I have been having an email conversation with an individual regarding Christianity and my opinions regarding my belief in the scriptures; The Word of God as truth. So then came the question, "What is truth?"It’s a very simple question. Of course, answering it isn't so simple. We can offer definitions like, "Truth is that which conforms to reality, fact, or actuality." But this definition is not complete because its definition is open to interpretation and can be used in a wide variety of ways. What is reality? What is fact? What is actuality? How does perception affect truth? We can spend all day asking one question after the other which leads to another and we end up getting half an answer. It’s like throwing a ball against a wall. It must get half way there, and then half way of the remaining distance, and then half of that distance, and so on. But, an infinite number of halves in this scenario never make a whole.
The ball-against-the-wall scenario simply illustrates that defining and redefining things as we try to approach a goal and actually prevents us from getting to that goal. This is what philosophy does sometimes as it seeks to examine truth. It sometimes clouds issues so much, that nothing can be known for sure.
But, even though it is true that an infinite number of halves do not equal a whole, we can "prove" that it does by simply throwing a ball at a wall and watching it bounce off. Trust me I checked out my theory with a college math professor I have coffee with once in a while, and he claims the ½ exercise it is a mathematical truth. The problem with my inquisitive friend is that the answers aren’t always lock step with just the “truth” per se, but in its application. The problem applied to asking the ultimate question, “So what is Truth,” becomes an exercise in verbal gymnastics.
"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ," (Col 2:8 ).
In order for truth to be defined properly, it would have to be a factual and logical. Simply put, it would have to be true. So let me do a little twisting of your noodle by addressing what truth is not. Truth is not error. Truth is not self-contradictory. Truth is not deception. Yes, I know, I am way ahead of you, it could be true that someone is being deceptive, but the deception itself isn't truth.
My friend looks at things as relative to the next, all points of view are equally valid and all truth is relative to the individual. If it works for you then it must be “truth.” If this were true, then it would seem that this is the only truth relativism would have to offer. But, the problem with this kind of thinking, as it is in reality, relativism isn't true for the following basic reason. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? 1) If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. 2) If you say yes, then relativism is false. Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that truth is not self-contradictory.
So here’s the deal. If there is such a thing as truth, then we should be able to find it. If truth cannot be known, then it probably doesn't exist. But, it does exist. For example, we know it is a true statement that you are reading my blog.
Is there such a thing as something that is always true all the time? Yes absolutely. For example, I wrote about Stephen Hawking who claimed that gravity not God started the universe. Basically, I wrote that the “universe cannot bring itself into existence." This is an absolutely true statement. In order for something to bring itself into existence, it would have to exist in order to be able to perform an action. But if it already existed, then it isn't possible to bring itself into existence since it already exists. Likewise, if it does not exist then it has no ability to perform any creative action since it didn't exist in the first place. Therefore, "Something cannot bring itself into existence," is an absolute truth.
This is a truth found in logic, but there are truths that are not logical by nature. It is true that I love my wife... a lot. This isn't logically provable via gravitational influences and formulas and logic paradigms, but it is true. So I can say that truth conforms and affirms reality and/or logic.
Is this what relativism does? Does relativism confirm to reality and logic? Actually, yes - relatively speaking. Is there an absolute right or wrong way regarding which side of your head you should part your hair, if you part it at all? So to answer my friend, there are relative "truths" that are different for different people. But, these are relativistic by nature. As an example; people drive on the right side of the street in America and on the left in England. I like to watch science fiction and not musicals. Some may say snow is better than rain, etc. These things are relative to culture, individuals, preferences…not God.
It boils down to this, if there is such a thing as truth apart from cultural and personal preferences, we must acknowledge that we by nature are looking for something greater than ourselves, something that transcends culture and individual inclinations. To do this is to look beyond ourselves and outside of ourselves. In essence, it means we are looking for God. God would be truth, the absolute and true essence of being and reality who is the author of all truth. If you are interested in truth beyond yourself, then you must look to God.
"But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him." (John 4:23)
For the Christian, the ultimate expression of truth is found in the Bible, in Jesus who said,
"I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:16)
Of course, most philosophers and skeptics will dismiss His claim, but for the Christian, He is the mainstay of hope, security, and guidance. Jesus, who walked on water, claimed to be divine, rose from the dead, and said that He was the truth and the originator of truth. If Jesus is wrong, then we should ignore Him. But, if He is right, then it is true that we should listen to Him.
The eyewitnesses wrote what they saw. They were with Him. They watched Him perform many miracles, heal the sick, calm a storm with a command, and even rise from the dead. Either you believe or dismiss these claims. If you dismiss them, that is your prerogative. But, if you accept them, then you are faced with decisions to make about Jesus. What will you believe about Him? What will you decide about Him? Is He true? Is what He said true?
Truth always conforms to reality. The truth is, Jesus performed many miracles and rose from the dead. So my friend is asking the wrong queston. The truth isn't about "what", it's about "who."
Be grounded in reality,
Bishop Ian
