|
Plato is dear to me, but
dearer still is truth.
Aristotle
It has given me great joy to
find some of your children walking in the truth, just as the Father
commanded us.
2 John 4
What is
truth? said jesting
Pilate; and would not stay for an answer.
Francis Bacon
Anyone who doesn't take
truth
seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.
Albert Einstein
Overview:
In daily living, truth is a given by nearly everyone. Simply listening
to conversations at the office or driving in the car will reveal that
people assume truth exists and is important. When we talk about other
people it does not take long for comments such as “I can’t believe she
lied” or “You are wrong” and even “You are right” to come up. These
comments, and others like them, share two underlying assumptions; truth
exists and we can know it. However, even though such comments reveal
basic acceptance of truth many would still challenge the idea of truth.
This brief article 1) defends the existence of truth, 2) defines truth,
and 3) deals with common misconceptions some Christians have regarding
truth.
Existence of Truth:
Does truth exist? Some say “yes”, others say “sort of” and still others
say “no.” Let’s take a look at these three options in reverse order.
No, truth does not
exist.
The claim that truth does not
exist is strikingly odd. This is because in order to say, “Truth does
not exist” the person promoting this claim is assuming that it is true!
Talk about philosophical irony. However, let’s ignore the self-refuting
nature of this position and assume that truth does not exist. In other
words, let’s take the view that there is no such thing as a true
concept, proposition, idea, etc.
If nothing is true, then it
follows that no one could possibly be guilty of a crime. It simply would
not be true! Every aspect of the law and all work of every police
department would be useless since no one would ever be guilty of a
single crime. No court could say that a person was truly guilty. No
claim that a murder, rape, robbery, theft, or any other criminal act
could be considered true sense no truth exists.
What if someone is in trouble
and needs a paramedic? No chance! It isn’t true that help is needed. The
call to the fire department for help with the kids trapped in the top
floor would go unanswered because it could not possibly be true to say
that anyone was up there or claim that a fire was even burning. Such is
the dilemma of life without truth.
Conversely, nothing could be
false either. Think about it, how could it be possible for something to
be false? It simply would not be true that it was false! The one who
says, “It is false to say Bob shot the dog” is presenting this statement
as true. That is, he is saying the fact of the matter is that Bob did
not shoot the dog.
Truth does exist. Claiming
otherwise is to present a view that is supposed to be true
(self-refuting) with serious practical ramifications.
Truth “sort of” exists.
Many people realize that
claiming truth does not exist is self-refuting. Such a claim is
abandoned for a more subtle forms of denying truth: relativism and
social constructs.
Relativism:
On this account, truth “sort
of” exists. That is, what you believe may be true “for you” but it is
not necessarily true for anyone else. There is no universal truth for
everyone but only things that are true for each individual.
Does white chocolate taste
good? Some say it does taste good while others say it does not. Which
religion is right? If Hinduism or Christianity work for you, then that
religion is “right” (or “true”) for you. If atheist works for someone
else, then that is “right” for them. Such issues, and many others, are
said to be relative to the individual.
Critique of relativism:
While the fact that
relativism is a contradictory stance is getting out many still promote
this view. One of the problems with relativism is that the very
assumption that all beliefs are relative is presented as being true for
everyone. That is, relativism is, itself, not relative but true for all
people at all times. Thus, relativism is self-refuting.
Additionally, examples like
white chocolate and different religions do not establish relativism as
being true. First, it is true that some find white chocolate appealing
and it is equally true that others do not. It simply does not follow
that everything is relative since people have a variety of tastes.
Second, just because a religion “works” for one person (or group) and
another religion (or non-religion) “works” for another person, it does
not follow that both are equally true. Hinduism accepts the existence of
millions of gods and Christianity accepts the existence of only one God
while atheism denies that any god exists. Just because people hold to
these views does not make them true. In fact, it is impossible for
multiple gods to exist, only one God exist and no god exist
simultaneously. In other words, regardless of what people may believe,
someone is wrong. Either many gods exist (Hinduism, for this example) or
not gods exist (atheism) or only one God exists (Christianity). To claim
that each is just as true as the other is logically impossible. We need
to take the time to find out the merits of different religions and
non-religions and then make an informed, rational decision. Appealing to
relativism is often an easy out to avoid thinking through the
complexities of this important issue.
