What is Truth?

Answering Pontius Pilate's Famous Question

© Brian Tubbs

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? 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.
Page:
25 Comments

Post this Article to facebook Add this Article to del.icio.us! Digg this Article furl this Article Add this Article to Reddit Add this Article to Technorati Add this Article to Newsvine Add this Article to Windows Live Add this Article to Yahoo Add this Article to StumbleUpon Add this Article to BlinkLists Add this Article to Spurl Add this Article to Google Add this Article to Ask Add this Article to Squidoo