What truth is:
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 mean 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."1 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.2 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.
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 proposition, “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.
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 but 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 to (lines up with) the fact that Great Britain is, in fact, a friend (supporter) of the U.S.3
The question can be asked, “What is it that makes a proposition true?” The most common answer to this is the fact of the
matter (the state of affairs that obtain).4 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.5If someone claims "the house
at 1122 Boogey Boogey Avenue is on fire," this proposition is only true if, in fact, that particular house is on fire. If the
house referred to is not on fire,then the proposition would be false.
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
or located.
1 Moreland, J. P., William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. (Intervarsity Press:
Downers Grove, IL 2003) page 135.
2 While there is a proper distinction between a statement and a proposition these two terms will be used
interchangeably in this article.
3 Note: There is an intentional relation between the proposition (in this case, “Great Britain is an ally of the
U.S.”) and the fact of the matter (the state of affairs that obtains, namely, that Great Britain is an ally of the U.S.).
That is, the fact of Great Britain being an ally of the U.S. is the “intention” or “of-ness” that the proposition has.
4 Ibid, Moreland.
5 At this point one may bring up counterfactuals. Since counterfactuals do not obtain, it may be argued,
this brief definition is inadequate. Two things may be said in response. First, while this basic definition does not
or would obtain.” Second, since there is no causal relation between the proposition and state of affairs (instead,
there is the intentional relation), the state of affairs that would obtain can serve as the truth-maker even though these
states of affairs are non-existent. The propositions in question are true because of what would happen similar to
propositions of the past being true based on what did happen, even though such states of affairs do not obtain either.