What is Truth?

Communication is the basis of discovering truth between individuals. Without some form of communication and record-keeping, science itself would never have developed. In this development of communication through speaking and writing, there has always been an underlying foundation that unified all human thought. The idea that there was an objective truth, and that it can be known. The concept of antithesis, that "A is A and if you have A, it is not non-A," has been the rock that reason and discovery of truth were based on (Francis A. Schaeffer, Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy, Pg 6).

If one person has a different definition of truth, then communication between views completely crumbles. Definitions are important, and thus having an agreed-upon definition of truth also aids us in conversing about what is true between two differing opinions.

The Nature of Truth

Modern culture mainly focuses on one side of the coin of truth, namely, subjective truth. It takes this idea of truth claims grounded in a person's preferences and applies it to all areas of life. But this view is sorely mistaken, because there are two natures of truth, subjective claims being one of them. The idea of truth can be reduced to two categories: subjective truth and objective truth.

A Practical Example of Subjective Truth

You get a call from your buddies, and they want to go out to get donuts from Krispy Kreme. You oblige and tag along, and while there, you get into a discussion about which donut flavor is the best. Can you make an actual objective case that your favorite donut is the all-time best donut? In this case, a subject is holding a truth claim grounded in himself, a subject. Thus, he is making a subjective truth claim: the validity of the claim is grounded in the personal preferences of the subject. This is an example of a subjective truth claim, which is grounded in subjects and will be different for everyone.

A Practical Example of Objective Truth

Say you go to the doctor and you are diagnosed with leukemia or testicular cancer. The doctor informs you that the only cure available for you is to undergo chemotherapy. But you don't wanna go through the treatment and say, "I don't need that, I think Advil will work better as a cure!", is the claim of a cure to your illness grounded in your opinion? Does your belief that Advil is the cure for cancer make it work as a cure for cancer? The claim of the best cancer treatment is not grounded in a person's personal preferences and beliefs; it is grounded in the objective of chemotherapy.

Another example could be you get a call from your best friend, and he informs you that he just bought a brand new Honda CR-V that's black. The claim that he is making is not grounded in a subject; the claim that his car is black is grounded in the object of his car, an entity separate from subjects. The claim is grounded in an object, which makes it an objective truth claim. If there were no objective truth, then we would all be dead. It's impossible to fully live out a subjective, relative truth-based worldview; people will always fall into an objective system to carry out anything meaningful. Truth is not grounded in subjects.

Responses to Objective Truth

When you establish the fact that there is truth grounded in objects, a relativist will usually respond with an argument similar to the ones in the following section. Most of these claims are circular and contradictory, and it is very important to have the ability to identify when someone is making these fallacies and to correct them when necessary. Our culture is so affected by many different philosophical theories of truth that have all been around for a very long time, and all have been proven to be invalid theories of truth. Because of this effect, many people will respond with slogans that have been thrown around since the dawn of these very theories, many of them not aware of the logical incoherence of the defenses. So, what do proponents of relative truth say in defense of their position?

"Objective Truth Simply Doesn't Exist"

Proponents of relative truth love to say that there is no objective truth, sometimes completely ignoring any examples of objective truth you may provide. Another rephrasing of this same idea is that "All truth is relative." Essentially claiming that truth is relative, that "my lived experience is different than yours, so my truth is different." As well as,

"I have my truth, and you have your truth.", "Well, thats just what you think, I believe...", "Believe only what you decide is true."

But this is a self-refuting statement. In order to believe there is no objective truth, you must reject the claim that there is no objective truth because the claim claims to be the only objective truth apart from opinion. It contradicts itself: it's not logically valid. If it's objectively true that there is no objective truth, then the objective truth that there is no objective truth is not objectively true and is thus a wrong statement under its own rules. To affirm it, you must break its own rules. Another response someone may bring up is along the lines of, "Okay, well, there may be an objective truth, but nobody knows it objectively with any certainty."

"Objective Truth Cannot be Discovered or Known"

People who use this claim are usually also saying that you are arrogant for even thinking you know something that's true, and often, their only supporting argument for this is that other people can form different opinions. They claim that objective truth is oppressive and restricts people's freedom, but is living in delusion truly freedom?

“Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.” (Andre Gide, So Be It (Ainsi soit-il), 1960)

If nobody knows the truth, then how can anybody say that what they believe is true, or that something is objectively wrong by being "oppressive"? If there is no objective truth, then nothing is objectively wrong, and thus, asserting one's truth as objective cannot be wrong under this very view of objective agnosticism. Do you see how nobody can truly live in a relativistic worldview? Worse yet, this is also another self-refuting claim. It says that no objective truth can be known, while being the only objective truth that can be known, mainly that there is none to be known. It makes no sense!

"You're Being Intolerant": Tolerance is Believing All People's Opinions are Equally True

Many a time, someone may say that you're being intolerant by not accepting and agreeing with differing views, but this claim makes zero sense; however, I can see where it comes from. Popular culture uses emotional and moral rhetoric to more or less guilt-trip a person into accepting a belief that is untrue. A good example of this is the wide use of the term "tolerance".

Western culture has redefined tolerance to mean that "all views have equal merit and no one view is better or more true than another". Everyone must accept everyone else's view.

"If you don't accept my view, you're being intolerant!"

But, again, this is a self-refuting claim that contradicts itself. One must accept all views as equally valid, but some views see other views as less true, and have differing beliefs, and those types of views are deemed as intolerant. But how can all views be equal except those that don't see others as equally true, if again, all views are equally meritable? How can you see all views and opinions as equal but reject one view? Wouldn't that make you intolerant! Indeed, you must break the rules of "tolerance" in order to affirm the rules of "tolerance". Well, if this modern redefinition makes no logical sense, what does tolerance mean?

Tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude towards those opinions, positions, preferences, people, and worldviews that differ from one's own. In order to express tolerance, a disagreement must be present. How do you tolerate those with whom you agree? Isn't that just ignoring tolerance entirely? There must also be a difference between the two positions. In order to be tolerant, disagreement and differences are also not surrendered to agreement. This is because tolerance is a permissive agreement of difference; there cannot be hate involved towards a person, only the ideas involved. So by simply disagreeing with someone's ideas, it does not immediately mean they hate you or look down upon you. We are called to hate wrong and evil ideas as Christians, but to love the person and attempt to inform them of their wrong ideas. Informing someone that they are wrong is not hate, nor does it express it, because people's identities are not grounded in their opinions and feelings. People are more than opinions. If you truly loved people, you would want the best for them, and the best for them is to know what is real.

Part of loving people is permission for difference, but respectful conversations about those differences to find truth. But how can we find truth if we have no definition of it? What is the truth? Can we find a theory of truth that works all the time, applied to all situations and areas of life?

What is Truth? A Survey of Truth Theories

If we want to converse about differences in opinion, we must have an agreed-upon definition of truth. If we were to decide which view is true, then truth must be grounded in reality and not mere opinion. An example would be that you don't believe your friend's new Honda CR-V is actually black. This view can be proven by observing the object of the car in reality. So what exactly is truth? First, let's look at some alternative theories of truth that have been made.

Truth is Whatever We Can Discover With Our Senses (Empirical Truth Theory)

This theory of truth states that "I can only believe what can be discovered through science" and originated in the 17th century with people like Francis Bacon and has been popularized into a widely held form of scientism, naturalism, or empiricism.

"Science is the only real path to truth."

But this theory is self-refuting. Believing that only what science can discover is truth cannot itself be proven by science. This is an a priori philosophical view that is established before performing science. You held this position before doing science, and moreover, the scientific foundation is the rational and logical, but can only be proven by using reason and logic under this theory of truth. It is a self-refuting statement to think science is the only avenue to truth.

Truth is Whatever Works (Pragmatic Truth Theory)

Pragmatic Truth theory originated in the 1870s with the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce in his article titled "How to Make Our Ideas Clear". This theory states that the truth is whatever can be demonstrated to work for whatever application is of interest. We can observe and test a cure for a disease, and the truth of what the cure is will be whatever drug works. But does this theory apply to all areas of life? Have you ever told a small or large lie that made a situation work out for the better? Maybe your girlfriend tells you that a weird, fuzzy, and scratchy turtle neck looks great on you just to get you out of the house and to dinner with her family on time; or maybe you blamed a mess on the dog, and that worked to get you out of trouble; or you told your grandfather that those white hairs are barely visible and that he looks as good as he did in his 30s (despite the hairs being visible from a football field away).

