Recently, I had a discussion with someone about the nature of truth. I contended objective truth is important to distinguish between right and wrong actions. He countered that deciding what is right or wrong was actually engaging in “subjective” truth; that truth, righteousness, and wisdom, are all subjective. Moreover, he argued that “perception” is our only reality since it has been formed by the influences in our lives. But then he made a comment that left me scratching my head bewilderedly. He contended that our lack of comprehensive knowledge prevents us from claiming to be absolutely right in our judgements about truth. ironically concluding, “At least, that is my perception.”
When I look around the world we live in, one of my deepest concerns is how everybody seems to have their own unique set of facts in any debate. No longer are discernible facts central to discourse, but rather only perceptions. Oddly, even though our Founders crafted the First Amendment to distill truth through discourse—without fear of oppression—it seems to me that in debates today, precious little truth actually emerges. The debates of our age are characterized by a consistent disagreement on the central facts of the matter, even as we struggle to reveal truth, indeed objective truth. The “truth” that derives from these faux debates—where provable facts are in dispute—is indeed “subjective” because the arguments are based almost entirely on perception.
All of this suggests to me that we need to examine the idea of truth genuinely and, well, truthfully. A good starting point are the lectures of Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias who has lamented what he called the “death of truth” in our society. He was, of course, making the case for Christianity and how—as a faith, indeed a world view—it must be based on absolute truth, a truth that can be determined when tested logically for its validity.
Truth is central to understanding who we are in life, indeed, what our purpose is in life as human beings. “Why are we here?” is a question all of us wrestle with as we search for truth and a world view to embrace. Winston Churchill, speaking of the importance of truth, said this:
“In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
Of course Churchill was not making the case that truth is based on lies. To suggest he was would be an absurdity. His point goes to the importance, indeed the vitality of objective truth, not one based on perception, but rather discernable facts, and that in war one’s possession of truth may need to be concealed from the enemy. However, truth—as opposed to military intelligence—is not something to be concealed but rather revealed, and that requires objectivity, not subjectivity. We need a framework to test truth and Zacharias offers one when testing a world view like Christianity.
First in testing a world view, one must ask is there a “logical consistency” to it? Are the answers logically consistent? Second, is that view “empirically adequate” where the answers are verifiable through facts, observation, and history? Third, is there is an “experiential relevance” to that view where the answers are relevant to your life, not just abstract arguments that one gives to life, but rather an objectivity that is tangible? However, Zacharias uses two additional tests to drill down on what can be described as objective, indeed, absolute truth.
The first of these is a “correspondence test” where the answers must correspond to reality, meaning that what is argued is verifiable. For example, if two people meet in a hotel lobby and one claims that he just arrived in a red car, and you go outside, and indeed a red car is there, the claim corresponds to an observable fact. The second is what Zacharias terms a “coherence test”, like that done in a courtroom where the several answers given by a witness are taken together to determine whether they form a coherent rationale.
We would do well to appropriate these tests as we struggle to understand what we say is truth, particularly as it relates to our world view. Of that, Zacharias says this:
“Sometimes world views are systemically false. The system itself is flawed and you don’t have to examine all of the details to know the world view is flawed, you can see that something central to it is a flaw.”
When an assertion is objectively false, then you immediately know that something in that world view is systemically flawed. The great debates of our age cannot rest on perceptions where truth and morality are not absolute. Facts are vital. Both world views and our debates must involve objective truth. And in that regard, we must have testing to do.
PS: If you haven’t seen the recent Webinar I did with the Association of the US Army on my book, really, take the time! Also, would you like me to do a book signing in your area? If so please go to my Copy Book Warrior Contact tab and send me a message so we can explore the possibilities. Have a great Labor Day weekend!
0 Comments