; according to Jesus, you'll be free.