Successful lies do exist, and just because a statement works, it doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

Truth is What I Feel (Emotivist Truth Theory)

This last theory I will mention started in the early 20th century by figures such as A. J. Ayer and Charles L. Stevenson, and is the most popular and widely held view today. It states that the truth is whatever you feel is true based on your life experience. But this view has some obvious issues.

Something about stinkbugs flying makes me terrified of them. Even though I know they are harmless! Even looking at this picture makes me uncomfortable.

First, every person has at least one irrational fear; we all exhibit a fear that we have no good reason for holding. Personally, I am terrified of stinkbugs; something about the way they fly just triggers a primal fear inside of me, and I turn into an 8-year-old girl. Some people are afraid of daddy long-legs, despite them being harmless; others may be scared of the smallest amount of water, or just being wet entirely; some people are afraid of small holes. The point is that we all have many fears that we have no real reason to hold, but we hold them anyway. They are not true fears.

There are also plenty of truth matters that have nothing to do with what we feel. The color of your friend's CR-V has no basis in what you feel in the moment. Also, the truth matter of whether duct tape is adhesive, or if a drink coaster protects a table top from water damage, etc., have no grounding in what your preferences are about them. These truths will be the same for everybody, despite their feelings about them. Another issue is about a person's life experience. What if somebody's life experience leads them to a false belief? Flat-earthers mainly believe what they do based on what they experience by looking at the sky and horizon, despite never having left the troposphere or looked at complex mathematics and physics. Or what if someone has a bad experience with a specific person, but then extrapolates that experience to mean all people are bad? A good modern example of this is extremist feminists, who believe that all men are terrible solely based on the handful of experiences they've had with bad men.

Life experience and feelings do not determine what is true.

Truth is Those Beliefs That a Person Holds That Correspond to What Really Is In Reality (Correspondence Truth Theory)

This theory of truth is the actual definition of truth. A theory of truth that applies to all areas of life is those beliefs that we hold that have a one-to-one correspondence to what really is in reality. Essentially, those truth claims that may initially be subjective, that we hold, that are confirmed by the objects they are grounded in, in reality. An example of this is harkening back to the CR-V example above. You end the call with your buddy, still in disbelief that his car is actually black. You think he would have bought a blue car, because he has a history of playing jokes on you, and his favorite car color is blue. So you drive over to his house, and there is a blue Honda CR-V, and he's standing in the driveway holding the keys, laughing.

What you believed about the car did turn out to be true. What you believed about the car had a one-to-one correspondence to what the car actually was, which made your opinion true. It is the correspondence between an opinion and what really is that decides what is actually true. Therefore, truth is a relationship between what you believe and what really is.

Conclusion

So, if you are in a disagreement with someone, and decide to talk through the differences. The goal should be to find those beliefs held between the two sides that correspond to what really is. Thus, a persons life expereinces may lead them to truth, only if it leads them to what really is; and a person's feelings may lead them to truth, only if it corresponds to what's in reality; and whatever works may turn out to be true, only if it corresponds with what really is true, and is not a utalilitarian lie. So, truth is not feeling; it is not relative; it is that which corresponds to reality. And this is where the basis for the Christian defense begins, in the definition of what truth really is.

Truth does not originate from people, and aiming at some "tolerance" that every view is equal completely removes any basis for meaningful conversation. This leads people into a form of close-mindedness where only their group stances can be true, even if they cannot be proven, or worse, even if they turn out to be false. It also leads to an antagonistic, victim mindset where anyone who disagrees with what you believe is somehow attacking you, or has sinister ulterior motives for expressing disagreement. It ultimately is a result of a Marxist worldview, but also has heavy cult characteristics, which is what modern culture does to people; it brainwashes them into an irrational, relativistic worldview, a meaningless, chaotic society where everyone does that which is considered right in his or her own eyes. May God bless you. Amen.

"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17:6)