What is the nature of truth? Is it absolutely true for everyone at all times? Or is truth relative and contingent on people, time and place? For the relativist, the truth of a statement is dependent on our finite perspective. We are like the blind men who touched on different parts of an elephant and gave conflicting reports on our findings.
In the book “When Skeptics Ask”, Norman Geisler argued that although the blind men are equally wrong in their perspectives, there is still an objective elephant that can be discovered. While we agree that the meaning of a statement is relative to its context, the statement is an absolute truth once its meaning is understood in its proper context. For example, “Reagan is the President” is true in 1986 but not true in 1990. But it is always true that Reagan is the president in 1990. Even the relativist’s claim that all truth is relative is itself an absolute claim. Therefore relativism is meaningless or self-defeating.
Is Truth Correspondent or Coherent?
In the correspondence theory, a statement is true if it fits reality. In the coherence view of truth, a statement is true if it holds together as an internally consistent system. Coherence theory may lead to relativism because like a web hanging in empty space, its truth is dependent on an infinite regress of other statements. Geisler argues that Scripture uses the correspondence view of truth by commanding us not to bear false witness, implying that our testimony must fit the facts. Philosophically, if our words do not need to be factual, then no statement can be false. Without the correspondence theory, we would be left with an absurd situation whereby lying is impossible. Coherence is necessary but insufficient condition for truth.
Does the truth of a statement lie in the intention or motives of the speaker? Or is it a quality of the proposition he makes? Geisler makes an obvious observation that a person with good intention may be sincerely mistaken or conversely, speak the truth out of evil motives. The truth is in a person if his character or behavior corresponds to God’s commands.
For some people, truth may exist but we could ever know it? The agnostic thinks that nothing can be known and the skeptic doubts if anything can be known. Both positions are self-defeating because by making those claims, they are saying something that can be known and cannot be doubted by others.
For the rationalist, it is claimed that we can determine the truth by logical deduction alone without appealing to evidences. But the pitfalls of rationalism include the unsupported assumption that what is logical is also real, and the futility of establishing the first principles on which they construct logically. Fideism leads to blind leap of faith by insisting that rational proofs are not necessary to give us true knowledge of God. But Kierkegaard is concerned that we could have a lot of knowledge about God without a subjective commitment or relationship in God. That is valid concern but if faith is the only way to truth, how do we evaluate conflicting truth claims? Evidence and reason can help us to know that God exists but it cannot force us to commit or trust in the Lord. Thus, both faith commitment and rational thinking are necessary for faith. In conclusion, we can know something true about God although our knowledge is not exhaustive. This view is called realism.
Is Truth Logical?
Without logic as a necessary presupposition, we cannot think at all. It is also undeniable because the only way to deny logic is to assume it. Since thought applies to reality, we can have some true knowledge of God.
The law of non-contradiction is the foundation of logic. Two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time in the same manner. If A is B, and C is non-B, then it follows logically that A is not C. These ideas are self-evident by intuition. To deny that thought applies to reality, one has to make a logical and thoughtful case for it. Logic is assumed even while one attempts to deny it.
Evaluation
In our own Malaysian context, we encounter a relativistic attitude towards religious claims and places more emphasis on existential and pragmatic concerns. Some may think that everyone is accountable to the Heavenly One, but He is not knowable. We often hear people say, “It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as it makes you a better person”. In the absence of absolute knowledge, all sorts of myths and superstitious belief abound. C.S. Lewis observed that if people do not believe in the truth, it doesn’t mean that people will believe in nothing but they will believe in anything.
From Geisler’s article, we know that despite its apparent tolerance, relativism itself is an absolute claim that all religions are equally false or none of them possess the truth. Also we are challenged to test if our religious claims match reality in a consistent way. As an example, Buddhism calls its adherents to compassionately help those who suffer. But it is inconsistent with its parallel claim that the victim is only paying back his karmic debt in a previous life. Its theory seems to be incoherent with the practice.
As finite beings, we agree that the Heavenly One cannot be known through our own speculations. However, if He has chosen to reveal Himself to us in human language and history, then it would be reasonable to suppose that we can know something about Him. And that is precisely what He has done in the person of Jesus Christ, as God incarnate. Since we are without excuse of not knowing Him, we are accountable for how we live and think about Him.
While faith without deed is dead, right beliefs have consequences on how we behave. Therefore sincerity alone is not enough. Our lives must model or correspond to what we believe and preach, regardless of our vocations as pastor or laity. The apologetic task needs to be done in a context of friendship, relational conversations and mutual trust. Otherwise we would win the argument but lose the soul or a friend.
