|
Perhaps the most controversial aspect to Christianity is its claim to exclusive Truth. It is a claim that dates back to Jesus, but is it warranted?
Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who crucified Jesus, is known for one of the famous questions in all of history: "What is truth"?
If the New Testament Gospel manuscripts are any indication, Jesus had supplied that answer repeatedly during his ministry. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life," Jesus had declared to his disciples (John 14:6), and his entire ministry, in fact, was committed to a purpose that presumed his authority to define and proclaim it.
Christianity v. Relativism
Jesus' claims to certainty and absolute authority contrast with the prevailing mainstream culture today, which increasingly eschews claims of certitude in connection with religion and morality.
As the philosopher Frederich Nietzsche famously declared: "You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist."
Of course, without moral certainty, society has little in the way of an external, substantive basis to judge child molesters, rapists, identity thieves, or greedy corporate embezzlers. We are instead left with conflicting and ambiguous standards of utility and tolerance.
But this itself is somewhat of a utilitarian argument for "Truth." And it has done little to bring the masses around.
Relativism Examined
According to the Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy, relativism asserts that a conceptual thing (belief, value, beauty, etc.) is "relative to some particular framework or standpoint" and that no such standpoint or framework is "uniquely privileged" over another.
This, of course, puts Jesus Christ and his followers on a collision course with relativists. Indications are, however, that the relativists are winning in today's culture wars. In fact, relativism is making inroads with those who otherwise claim to be "Christian."
According to the Barna Research Group, a 2002 survey showed that approximately 64% of American adults believe truth is relative to one's circumstances or situation. Only a third of the respondents cited agreement with the concept of "absolute truth." According to Barna, these numbers include self-described Christians.
Popular though it may be, relativism, as well as skepticism, falls short in credibly confronting some fundamental challenges to its philosophical integrity. The most powerful challenge stems from life itself. Quite simply, relativism cannot be logically lived out.
"An individual will live his or her life almost entirely on a nonrelativistic true-false basis," writes Winfried Corduan, a religion and philosophy professor at Indiana's Taylor University. "Either I missed the bus, or I didn't miss the bus. Either this is Friday, or it is not Friday. Either I have eaten lunch, or I have not eaten lunch."
No sane person approaches life in a purely relativistic sense. If you apply for a job, you will either be hired or you won't. If you get the word that the job went to someone else, and yet show up for the job, expecting an office and a paycheck, what do you think will happen? When your would-be boss reminds you that the job went to another candidate, are you going to say: "Well, that's your truth. My reality is somewhat different."
As Professor Corduan observes, "Relativism only seems to pop up at certain crucial moments, usually in the sphere of morality and religion."
The Real Challenge to Knowing Truth
It's one thing to disprove relativism, but it's another to prove Christianity. And this is where skepticism comes into play.
Closely related to relativism, philosophical skepticism is a school of thought that critically questions whether one can ever really possess true knowledge.
While many skeptics believe that some knowledge can be reached, for most, the quest for truth and knowledge is a never-ending one - and a very personal one. Skeptics thus contend that anyone making exclusive, universal truth claims (as Christians do) should be considered suspect.
Here, a distinction is necessary. A true skeptic is one who argues that truth and knowledge, in their purest and fullest sense, are forever elusive. This is not the same as one who suspends judgment temporarily until further information becomes available.
Of course, suspension of judgment is often indefinite in our society, given the degree of apathy we see around us. Apathy is perhaps the greatest challenge, not only for Christianity but other religions as well. It was no different in the Roman world, when the emperors used entertainment to appease and distract the people, while they continued in their corrupt and tyrannical ways.
The significant thing about Pilate's question is that, according to the Gospel of John, he didn't stick around to hear an answer. And this is the case with most people today. They glide through life, refusing to confront truth claims generally, let alone those of Christianity, preferring ignorance to knowledge.
Is it because they are afraid of what they might uncover?
The copyright of the article What is Truth? in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish What is Truth? in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Sep 20, 2006 7:10 PM
Pink
:
. <i>"Of course, without moral certainty, society has little in the way of an external, substantive basis to judge child molesters, rapists, identity thieves, or greedy corporate embezzlers. We are instead left with conflicting and ambiguous standards of utility and tolerance."</i> . What makes you think this is an accurate statement? Moral certainty is relative to the time and place when and where it exists. It seems to me you're making some bodacious claims in your paper. On what proof do you base them? . .
