Many people in our culture, including some Christians, embrace the postmodern view that truth is relative, or subjective—the idea that truth is determined by each individual or culture, rather than being something “out there” to be discovered. Phrases like “Live your own truth,” “Truth comes from within,” and “That’s true for you, but not for me” are common expressions of this relativistic way of thinking. It’s becoming increasingly popular to reject the belief that objective truth exists and that it can be known.
The idea that objective truth doesn’t exist is not new—it can be traced back to philosophies developed several centuries ago. Studying the history of these philosophies and their impact on education and society in general helps make sense of their widespread acceptance today, and I would encourage you to learn more of this history if you haven't already. What I intend to do here is present evidence for the existence of objective truth and consider whether people who claim all truth is relative can live out their convictions consistently.
What is truth? It’s good to define terms at the beginning of any discussion, so I’ll start by defining truth. In simple terms, truth is just telling it like it is. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Some might interject here and say that they agree that truth corresponds to reality, but would then add that each person’s reality is unique—there is no objective reality. This is essentially the same as saying there is no objective truth, so we’re back where we started. But is the claim that there is no objective truth a valid claim? Do those who insist that all truth is relative live out their conviction consistently? I believe they don’t, and would even say they can’t. It doesn’t take much to demonstrate how the argument for relative truth breaks down and leads to absurdity when pushed to its logical conclusions.
Imagine being pulled over by a policeman who says you were driving 40 miles per hour over the speed limit. What do you think his reaction would be if you told him, “Well, officer, that’s true for you but not for me”? (I’m thinking a hefty fine and maybe some jail time would be in order.) Or, what if you told a cashier that the $2500 price tag on the large-screen television you wanted to purchase was only true for her, and you offered to pay only $150. (I realize there are people with exceptional negotiating skills, but this isn’t something I’d consider common practice.) While these examples might be viewed as extreme, they drive home the point that relativism can’t be lived out consistently. Consider these more likely scenarios:
When people who claim truth is relative look at their bank statements, they assume what they see is a truthful representation of transactions and account balances. If there’s an error, they expect the bank to rectify the problem according to an objective standard of truth. When they read food labels or medicine bottles, they don’t wonder whether what they’re reading is true for everybody or just for a few of the manufacturer’s personal friends. If their doctor prescribes medicine, they expect the dosage to be accurate and any warnings of possible side-effects to be correct. They expect road signs and reference materials to be truthful, as well as people with whom they have relationships. I think it’s safe to say that all of us expect truth when it comes to most areas of life. So, when do relativists appeal to the concept that truth is subjective rather than objective? Mostly in matters of religion and morality.
The rejection of objective truth when it comes to religion and morality is usually not based on intellectual grounds, but on volition. People don’t want to be held accountable to particular moral standards. They don’t want to believe that any specific religion is the only right one. They want to avoid conclusions that make them uncomfortable, so they claim that morality and religion are a matter of personal opinion, and in the process, attempt to present themselves as being humble, reasonable, and tolerant. Their claim of tolerance breaks down, though, when they are offended by the alleged arrogance of anyone who claims their religion is the only way to God or that particular behaviors are right or wrong. (More on this in a future blog.) Augustine summed it up well when he said, “We love the truth when it enlightens us, but hate it when it convicts us.”
Another problem with the claim that all truth is relative, or that there is no objective truth, is that it is self-defeating. A self-defeating claim is one that fails to meet its own standard. For example, the statement “My sister is an only child” is self-defeating because having a sister by definition contradicts the status of being an only child. The statement is necessarily false. In the same way, “There is no objective truth” is self-defeating because it is itself an objective truth statement. The only way “All truth is relative” can be true is if it is an objective truth statement. Otherwise, the statement itself is only relative, and doesn’t apply to everyone.
What is true about truth? If truth isn’t relative, what can be said about “true truth”?
All truths are absolute. Even apparently relative truths are really absolute. If I said “my feet are cold today” it would be absolutely true for everyone that I experienced cold feet on this particular date.
Truth is true for all people at all times and in all places. The fact that the earth is round, or that 3+3=6 is true for everyone, at all times, everywhere.
Truth is discovered, not invented. Truth exists whether or not anyone has knowledge of it. For example, the universe was expanding before Hubble observed it through his telescope. His discovery didn't create the truth of an expanding universe.
Truth doesn’t change. When scientists discovered the sun, not the earth, is the center of our solar system, the truth about our solar system didn’t change. Only what people believed about the solar system changed.
Beliefs, no matter how sincere, can never change the facts. There can be contradictory beliefs about truth, but not contradictory truths. There is a law of logic known as the law of non-contradiction. This law is self-evident and applies to everyone whether they believe it or not. The law states that ‘A’ and ‘non-A’ cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Contradictory claims can both be false, but they can’t both be true in the same sense. In other words, the opposite of true is false. This principle carries with it important implications for Christianity.
What are the implications for Christians? Christianity is based on objective truth claims. The historical claims of Christianity, such as the resurrection of Christ, can’t be ‘true for you but not for me.’ Either it happened, or it didn’t. Either Jesus was the Messiah, or He wasn’t. Christianity isn’t true because we have faith. Conversely, a skeptic’s lack of faith doesn’t make Christianity false.
The Bible is full of statements made by the prophets, the apostles, and Jesus, who were not just giving us their opinions about reality, but were claiming to tell us the truth about God and the world. Jesus had a lot to say about truth. In fact, He said more about truth than He did about faith. He claimed to be the Truth. If truth doesn’t exist, His words are meaningless, and Christianity has no more merit than believing in the Tooth Fairy. (This is an argument given by some atheists. But, I digress.)
Christians aren’t expected to ‘just have faith,’ blindly accepting what the Bible teaches as true. We are instructed to be ready to explain the reasons for our faith to anyone who asks us (1 Pet. 3:15). We have faith because we have good reasons to believe Christianity is true. Truth is the foundation for genuine faith. A professing Christian who claims there is no objective truth cuts himself off from the foundation of his faith and finds his feet planted firmly in mid-air.
Comentários