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.

Claim 1: 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 their claim 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 to help the kids trapped on the top floor would go unanswered because it could not possibly be true that
anyone was up there or 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. Naysayer claims to the contrary are like screams in a vacuum...useless.

Claim 2: Truth “sort of” exists.
Many people realize that claiming truth does not exist is self-refuting. Such a claim is abandoned for 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 others. 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 “true” for you. Atheism is "true" for atheists. Such views,
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 problem 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. Matters of personal taste (music, movies [Avatar is great!], food, etc.) are relative to the
individual, culture, etc. But this same relativity does not apply to every issue.Matters pertainig to the material universe,
God and morality are issues of fact not simply personal taste. For example, a family member may claim that the son
is innocent of a crime while a jury of his peers finds the evidence overwhelming (including clear video evidence).
Just because the family claims his innocence it does not follow that the fact of the matter is relative (he is guilty or
innocent regardless and in this case he is guilty). 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
any god exists. Just because people hold to these views does not make them true or even relative. In fact, it is
impossible for the following claims to be true simultaneously: multiple gods exist, only one God exists and no god
exists. In other words, regardless of what people may believe, someone is wrong. Either many gods exist (Hinduism,
for this example), no 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 as well as
non-religions and then make an informed, rational decision. Appealing to relativism is often an easy out designed 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 some othesr view them as a triumphant act of
grand justice. This, we are told, proves that truth is a social construct. That is, truth is based on (determined by) each
society. Each socio-linguistic group (society sharing a similar language) determines what is true and what is false. Since
we are not able to get outside of ourselves (our language) and outside of what our society claims it is not possible
to verify the views accepted over and against another society's view. Thus, we are stuck with equally valid social
constructions of truth.

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 keeping 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 (self-refuting).

Additionally, 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 each of which agree that terrorism is wrong, that it is possible to locate the terrorists and that it
is possible for each country to help the other 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, rather it only makes them 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 on them.

Claim 3: 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 (ideally)
thrown out. The reason a person on death row can be exonerated is due to truth of his/her innocence being understood and
discovered. 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? Click here to find out.