Social constructs:
In our culture we view the
9/11 terrorist attacks as horrid while in other cultures people view
them as a triumphant act of grand justice. This, we are told, proves
that truth is a social construct. That is, truth is what our society
says is truth. Each socio-linguistic group (society sharing a similar
language) determines what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.
Since we are not able to get outside of ourselves (our language) and
what our society thinks, it is not possible to verify one societies view
over and above another societies view. Thus, we are stuck with equally
valid social constructions of truth that are equally valid.
Critique of Social
Constructs:
While it is true that we are
influenced by our social and linguistic settings, it does not follow
that we are stuck behind a linguistic and/or social wall that keeps us
from grasping universal truth. First, if a social construction of truth
is true, the claim that we cannot obtain universal truth because of this
socio-linguistic wall is, itself, a social construct. Yet this very
claim is intended to be true for all people in all socio-linguistic
settings. That is, this view is suppose to correspond to reality, thus undermining its own claim.
Second, it seems that we can
get to the truth of many matters even with people of other
socio-linguistic backgrounds. Take the war on terror as an example.
There are many countries (US, Spain, Britain, Pakistan, Kuwait, etc.)
with diverse social and linguistic settings but each agrees that terror
is wrong, it is possible to locate the terrorists, and that it is
possible for each country to help the other out in this process. If
truth is simply a socio-linguistic construct, then such work together
would be nearly impossible. While other societies may think that the
same terrorist acts are good, this does not make their views true, only
different. It would be easy to reveal how they really feel about such
acts of terror if another nation were to use the same tactics with
them.
Truth exists.
We live in a world governed
by the existence of truth. Our legal system is a great example of
pursuing truth. Ideally, every claim against a person is checked to make
sure that it is true. Any charge or allegation that is found to be false
is to be thrown out. The reason a person on death row can be exonerated
is due to the truth existing and being revealed. Responsible parents
teach their children not to lie because truth does exist and is
important. Claiming otherwise is rationally unjustified.
Now that it is obvious truth
is needed and that it exists, what is truth? The word “truth” is thrown
around quite a bit (reporters often say, “we need to find out the
truth”) but do we really know what it is?
What is truth?:
The dominate theory of truth throughout history is known as the
correspondence theory of truth. This is the view that truth is that
which corresponds to reality. When most people think of “truth” they may
not be able to articulate clearly the details of what they believe but
usually say something similar to the correspondence theory of truth (CrTT).
The CrTT
can be summarized as that which corresponds to reality. or, more
appropriately, "a proposition (sentence, belief) is true just in case it
corresponds to reality, when what it asserts to be the case is the
case."
Consider the proposition, "The car is red." This proposition is true if,
indeed, the car it refers to actually is red. Thus, the statement, "The
car is red" is true because it corresponds to (lines up with) the red
car to which it refers.
If what we say or believe lines up with reality, it is true! That is
truth.
Three elements to CrTT:
Upon taking a closer look at the statement, "The car is
red" it becomes evident that there are three main elements pertaining to
the CrTT that need to be considered. They are: the truth-bearer, the
correspondence relation, and the truth-maker. Don't worry, these
concepts can be easily understood. Just read the short summary of each a
few times.
-
Truth-bearer:
This is that which bears the truth.
The truth-bearer answers the question, “Where does the truth
reside?” or “Where can the truth be found?” Since the CrTT is a
theory of truth it is important to know where to find the truth. In
short, the sentence (proposition) bears the truth. For example, the
statement, “California is on the west coast” bears or carries the truth
of the matter. The truth of this statement is not found in California
since this statement is true for those who live outside of this state.
-
Correspondence relation:
This is the relation between the proposition and that which is
being referred to by this proposition.
