That was the famous question from Pilate (John 18:38). He walked away when he asked it, so I don't think it was an actual question, but it is certainly one worth asking.
Anyone who has followed my stuff here knows that I'm often about words, definitions, meanings, that sort of thing. And it wouldn't be far fetched to think that I might want to pursue the definition of "truth" as a word or concept. But, this time, that's not my aim. Let's just go with the basic understanding. "Truth" is simply that which corresponds to reality. I don't think that would be too controversial. The question, though, beyond the definition is actually quite large. What is reality? More to the point, who gets to determine what reality -- truth -- is?
In the Modern Age the determiner of truth was Science. Unfortunately (or not), philosophers discovered that Science was a poor god. Science, by definition, is knowledge gained by study, practice, experimentation ... that kind of thing. Thus, as it turns out, the knowledge is always changing. "The Earth is flat." "No, it's round." "The Sun revolves around the Earth." "No, actually, the solar system is heliocentric." "Coffee is bad for you." "No, coffee is good for you." "No it's not." "Yes it is." And on and on. Enter Post-modernism. Truth is relative. Truth is whatever you think it is. There is no absolute truth, no objective truth. Now, of course, that can only go so far. I mean, an airplane built with a post-modern designer would not likely be very safe. You wouldn't want a post-modern banker. So today we're in the Age of Empathy. Similar to the post-modern view, truth now is determined by how we feel. "I feel like a girl even though I have all male parts." "Oh, well, then it's true! You are whatever you feel you are." "Reality" today is defined by how individuals feel and it is wrong, offensive, hostile, even "hate" to argue otherwise.
What do we do? If our definitions of how to define truth change all the time, we're left without any solid ground. We're back to the original question. Who gets to determine what reality -- truth -- is? Now, of course, it's not something we get to vote on -- truth is reality and doesn't really care what your opinion is -- but I would vote in favor of the Creator. I would say that the Maker of all things should be the one that is gets to define what Truth really is. It is ludicrous to make the Creator dependent on the creature to decide what reality is and is not. It seems only reasonable and even prudent to me to let the Author of All Things determine what the reality of all things is.
What would that look like? That would mean that if God said, "Women are inferior and worth less than men", no amount of Feminism would be able to change that reality and no amount of culture wars would alter the fact. Notice I said if, because it's not in there. So if God said, "All people are of equal worth because they are made in My image" (Gen 9:6) and "women are fellow heirs of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7), then the male chauvinist that urges that women are chattel is urging for that which is not real, not true. That is, in every case, whatever it is, what God says as Maker of All defines what is true -- what is real -- and our job is not to correct Him, but to correspond to His judgment on the matter. We are to "think God's thoughts after Him", not make them up ourselves and insist that He not "lose the culture war" or "don't be on the wrong side of history".
The creature, the culture, the world does not get to determine what is true. The Maker of Heaven and Earth does. How we feel, how we think, how we wish things should be or think they are all are irrelevant unless they are in line with His version. Everything else is just ... a lie. And we know who the father of lies is. What is truth? Whatever God says it is.
6 comments:
What's worse is we let different things determine truth. Sometimes it's our feelings, or desires, or science, or Scripture. We don't seem willing to allow only One Person determine reality, we need to pick and choose.
Even among Christians.
it used to be that apologetics concerned itself with answering the question " is the Gospel true? " now a new challenge has emerged. the question is now" is the Gospel good?" when dealing with the concepts of truth we have tools and constructs that can be use to determine that reality of truth. however now that we live in an age of post Arab spring. the conflict is more about the idea of defending Christianity against accusations of it being just another form of oppression. now more than ever the christian faith is being perceived as an extension of the crusader period. that Christianity is not good, because we have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents over the centuries. the pursuit of truth requires REASON.
but the battle for justification of the christian faith based upon it's historical moral history is another very difficult challenge indeed.
"Arab spring"?
One problem is that the concept of Truth as it applies to anything but "science", is being relegated to the state of not even possible.
Science and physical experience can't prove Truth in their appropriate domains, but to exclude anything from being True which can't be "proven", just makes the entire question moot. It's so much easier to recategorize metaphysical Truth out of the realm of possibilities, than it is to deal with it.
I am, in this, differentiating between "What is truth?" and "Do I know it?" I have always had a problem with the concept of "proof". "Proof" is defined as "evidence or argument that establishes the truth of a statement or proposition", but "establishes the truth" among humans is entirely relative. You can pull up photos taken from space and show the science and logic and everything that demonstrates ("proves") that the Earth is round, but there are still (stupid) voices that claim it is flat. So while I can say with certainty that "Truth is what God says it is", there will always be those skeptics, even those who call themselves "Christians", who will say, "You can't know that" and "It's not proven." Not because there is no proof, but because they don't accept the evidence and argument that constitutes the proof.
Post a Comment