Last week I saw a news story about a 69 year old man in the Netherlands who had taken a case to court to have his age legally recognised as being 49, claiming he identified more with the younger age. (Also having to list himself as 69 was a hindrance on Tinder).

I saw this story as yet another example of the madness going on in the world today – where “truth” is being redefined to suit the feelings of individuals; where objective reality is pushed aside and replaced by what we choose to “identify” as truth.

The story was a logical progression from the current gender fad – where birth gender no longer determines whether someone is male or female. The increasingly accepted philosophy demands that people be accepted as the gender with which they identify (at a particular time).

I have since seen another reference to the 69 year old’s story.
Now he is being accused of “transphobic” intentions, that he’s making a mockery of those who choose to identify with a gender contrary to the biological reality of their bodies.

Now, of course I can’t say what his motive may be – but I have to ask, why should a case like his (related to age) be judged any differently to a case of someone who wants to change the identity of their own gender?

How can his accuser label him as  “transphobic” without that accuser being guilty of being something I’ll call geriatriphobic?

If gender can be adopted according to preference rather than biological evidence, why can’t age be adopted in the same way?

Or race?

Remember white born Rachel Dolezal who identified as black and lived as a black woman but was later demonised when her actual biological identity was exposed? Why was her right to identify as she saw fit rejected, in contrast to the rights of those who choose which gender they prefer to be?

I see the three examples given above are highlighting a crucial issue – the world’s changing attitude to truth, reality, and what actually IS.

They see truth as something malleable, to be shaped by personal choice. They make the individual the arbiter of what is “true” or “real”. Everyone is free to determine their own truth…

But not always – as shown in the “transphobia” accusation against the 69 year old, and the hostility against Rachel Dolezal. It seems a person’s entitlement to define their own identity reality isn’t being recognised across the board. But why? If we are free to create our own truth, what gives anyone the right to stop that freedom from being extended to everyone else, according to their own particular identity desires?

I suggest that REAL issue behind all of this is not “transphobia” or my new word “geriatriphobia”, it is  Veritaphobia.
The fear and rejection of truth.

People don’t like a truth that defines their identity and behaviour if that truth isn’t flexible enough to bow to their own desires.  They don’t like the idea of an objective, fixed truth based on facts – or a reality separate from personal desire or choice.

In Hebrew and Greek (the biblical languages), the same words are apparently used to describe both truth and reality.

What is true is real.

Truth is  ACTUALITY – what IS and not what someone might want or prefer.

There is a very significant reason why attempts would be made to redefine truth/reality to suit personal desire. If truth can be changed to suit the individual, then there is no longer any accountability to anything, anyone, or any truth, outside of that indvidual. We can make our own rules and give ourselves legitimacy for any path we choose to make for ourselves.

Naïve Relativism

Here is a question I saw in the comments of another blog.

I don’t consider your belief in God to be wrong … for you. So why do you consider my lack of belief in God to be wrong for me?

Just consider the kind of mindset behind that question.

Basically the question is saying that objective reality means nothing.

Look at the question in a slightly different way. What if “belief in God” is exchanged for some other idea?

How about belief in the ability to fly? Or the ability to breathe under water? Or belief in being bullet proof?

Should someone’s belief that they can safely launch themselves from a cliff top be considered as wrong for them?

Or a belief they can remain submerged for hours without scuba gear or that they can face gunfire without suffering personal harm?

Whether someone believes in God or not makes no difference at all to the objective facts related to God’s existence.

If God exists then His creation, including mankind, is ultimately accountable to Him, regardless of whether His reality and our accountability to Him is recognised by you, me or any other individual. Therefore, if God exists, lack of belief in Him is wrong for everyone no matter what their personal preference may be.