The proposition “The car is red” is related to the car. But is it
important to see that this proposition is also distinct from the
car (that is, the proposition “The car is red” is obviously not the red
car but refers to the red car). This is called the correspondence
relation.
Relation simply has to do with how two or more things relate to one
another. In this case, there is a relation between the proposition (“the
car is red”) and the fact of the matter (the actual red car). These two
are distinct from each other but are related to one another. This
relation is called the correspondence relation (that is, of course,
where this theory derives it name). Again, the proposition, “Great
Britain is an ally of the U.S.” is true because this proposition
corresponds with (lines up with) the fact that Great Britain is, in
fact, a friend (supporter) of the U.S.
-
Truth-maker:
This is what makes a proposition true.
The question can be
asked, “What is it that makes a statement true?” The most common
answer to this is the fact of the matter (the state of affairs that
obtain).
Identifying the
truth-maker answers this question, “What is it that makes a
sentence/proposition true?” Simply the fact that the state of affairs
referred to obtains.
Truth-maker vs. Truth-bearer:
Note: the
distinction between the truth-maker (what makes a proposition
true) and the truth-bearer (where the truth is found). The former
(truth-maker) pertains to how something is true while the latter
(truth-bearer) pertains to where the truth is found, so to speak.
Assumptions of CrTT
There are two basic assumptions so far: 1) there exists a
mind-independent world and 2) it is possible to know certain things
about this mind-independent world.
By
mind-independent it is simply meant that the world would exist even if
our minds did not exist. In other words, the world is independent of our
thinking. Even if we did not know that the world existed, the world
would still exist.
Regarding
knowing this world, the CrTT holds that it is possible to know some
things about this mind-independent world. We can know that the world
does exist (for we interact with it). If someone were to claim that it
is not possible to know anything about the world, this is still a
knowledge claim regarding the world. Specifically, this view claims 1)
to know that the world does exist and 2) we know that we do not know it.
Thus, at least two knowledge claims are presented.
Notice that
assumptions of CrTT present two different issues. One is the actual
existence of the world (ontological status of the world) and the second
is the knowledge of the world (our epistemological status about the
world). The world’s existence (ontology) is not dependent upon our
knowledge (epistemology) of the world. It is important to keep these
issues separate.
The two
assumptions (that there is a mind-independent world and that we can know
some things about this mind-independent world) may seem basic to most
people, and rightly so. But there are other theories (e.g., Coherence
Theory of Truth) that reject both of these assumptions.
Need for truth:
Is there a need for truth?
Yes. Just ask
Brandon Mayfield of
Portland, Oregon. Mayfield is the lawyer falsely accused of being a
material witness in the terrorist train bombing in Madrid, Spain in
which 191 people died.
He found the need for the truth of the matter known to authorities to be
very important. In fact, anyone who is falsely accused of a crime has a
strong need for the truth to be discovered. Those who are falsely
accused of grievous crimes and sentenced to death certainly experience
the joy of others knowing truth when their innocence is proven.
But we must not limit
the need for truth to the legal system. When a person receives a medical
check-up it is vital that the true health condition is known so that, in
the event of a medical problem, any ailment can be properly diagnosed
and treated. Conversely, it is important that, if the person is healthy,
a true understanding of this is known. Otherwise, a person can be
subjected to numerous and expensive medical procedures that may end up
causing harm.
The area where the need
for truth is greatest is with God. If it is truth that God does exist,
then it is important for us to take this into account in our daily
lives. Additionally, if Christianity is true, then it is imperative that
we obey the Savior, Jesus Christ. We need to repent of our sins, believe
in Jesus Christ, and commit our lives to God. (Acts 3:19; John 1:12) As
you can see, the need for truth is immeasurable.
However, just because truth is needed,
does not mean it exists.
Truth and God:
Does the CrTT coincide with Scripture or does it contradict Scripture?
The short
answer is no, it coincides with Scripture. As Christian theologian and
philosopher R. C. Sproul says, “Truth is reality as God sees it.”