Sep 21, 2006 10:26 AM
Hawknut
:
. <i>On what proof do you base them?</i> . Do Baptist pastors in Ohio need to have proof? (wink) .
Sep 21, 2006 4:42 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
I think the last time I heard that word was when I watched Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. :-)
I'm really only trying to introduce the debate over Truth in this article. Obviously, there are a range of questions that can only be addressed in subsequent postings.
For now, I'll appeal to logic.
If you determine something to be "wrong," that must be done in the context of something being identified as "right."
For example, in the NFL, if someone is guilty of "encroachment," he is guilty of crossing the line of scrimmage - that means the "line of scrimmage" must be known and the RULE of not crossing the line of scrimmage must be clearly identified. Otherwise, there is no transgression.
My point is simply to show that there must be SOME kind of an external, objective standard to evaluate right from wrong.
If you surrender such an external standard and resort to something that is (as you put it) 'relative to the time and place when and where it exists,' then you have a subjective standard.
In the world of subjectivity, everything ultimately boils down to opinions.
Sep 21, 2006 4:45 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
Pink101 asks if Baptist pastors need "proof."
Answer: It helps, but in the absence of it....we can always just call for a cookout. Baptists love to eat. :-)
Sep 22, 2006 10:36 AM
Pink
:
. I'm not the one who made that statement about Baptist pastors needing "proof"; but, I was raised in a Baptist environment. My family was primarily instrumental in bringing Fundamentalism to Northeastern Michigan. So, I know all about the idea of church potlucks and pikniks. I've had some wonderful times at those events. In fact, I met my childhood sweet heart at a potluck dinner given in honor of my older sister's return from her maiden missionary stint in Mexico. The young and beautiful redhead is now my mature and beautiful wife to whom I've been married for over 50 years. . But, you posted, <i>"For now, I'll appeal to logic. . If you determine something to be "wrong," that must be done in the context of something being identified as "right." . For example, in the NFL, if someone is guilty of 'encroachment,' he is guilty of crossing the line of scrimmage - that means the 'line of scrimmage' must be known and the RULE of not crossing the line of scrimmage must be clearly identified. Otherwise, there is no transgression. . My point is simply to show that there must be SOME kind of an external, objective standard to evaluate right from wrong. . If you surrender such an external standard and resort to something that is (as you put it) 'relative to the time and place when and where it exists,' then you have a subjective standard."</i> . That's correct. That's what you did with your NFL example; used a subjective standard to explain your logic. It's what is going on when our national leadership tells us that the reason our enemies want to destroy us is that they hate our way of life. What!, do we love their way of life? . You brought up "relativism" as a false view of reality in your article that this thread is about. I'm taking exception to that point as your views are, in and of themselves, relative to the views others hold. Reality is all about relationships. I am relative to my wife as she is to me. The idea of relativism is a point that cannot be ignored. We can complain about how it works; but, we cannot ignore that it does work. . I enjoyed reading your article. .
Sep 22, 2006 1:42 PM
Hawknut
:
. <i>we can always just call for a cookout.</i> . Look for proof in Aunt Esther's pudding, and in Uncle Luke's cocktail. (Ex-Catholics like to eat ~and~ drink. :) )
Oct 2, 2006 1:11 AM
Oliver Dusenbury
:
. One thing for sure, hawknut. . The creator of the entire universe would never call for the killing of children, ever. . Since the LORD GOD of the Bible did, it is surely not any part of "The Truth". . Funny that the punishments for any crime in the Bible are death, usually by stoning. . Let us stone this LORD GOD to death before we even dare to let a word like "truth" pass our tongue.
Oct 2, 2006 8:29 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Here's essentially your argument, HeadZenCards, structured as a syllogism...
1.The creator of the universe would never order the killing of children.
2. The God of the Bible (which the Bible holds to be the creator of the universe) did order the killing of children.
3. Therefore, there is no creator of the universe.
Does anyone other than me see any problems with this deductive reasoning?
Oct 2, 2006 5:57 PM
Pink
:
. If we draw a Ven diagram of logic, his conclusion is outside the diagram and, therefore, faulty. # 3 has nothing to do with #1 or #2. . Number three, in order to logical, would have to state "The God of the Bible is not the crator of the universe". . Clean up your act, Ollie. .
