WHAT IS TRUTH?
1). INTRODUCTION
The Jews had handed over Jesus to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate because they wanted the Roman method of execution (crucifixion) presuming it would prove He could not have been the Messiah by reason of Deuteronomy 21:23. Pilate had seen it to be for a different reason: because of envy (Mark 15:10).
“WHAT IS TRUTH?” said Pilate. After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, “I find no grounds for charging Him” (John 18:38 HCSB)
Pilate posed this rhetorical question in mocking response to Jesus statement:
“You are a king then?” Pilate asked. “You say that I’m a king,” Jesus replied. “I was born for this, and I have come into the world for this: TO TESTIFY TO THE TRUTH. EVERYONE WHO IS OF THE TRUTH LISTENS TO MY VOICE” (John 18:37 HCSB).
2). HOW DO WE RECOGNISE TRUTH?
It’s hard to imagine a more important question that we can face in life. Surely no free thinking person is uninterested in truth or wants to live apart from the truth. Everyone wants a sound basis for our world view. We all yearn to be told the truth and not lied to. It’s a basic human need. It satisfies our desire for recognition and self validation, for our security, for satisfaction of intellectual curiosity, and for our acceptance and self esteem. Instinctively we appreciate honesty and despise deceit and falsehood.
Our closest relationships are founded on mutual respect, trust, loyalty and faithfulness. Without honesty and truthfulness it is impossible to sustain long term relationships in any sphere of life.
Our paradigm of moral values and judicial system seek to uphold the truth in administering the rule of law. Witness testimony is validated by integrity and honesty. Deliberate dishonesty is contempt of court and an offence in its own right. Every witness takes the stand under oath to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In countries with a Judeo-Christian heritage, for centuries taking the witness stand under oath required placing one’s right hand upon the Holy Bible and swearing by the help of God to tell only the truth. We shall return to these emblems later.
Are there any objective tests that stand as a touchstone or yardstick for truth? Have there been any role models in history who stood on the truth and who have never been found wanting?
This Post is going to provide an answer and point the way to any truth seeking person.
3). A BASIC DEFINITION
# truth noun the quality or state of being true. “he had to accept the truth of her accusation”
synonyms: veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candour, honesty, genuineness;
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
noun: the truth
“tell me the truth”
synonyms: the fact of the matter, what actually/really happened, the case, so;
a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
plural noun: truths
“the emergence of scientific truths”
synonyms: fact, verity, certainty, certitude;
4). ABSOLUTE TRUTHS
Mathematical principles are founded on absolute truth. So are the rules of logic. Scientific experiments can establish the basis for things that are so certain they are not described as “theories” but as Laws. For example the Law of Gravity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Nobody challenges them.
The existence of transcendent absolute laws of logic are one of the five strands of circumstantial evidence for God’s existence based upon the following syllogism (see footnote):
(a) The laws of logic exist
i. The laws of logic are conceptual laws ii. The laws of logic are transcendent iii. The laws of logic pre-existed humans
(b) All conceptual laws reflect the mind of a law giver.
(c) The best and most reasonable explanation for the kind of mind necessary for the existence of the transcendent, objective, conceptual laws of logic is a transcendent, objective, eternal Being (God).
5). OBJECTIVE MORAL REALITY
The existence of objective moral reality is a proof for the existence of God. This is an absolute truth. Subjective morality in an amoral universe is like trying to live as the blind do in a world without colours. Some may argue that the fact that different cultures and religions have differing concepts of morality is evidence against objective morality. However, this is not the case.
We may argue about the basis for what constitutes moral behaviour but there is no escaping the reality that a perfect paradigm for behaviour exists. That is God’s standard.
For example, Christianity teaches that we should love our enemies, and as much as it is possible, we should live in peace with all men. Some branches of Islam believe that one should behead their enemies. Again, for this point, which view is correct is irrelevant; but in order for anyone to have a meaningful conversation about which view (if either) is correct, one must assume that a correct view does in fact exist. This requires an objective moral standard.
In short the existence of Objective Moral Truth (the Axiological argument) is another of the five strands of circumstantial evidence for God’s existence based on the following syllogism (see footnote):
(a) There is an objective (transcendent) moral law (b) Every law has a law giver (c) Therefore, there is an objective (transcendent) moral law giver (d) The best explanation for this objective (transcendent) law giver is God
6). JESUS AND THE TRUTH
Any quest for truth will sooner or later bring us to Jesus for the claims He made for Himself His faultless teaching and His unimpeachable lifestyle.