Participants: Lim Hang Tang, David Chong, Lee Han Meng (20 January 2007)
In the book “When Skeptics Ask”, Norman Geisler argued that although the blind men are equally wrong in their perspectives, there is still an objective elephant that can be discovered. While we agree that the meaning of a statement is relative to its context, the statement is an absolute truth once its meaning is understood in its proper context. For example, “Reagan is the President” is true in 1986 but not true in 1990. But it is always true that Reagan is the president in 1990. Even the relativist’s claim that all truth is relative is itself an absolute claim. Therefore relativism is meaningless or self-defeating. Is Truth Correspondent or Coherent?
In the correspondence theory, a statement is true if it fits reality. In the coherence view of truth, a statement is true if it holds together as an internally consistent system. Coherence theory may lead to relativism because like a web hanging in empty space, its truth is dependent on an infinite regress of other statements. Geisler argues that Scripture uses the correspondence view of truth by commanding us not to bear false witness, implying that our testimony must fit the facts. Philosophically, if our words do not need to be factual, then no statement can be false. Without the correspondence theory, we would be left with an absurd situation whereby lying is impossible. Coherence is necessary but insufficient condition for truth.
Does the truth of a statement lie in the intention or motives of the speaker? Or is it a quality of the proposition he makes? Geisler makes an obvious observation that a person with good intention may be sincerely mistaken or conversely, speak the truth out of evil motives. The truth is in a person if his character or behavior corresponds to God’s commands.
For some people, truth may exist but we could ever know it? The agnostic thinks that nothing can be known and the skeptic doubts if anything can be known. Both positions are self-defeating because by making those claims, they are saying something that can be known and cannot be doubted by others.
For the rationalist, it is claimed that we can determine the truth by logical deduction alone without appealing to evidences. But the pitfalls of rationalism include the unsupported assumption that what is logical is also real, and the futility of establishing the first principles on which they construct logically. Fideism leads to blind leap of faith by insisting that rational proofs are not necessary to give us true knowledge of God. But Kierkegaard is concerned that we could have a lot of knowledge about God without a subjective commitment or relationship in God. That is valid concern but if faith is the only way to truth, how do we evaluate conflicting truth claims? Evidence and reason can help us to know that God exists but it cannot force us to commit or trust in the Lord. Thus, both faith commitment and rational thinking are necessary for faith. In conclusion, we can know something true about God although our knowledge is not exhaustive. This view is called realism.
Is Truth Logical?
Without logic as a necessary presupposition, we cannot think at all. It is also undeniable because the only way to deny logic is to assume it. Since thought applies to reality, we can have some true knowledge of God.
The law of non-contradiction is the foundation of logic. Two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time in the same manner. If A is B, and C is non-B, then it follows logically that A is not C. These ideas are self-evident by intuition. To deny that thought applies to reality, one has to make a logical and thoughtful case for it. Logic is assumed even while one attempts to deny it.
Evaluation
In our own Malaysian context, we encounter a relativistic attitude towards religious claims and places more emphasis on existential and pragmatic concerns. Some may think that everyone is accountable to the Heavenly One, but He is not knowable. We often hear people say, “It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as it makes you a better person”. In the absence of absolute knowledge, all sorts of myths and superstitious belief abound. C.S. Lewis observed that if people do not believe in the truth, it doesn’t mean that people will believe in nothing but they will believe in anything.
From Geisler’s article, we know that despite its apparent tolerance, relativism itself is an absolute claim that all religions are equally false or none of them possess the truth. Also we are challenged to test if our religious claims match reality in a consistent way. As an example, Buddhism calls its adherents to compassionately help those who suffer. But it is inconsistent with its parallel claim that the victim is only paying back his karmic debt in a previous life. Its theory seems to be incoherent with the practice.
As finite beings, we agree that the Heavenly One cannot be known through our own speculations. However, if He has chosen to reveal Himself to us in human language and history, then it would be reasonable to suppose that we can know something about Him. And that is precisely what He has done in the person of Jesus Christ, as God incarnate. Since we are without excuse of not knowing Him, we are accountable for how we live and think about Him.
While faith without deed is dead, right beliefs have consequences on how we behave. Therefore sincerity alone is not enough. Our lives must model or correspond to what we believe and preach, regardless of our vocations as pastor or laity. The apologetic task needs to be done in a context of friendship, relational conversations and mutual trust. Otherwise we would win the argument but lose the soul or a friend.
Participants: Lim Hang Tang, David Chong, Lee Han Meng (20 January 2007)
Comments