Oct 4, 2006 6:24 PM
Kim Jeremy Sheil
:
IMO, truth is what is right or correct, not what someone says is right or correct.
Truth cannot be contradicted, nor corrupted, it must always remain true.
Oct 15, 2006 2:43 PM
Boanerges
:
<i>Truth cannot be contradicted, nor corrupted, it must always remain true</i>
Exactly!!! Once a person wakes up to this "truth" then I believe they are on the right path to knowing God.....
Truth does not lie or contradict. If anything is offered as such, reject it as false and move forward (or even, prove it wrong)....
Example of how truth works:
Mr know it all: "absolute truth can never be known"...
#1 - the statement contradicts in many ways. a) one has to know all truth to make such a statement. Result: opposes the very premise that is being presented (toss it aside as non-truth and move forward) b) ask "Mr Know it all" if his/her statement is "absolutely true" and watch them squirm.... c) In fact, their answer alone will verify that at least to them, one absolute exists!!! Yet they will try to wriggle their way out and claim word twisting, or something silly like that. If they were honest with themselves, they will realize their error and change their beliefs based upon [what is] true. If they do not, then it shows they willfully reject that which is clearly seen. Sadly, many do this with eternal consequenses, through subborn ignorance (usually based on their emotions and feelings only)...
#2) if NO truth existed at all, the very statement is in itself, ONE truth... So.. NO TRUTH <b>cannot</b> be true.. (logic)
Just a few examples among many more that can be offered. For example, we can present many absolutes, verifying absolutely, that absolutes exist. If that is true.. well then... we have an excellent case to present... :)
The question to ask is: "<b>[what is] the absolute truth</b>"..
Oct 15, 2006 6:54 PM
Pink
:
. <i>"Truth cannot be contradicted, nor corrupted, it must always remain true. "</i> . True enough, Kim. True enough. . No one can question that definition of truth. As an artistic person, do you have any particular examples of it that you can share with us? . Also, have you considered that truth can exist in different forms? Is truth timeless, is it forever? As conditions change can the truth that is presented evolve to be something different than it was? For seventy-four years the truth was that I hadn't reached the age of 75. But, the truth is, at this time, that I have reached the age of 75. What was true is no longer true. What wasn't true, is now true. . Do those questions belong in the context of your statement about truth? .
Oct 15, 2006 8:51 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
Given pink's comments, I do see a red flag with the last clause of Kim's definition: "...it must always remain true."
There are truth propositions that are factual / accurate for a given period of time, and then expire or are modified.
For example, until the early 1900s, U.S. senators were elected by state legislatures and not by popular vote. That was the truth of the 1800s, but not of the 20th century or, until now, the 21st century.
Interesting.
Oct 16, 2006 7:42 AM
Pink
:
. Even a died in the wool dispensationalist has to agree that truth changes over time. . :) . Am I wrong about the died in the woolies? .
Oct 16, 2006 8:16 AM
Pink
:
. Kim? .
Oct 16, 2006 4:53 PM
Kim Jeremy Sheil
:
<i>No one can question that definition of truth.</i>
Well, that is true. The definition of the word "truth" is like the definition of the word "the": really hard to explain. It's like trying to describe the colour blue to a man who was born blind.
Oct 16, 2006 4:54 PM
Kim Jeremy Sheil
:
Really awesome.
If you ask me the absolute truth is what can be found in God's Word.
Oct 16, 2006 4:55 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
I suppose the word "truth" needs a qualifier on it. Are we talking about "scientific" truth, "moral" truth, "historical" truth, etc?
Oct 16, 2006 6:25 PM
Pink
:
. I think you're right. . Truth exists in all kinds of ways. But, the truth about truth is that it is what it is. It is what is being revealed to us in an ontological way. The truth sets us free from our most profoundly held beliefs. And, that hurts. .
Oct 16, 2006 6:31 PM
Boanerges
:
<i>I suppose the word "truth" needs a qualifier on it. Are we talking about "scientific" truth, "moral" truth, "historical" truth, etc?</i>
Strictly speaking, this being a "religious" discussion site, I believe we are referring to TRUTH.... as in spiritual truth. i.e I am the way, the truth and the life... <b>no man cometh unto the Father, but by me</b>
With that in mind: yes, it is true that my house WAS blue 10 years ago. Today, obviously this is not true considering I have painted it white. However, I cannot see how this type of "truth" comparison means anything to anyone when discussing, truth...