When under false arrest Jesus is brought before Pilate. In John’s account we find the following exchange:
“You are a king then?” Pilate asked. “You say that I’m a king,” Jesus replied. “I was born for this, and I have come into the world for this: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice.” “What is truth? ” said Pilate. After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, “I find no grounds for charging Him.” (John 18:37‭-‬38)
We can speculate what was meant by Pilate’s rhetorical question but I am inclined to regard his retort “What is truth?” was mockery, albeit mockery intended to defuse the situation. Pilate seems to be expressing the opinion that Christ is not to be taken seriously, but that’s a good thing when the charge against Christ is claiming to be the king of the Jews. From Pilate’s point of view, a “king” who, at his trial, philosophises about “truth” is no threat to Roman rule and can safely be acquitted. The irony of course is that Pilate would address the question “what is truth?” while conversing with and looking Truth itself right in the eye.
Jesus used the expression “I tell you the truth” or “Truly I tell you” on numerous occasions, some 70 times across the 4 Gospels.
This is not to be taken that whenever Jesus did not use the expression He was being less than truthful. Rather He was using a common expression of those days to emphasize the importance of what would be spoken immediately after that.
When Jesus says “I tell you the truth” the Greek word “amen” is being used. Amen can be translated as “I tell you the truth,” “verily,” and “so be it” or “let it be.”. We have difficulty translating it into English, and the reason it is so odd is because we don’t use those phrases colloquially today.
The nearest equivalent phrase in English would be “Let me be honest with you”. We don’t mean that we weren’t being honest and telling the truth before and are only now beginning to do so, but now my degree of openness is greater and I’m being more transparent than I would otherwise be in the course of conversations with acquaintances.
During the mock trials of Jesus, the contrast between the truth (righteousness) and lies (unrighteousness) was unmistakable. There stood Jesus, the Truth, being judged by those whose every action was bathed in lies. The Jewish leaders broke nearly every law designed to protect a defendant from wrongful conviction. They fervently worked to find any testimony that would incriminate Jesus, and in their frustration, they turned to false evidence brought forward by liars. But even that could not help them reach their goal. So they broke another law and forced Jesus to implicate Himself.
Once in front of Pilate, the Jewish leaders lied again. They convicted Jesus of blasphemy, but since they knew that wouldn’t be enough to coax Pilate to kill Jesus, they claimed Jesus was challenging Caesar and was breaking Roman law by encouraging the crowds to not pay taxes. Pilate quickly detected their superficial deception, and he never even addressed the charge.
Jesus the Righteous was being judged by the unrighteous. The sad fact is that the latter always persecutes the former. It’s why Cain killed Abel. The link between truth and righteousness and between falsehood and unrighteousness is demonstrated by a number of examples in the New Testament:
□ “For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.” (2 Thessalonians 2:11–12).
□ “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” (Romans 1:18).
□ “who will render to each person according to his deeds; to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.” (Romans 2:6–8).
□ “[love] does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth.” (1 Corinthians 13:5–6).
7). A FULLER DEFINITION OF TRUTH
In defining truth, it is first helpful to note what truth is not:
□ Truth is not simply whatever works. This is the philosophy of pragmatism – an ends-vs.-means-type approach. In reality, lies can appear to “work,” but they are still lies and not the truth.
□ Truth is not simply what is coherent or understandable. A group of people can get together and form a conspiracy based on a set of falsehoods where they all agree to tell the same false story, but it does not make their presentation true.
□ Truth is not what makes people feel good. Unfortunately, bad news can be true.
□ Truth is not what the majority says is true. Fifty-one percent of a group can reach a wrong conclusion.
□ Truth is not what is comprehensive. A lengthy, detailed presentation can still result in a false conclusion.
□ Truth is not defined by what is intended. Good intentions can still be wrong.
□ Truth is not HOW we know; truth is WHAT we know.
□ Truth is not simply what is believed. A lie believed is still a lie. Still less does a popular doctrine make it true, a fallacy commonly adopted by Muslims to assert Islam on the basis of its alleged popularity.
□ Truth is not what is publicly proved. A truth can be privately known (for example, the location of buried treasure).