Since God has all knowledge (omniscience),
whatever God “sees” to be the case actually is the case. In other words,
God’s knowledge corresponds to reality (thus, the CrTT). If someone buys
a red car, God knows this (what He believes to be the case is the case).
Therefore, the CrTT seems to be a fairly accurate way of describing the
theory of truth that is consistent with God and, thus, Scripture.
But Jesus did not know
what truth is (John 18:38):
On many occasions people say
that Jesus did not know what truth is, therefore neither can we. Often
they refer to the following passage:
John 18:37-38
"’You are a king,
then!’ said Pilate. Jesus answered, ‘You are right in saying I am a
king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the
world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth
listens to me.’ ‘What is truth?’ Pilate
asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, ‘I find no
basis for a charge against him.’”
This brief exchange between
Jesus and Pilate is used to conclude that Jesus did not know what truth
is. Since Jesus did not answer Pilate’s question, the conclusion is
drawn that Jesus must have been stumped by the question. Since Jesus did
not know what truth is, then it is arrogant for us to say that we do.
There are several problems
with this rationale. First, the conclusion that Jesus did not know truth
is based on an argument from silence. Jesus does not say, nor does He
suggest, that truth is unknown to Him. From the text it appears that
Pilate simply did not wait for an answer to his own question.
Second, it becomes evident
that Jesus did in fact know what truth is. He uses the term on numerous
occasions in the same book (John 3:21; 4:23, 24; 5:33; 8:32, 40, 44, 45,
46; 14:6, 17; 15:26; 16:7, and more). What is more, Jesus goes beyond
showing He understands truth to claiming to be “the truth” (John 14:6).
Such instances show that Jesus did understand what truth is.
But John 14:6 tells us
that Jesus is truth:
Not exactly. Let’s take a
look at the context of this verse:
"’1 Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust
also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were
not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for
you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come
back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You
know the way to the place where I am going.’ 5 Thomas said to
him, ‘Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the
way?’ 6 Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the
life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”
(NIV) In verse 6, Jesus is claiming to be “the truth” and not
“truth.” The difference is significant.
The context shows what Jesus
is claiming about Himself. Jesus told His disciples that He is going to
go be with the Father (vs. 2). He also said that they, the disciples,
know the way to the place where Jesus was going (vs. 4). But
Thomas claims that they do not know where He is going and, therefore,
they do not know the way to get there (vs. 5). This is where
Jesus tells them that He, Jesus, is, “the way and the truth and
the life.” (vs. 6, italics mine) He goes on to say that no one will be
able to come to the Father except through Him, Jesus (vs. 6). This makes
it apparent that Jesus is talking specifically about salvation.
In other words, Jesus is the
way regarding salvation. Jesus is the truth regarding
salvation. Jesus is the life regarding salvation. Jesus is
claiming to be “the truth” regarding salvation but He is not claiming to
be “truth” which would be equivalent to Jesus claiming to be all truth.
These two claims (“Jesus is
the truth” vs. “Jesus is truth.”) are entirely different. The first
claim (that Jesus is the truth) is limited to salvation. However, Jesus
rightly avoids claiming to be “truth.” If Jesus claimed to be “truth”
(as in “all truth”) then He would be identical to any true proposition.
This is much different than merely saying that Jesus knows every
true statement. He certainly does know every true statement, at least
now. But clearly He is not every true statement. In fact, Jesus is not a
statement. He is God-man (see John 1:1-14).
Let me illustrate. If Jesus
was “truth” (meaning “all truth”) then He would have to actually be the
statement “The United States and Canada are allies.” Two things are
clear about this statement. First, the statement is true (it lines up
with reality, the way things really are). Second, Jesus is not this
statement. We do not worship, pray to, nor seek salvation from the
statement “The United States and Canada are allies.” If Jesus and this
statement were identical, then we would be in grave trouble.
It is necessary to
distinguish between Jesus Christ being “the truth” about salvation (He
is) and “all truth” (He is not). Once this distinction is understood,
the confusion is cleared up and Jesus stands strong as “the truth”
regarding our salvation.
|