Oct 16, 2006 6:35 PM
Boanerges
:
<i>If you ask me the absolute truth is what can be found in God's Word.</i>
:) and I absolutely agree with you, Kim... You're a wise young man. What you know now at your age, is so far ahead of me when I was at that age!!!
There will times that [your faith] will be tested (such as from people like Headzen)... Paul's faith was tested, so was Job's, and Peter's, etc. God WILL test all His children. I believe that you, like them, will prove faithful, based upon the simple fact that you have understood truth (through the mind) and allowed God to enter your heart. And in the heart is where the change takes place.... When we invite God into our heart, then it is He that will perform the work.... we have to be at least, willing!.. (Romans:12:2, Ephesians:4:23, Titus:3:5)
Phillipians 1:6: <b>Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:</b>
I did not know all that, Kim, until I was about 38.... So you are well ahead of me, in comparison... :)
Oct 19, 2006 1:13 AM
Kim Jeremy Sheil
:
Thanks for that. I don't believe Oliver is trying to test our faith, rather he is trying to ridicule us into accepting his way of life. He comes here to shoot down God. He asks us to prove him wrong, but has already decided to reject the proof before it comes, closing his mind to it.
You could say he wants facts, not truth. He has proven to us all that truth cannot be contradicted by trying to contradict truth and failing at it. If someone as intelligent as Oliver cannot contradict truth, no one can.
Nov 21, 2006 10:38 AM
Oliver Dusenbury
:
A deductive reasoner who would lead us to believe that there is a creator of the universe would first define what they mean by "creator" and "universe".
Since you are more comfortable distorting other peoples ideas, I will meet you where you are, show you your weakness, and invite you to common ground.
"1. The creator of the universe would never order the killing of children."
To me and any mother, even yours I am assuming, this makes sense.
Admittedly, to one believes in Jesus, this statement is inflammatory.
"2. The God of the Bible (which the Bible holds to be the creator of the universe) did order the killing of children."
Not only that but if the Bible is to believed, He would not even hear the faint din of your two fingers typing were it not that His very own only son was murdered horribly.
"3. Therefore, there is no creator of the universe.
Does anyone other than me see any problems with this deductive reasoning?"
The God of the Bible was not the creator of the universe because HE NEVER EXISTED, not because the Bible said that the LORD GOD demanded his followers to murder children.
However, once the murder of children becomes just another flag to salute, the believer is set up to accept whatever it takes to support the power structure that keeps imaginative scribes fed and happy.
Are you comfortable having an internal relationship with a child murderer and worshiping the scribes who created such demonic fiction?
If you are not relaxed within that kind of evil, you are out here with the rest of us illogical finders of truth with no problems that letting go of nonsense will not solve.
Nov 26, 2006 4:54 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
I believe that Timothy McVeigh's actions in bombing the Murrah building in Oklahama City were reprehensible and evil. This, however, does NOT mean that I reject Timothy McVeigh's existence. (I understand that he currently does not "exist" in that he was executed, but he still existed at one point - so my point remains).
There are many people in prison today who have committed horrific crimes. They exist. The nature of their crimes does not speak to their existence.
Likewise, if you want to condemn the God of the OT for murdering children, that is a debate SEPARATE FROM whether or not there is a divine creator of the universe.
Moreover, there are many people that reject the accuracy of the Old Testament and yet still believe there's a divine Creator. They would be quite mystified by your argument.
The history of ancient Israel has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER (logically speaking) on whether or not a divine Creator exists. None. Zippo.
That is the point I'm making.
If you want to debate the so-called atrocities of the Bible, we can do that. But, right now, I'm trying to show that those have no bearing on whether or not God exists.
May 25, 2008 7:26 AM
Pink
:
Americans have long since been divided over the ways we consider any particular thing to be true or not. . The division is put in relief during the early Puritan days when the Enlightenment brought new ideas to bear on the thinking of our fore bearers and it shows up at Harvard during the eighteenth century when Cartesian thought entered on the scene. . Prior to that period, truth was given by way of some authority and ascertained by way of the rules of logic. . America is pretty well divided by the two methods of seeking truth; (1) one starts out already thinking it knows truth as it came from some authority and the (2) other operates on the primacy of reason with a strong reverence for nature (experiment and observation). . The division is noticeable in our discussions here at this site. .
25 Comments
|