The Greek word for “truth” is aletheia, which literally means to “un-hide” or “hiding nothing” It conveys the thought that truth is always there, always open and available for all to see, with nothing being hidden or obscured. The Hebrew word for “truth” is emeth, which means “firmness,” “constancy” and “duration.” Such a definition implies an everlasting substance and something that can be relied upon.
From a philosophical perspective, there are three simple ways to define truth:
1. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. 2. Truth is that which matches its object. 3. Truth is simply telling it like it is.
First, truth corresponds to reality or “what is.” It is real. Truth is also correspondent in nature. In other words, it matches its object and is known by its referent. For example, a teacher facing a class may say, “Now the only exit to this room is on the right.” For the class that may be facing the teacher, the exit door may be on their left, but it’s absolutely true that the door, for the professor, is on the right.
Truth also matches its object. It may be absolutely true that a certain person may need so many milligrams of a certain medication, but another person may need more or less of the same medication to produce the desired effect. This is not relative truth, but just an example of how truth must match its object. It would be wrong (and potentially dangerous) for a patient to request that their doctor give them an inappropriate amount of a particular medication, or to say that any medicine for their specific ailment will do.
In short, truth is simply telling it like it is; it is the way things really are, and any other viewpoint is wrong. A foundational principle of philosophy is being able to discern between truth and error, or as Thomas Aquinas observed, “It is the task of the philosopher to make distinctions.”
8). CHALLENGES TO TRUTH
Aquinas’ words are not very popular today. Making distinctions seems to be out of fashion in a postmodern era of relativism and pluralism. It is acceptable today to say, “This is true,” as long as it is not followed by, “and therefore that is false.” This is especially observable in matters of faith and religion where every belief system is supposed to be on equal footing where truth is concerned.
Thus when I quote Jesus words “I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” (John 14.6) I am on precarious ground because of its being an exclusive and absolute statement. Exclusive and absolute claims do not sit well in today’s pluralistic world of moral relativism. But when I make the logical inference that therefore Islam and every other religion must by definition be false I am guilty of making Islamophobic statements. Well then Jesus was Islamophobic and since He never told a lie there is something wrong with the concept and definition of Islamophobia not with the teaching of Jesus or those who uphold it.
There are a number of philosophies and worldviews that challenge the concept of truth, yet, when each is critically examined it turns out to be self-defeating in nature.
The philosophy of relativism says that all truth is relative and that there is no such thing as absolute truth. But one has to ask: is the claim “all truth is relative” a relative truth or an absolute truth? If it is a relative truth, then it really is meaningless; how do we know when and where it applies? If it is an absolute truth, then absolute truth exists. Moreover, the relativist betrays his own position when he states that the position of the absolutist is wrong – why can’t those who say absolute truth exists be correct too? In essence, when the relativist says, “There is no truth,” he is asking you not to believe him, and the best thing to do is follow his advice.
Those who follow the philosophy of skepticism simply doubt all truth. But is the skeptic skeptical of skepticism; does he doubt his own truth claim? If so, then why pay attention to skepticism? If not, then we can be sure of at least one thing (in other words, absolute truth exists)—skepticism, which, ironically, becomes absolute truth in that case. The agnostic says you can’t know the truth. Yet the mindset is self-defeating because it claims to know at least one truth: that you can’t know truth.
The disciples of postmodernism simply affirm no particular truth. The patron saint of postmodernism – Nietzsche – described truth like this: “What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms … truths are illusions … coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.” Ironically, although the postmodernist holds coins in his hand that are now “mere metal,” he affirms at least one absolute truth: the truth that no truth should be affirmed. Like the other worldviews, postmodernism is self-defeating and cannot stand up under its own claim.
A popular worldview is pluralism, which says that all truth claims are equally valid. Of course, this is impossible. Can two claims – one that says a woman is now pregnant and another that says she is not now pregnant – both be true at the same time? Pluralism unravels at the feet of the law of non-contradiction, which says that something cannot be both “A” and “Non-A” at the same time and in the same sense. As one philosopher quipped, anyone who believes that the law of non-contradiction is not true (and, by default, pluralism is true) should be beaten and burned until they admit that to be beaten and burned is not the same thing as to not be beaten and burned. Also, note that pluralism says that it is true and anything opposed to it is false, which is a claim that denies its own foundational tenet.
The spirit behind pluralism is an open-armed attitude of tolerance. However, pluralism confuses the idea of everyone having equal value with every truth claim being equally valid. More simply, all people may be equal, but not all truth claims are. Pluralism fails to understand the difference between opinion and truth, a distinction Mortimer Adler notes: “Pluralism is desirable and tolerable only in those areas that are matters of taste rather than matters of truth.”
9). THE OFFENSIVE NATURE OF TRUTH
When the concept of truth is maligned, it usually for one or more of the following reasons:
One common complaint against anyone claiming to have absolute truth in matters of faith and religion is that such a stance is “narrow-minded.” However, the critic fails to understand that, by nature, truth is narrow. Is a math teacher narrow-minded for holding to the belief that 2 + 2 only equals 4?
Another objection to truth is that it is arrogant to claim that someone is right and another person is wrong. However, returning to the above example with mathematics, is it arrogant for a math teacher to insist on only one right answer to an arithmetic problem? Or is it arrogant for a locksmith to state that only one key will open a locked door?
A third charge against those holding to absolute truth in matters of faith and religion is that such a position excludes people, rather than being inclusive. But such a complaint fails to understand that truth, by nature, excludes its opposite. All answers other than 4 are excluded from the reality of what 2 + 2 truly equals.
Yet another protest against truth is that it is offensive and divisive to claim one has the truth. Instead, the critic argues, all that matters is sincerity. The problem with this position is that truth is immune to sincerity, belief, and desire. It doesn’t matter how much one sincerely believes a wrong key will fit a door; the key still won’t go in and the lock won’t be opened. Truth is also unaffected by sincerity. Someone who picks up a bottle of poison and sincerely believes it is lemonade will still suffer the unfortunate effects of the poison. Finally, truth is impervious to desire. A person may strongly desire that their car has not run out of gas, but if the gauge says the tank is empty and the car will not run any farther, then no desire in the world will miraculously cause the car to keep going.
Some will admit that absolute truth exists, but then claim such a stance is only valid in the area of science and not in matters of faith and religion. This is a philosophy called logical positivism, which was popularized by philosophers such as David Hume and A. J. Ayer. In essence, such people state that truth claims must either be (1) tautologies (for example, all bachelors are unmarried men) or (2) empirically verifiable (that is, testable via science). To the logical positivist, all talk about God is nonsense.
Those who hold to the notion that only science can make truth claims fail to recognize is that there are many realms of truth where science is impotent. For example:
□ Science cannot prove the disciplines of mathematics and logic because it presupposes them.
□ Science cannot prove metaphysical truths such as, minds other than my own do exist.
□ Science is unable to provide truth in the areas of morals and ethics. You cannot use science, for example, to prove the Nazis were evil.
□ Science is incapable of stating truths about aesthetic positions such as the beauty of a sunrise.
□ Lastly, when anyone makes the statement “science is the only source of objective truth,” they have just made a philosophical claim—which cannot be tested by science.
And there are those who say that absolute truth does not apply in the area of morality. Yet the response to the question, “Is it moral to torture and murder an innocent child?” is absolute and universal: No. Or, to make it more personal, those who espouse relative truth concerning morals always seem to want their spouse to be absolutely faithful to them.
10). WHY TRUTH MATTERS
Why is it so important to understand and embrace the concept of absolute truth in all areas of life (including faith and religion)? Simply because life has consequences for being wrong. Giving someone the wrong amount of a medication can kill them; having an investment manager make the wrong monetary decisions can impoverish a family; boarding the wrong plane will take you where you do not wish to go; and dealing with an unfaithful marriage partner can result in the destruction of a family and, potentially, disease.
As one Christian apologist put it, “The fact is, the truth matters – especially when you’re on the receiving end of a lie.” And nowhere is this more important than in the area of faith and religion. Eternity is an awfully long time to be wrong.
11). GOD AND TRUTH
Throughout the Bible God’s word speaks of Him as the truth:
“God is not a man who lies, or a son of man who changes His mind. Does He speak and not act, or promise and not fulfill?” (Numbers 23:19)
“Into Your hand I entrust my spirit; You redeem me, Lord, God of truth. I hate those who are devoted to worthless idols, but I trust in the Lord.” (Psalms 31:5‭-‬6)
“The entirety of Your word is truth, and all Your righteous judgments endure forever.” (Psalms 119:160)
All three persons of the Godhead are by definition perfect truth.
# Of The Father Jesus said:
“The One who comes from above is above all. The one who is from the earth is earthly and speaks in earthly terms. The One who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what He has seen and heard, yet no one accepts His testimony. The one who has accepted His testimony has affirmed that God is true.” (John 3:31‭-‬33)
“As He was teaching in the temple complex, Jesus cried out, “You know Me and you know where I am from. Yet I have not come on My own, but the One who sent Me is true. You don’t know Him;” (John 7:28)
“Who are You? ” they questioned. “Precisely what I’ve been telling you from the very beginning,” Jesus told them. “I have many things to say and to judge about you, but the One who sent Me is true, and what I have heard from Him — these things I tell the world.” (John 8:25‭-‬26)
# Of Himself Jesus said:
“Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6)
This is actually more than assertion that He is the TRUTH but by implication the exclusivity of His claim means that anything else apart from Him (including ALL other man-made means to heaven) are false.
# Then of the Holy Spirit who again Jesus clearly bracketed with Himself (John 14.18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you.”) Jesus describes Him as the Spirit of Truth who will guide the disciples into all the truth which must by definition include their writing of the New Testament, including it’s prophecies:
“When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak whatever He hears. He will also declare to you what is to come.” (John 16:13)
# Of Scripture Jesus says:
“Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth” (John 17:17)
12) “WHAT IS TRUTH?” – CONCLUSION
The question Pontius Pilate asked centuries ago needs to be rephrased in order to be completely accurate. The Roman governor’s remark “What is truth?” overlooks the fact that many things can have the truth, but only one thing can actually be the Truth. Truth must originate from somewhere.
The stark reality is that Pilate was looking directly at the Origin of all Truth on that early morning over two thousand years ago. Not long before being arrested and brought to the governor, Jesus had made the simple statement “I am the truth” (John 14:6), which was a rather incredible statement. How could a mere man be the truth? He couldn’t be, unless He was more than a man, which is actually what He claimed to be. The fact is, Jesus’ claim was validated when He rose from the dead (Romans 1:4).
Pilate and the Jewish leaders thought they were judging Christ, when, in reality, they were the ones being judged. Moreover, the One they convicted will actually serve as their Judge one day, as He will for all who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Pilate evidently never came to a knowledge of the truth. Eusebius, the historian and Bishop of Caesarea, records the fact that Pilate ultimately committed suicide sometime during the reign of the emperor Caligula—a sad ending and a reminder for everyone that ignoring the truth always leads to undesired consequences.
FOOTNOTE:
□ THE FIVEFOLD CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE:
(1) THE TEMPORAL NATURE OF THE COSMOS (The Cosmological Argument)
(a) The Universe began to exist
(b) Anything that begins to exist must have a cause
(c) Therefore, the Universe must have a cause
(d) This cause must be eternal (uncaused), non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (having the ability to willfully cause the beginning of the universe)
(e) The cause fits the description we typically assign to God
(2) THE APPEARANCE OF DESIGN (The Teleological Argument)
(a) Human artifacts (like watches) are products of intelligent design
(b) Many aspects and elements of our universe resemble human artifacts
(c) Like effects typically have like causes
(d) Therefore, it is highly probable the appearance of design in the Universe is simply the reflection of an intelligent designer
(d) Given the complexity and expansive nature of the Universe, this designer must be incredibly intelligent and powerful (God)
(3) THE EXISTENCE OF OBJECTIVE MORAL TRUTH (The Axiological Argument)
(a) There is an objective (transcendent) moral law
(b) Every law has a law giver
(c) Therefore, there is an objective (transcendent) moral law giver
(d) The best explanation for this objective (transcendent) law giver is God
(4) THE EXISTENCE OF ABSOLUTE LAWS OF LOGIC (The Transcendent Argument)
(a) The laws of logic exist
i. The laws of logic are conceptual laws ii. The laws of logic are transcendent iii. The laws of logic pre-existed humans
(b) All conceptual laws reflect the mind of a law giver
(c) The best and most reasonable explanation for the kind of mind necessary for the existence of the transcendent, objective, conceptual laws of logic is a transcendent, objective, eternal Being (God)
(5) THE UNIQUE NATURE OF OUR WORLD AND UNIVERSE (The Anthropic Argument)
(a) Our universe appears uniquely designed so:
i. Life can exist ii. This same life can examine the universe
(b) This unique design cannot be the result of random chance or unguided probabilities
(c) There is, therefore, a God who designed the universe to support human life and reveal His existence as creator of the Cosmos.