What does it mean to say that something is absolutely true? There is a lot of debate about "absolute truth" these days and sometimes I wonder if everyone involved is talking about the same thing. The following is my attempt to give a basic definition of the term and to discuss some relevant questions.
According to Whatis.com, "absolute truth is whatever is always valid, regardless of parameters or context." To say that absolute truth is always valid means that there are no exceptions whatsoever. There are no instances or situations in which an absolutely true statement can be said to be untrue, in part or in full. We should add that the existence of absolute truth does not have to be dependant on our own observation. In other words, absolute truth could exist regardless of whether or not we experience it as such. As Steve Robiner put it, "An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth."
Here are two separate questions we can ask:
- Does absolute truth exist?
- Can we discern anything as being absolutely true?
In my mind, the second is more important, pragmatically speaking. If we, as subjective human beings, cannot discern whether or not something is absolutely true, then what difference does it make whether or not absolute truth exists?
Some people might say that our inability to discern absolute truth is precisely why we need the Bible. A person with this view may argue that we need to regard the Bible as "absolutely true" regardless of our subjectivity (or because of it). We need an absolute guide, in other words, because we are subjective (not to mention sinful) beings. I have two main problems with this kind of view:
- How do we know we can describe the Bible that way in the first place? In other words, if we cannot discern absolute truth on our own, how or why would we decide to label the Bible as such? It seems to me that any arguments we may formulate will eventually become circular in nature.
- This still doesn't solve our "discernment" problem. We still will not be able to interpret and apply the alleged absolute truth found in the Bible in anything more than a subjective way.
My specific concern has to do with moral absolutes, but I think I'll discuss that in a separate post. I'm interested to hear other peoples' thoughts in the meantime.
Hmmm. Is the statement "Torture is Wrong" an absolute truth?
Posted by: deborah | October 16, 2006 at 07:08 PM
No, it's just true. Questioning absolute truth does not mean one denies truth in general. Because of my faith in Christ and biblical theology, I believe that we should resist enabling our government to take part in it. That does not mean I believe there is NO possible situation in which "torture" could be deemed a necessary choice.
Posted by: Bill | October 16, 2006 at 07:28 PM
I don't know Bill, when does this become semantic gymnastics? Are you concerned that all rules have exceptions? The command to "have no other gods before me" has no exceptions.
I believe that is absolutely true and I discern it to be so. Humility is meant to bathe our knowledge of the truth, not to deny that we can know truth.
Posted by: Christian Cable | October 17, 2006 at 12:07 AM
I'm not denying that I can know truth. The title of this post made a truth claim. And yet I realize I could be wrong.
Why do you believe the command to "have no other gods before me?" Because you are a Christian who trusts what the Bible reveals about God. That doesn't make it absolutely true, though. You may be able to say for yourself, "I have no doubts about that," but that doesn't mean everyone else in the world will agree. As I said in the post above, that doesn't mean your statement about God is not absolutely true. I'm just not sure we have a way of absolutely verifying it "this side of heaven."
This brings to mind the difference between two approaches to sharing our faith. Person X thinks she has to convince someone that the Bible is absolutely true first, then move on to show them what the Bible teaches about the Christ.
Person Y starts by loving his neighbor, demonstrating the love of God to them. At some point, he begins to share verbally how Jesus has changed and shaped their life.
The first example is more of a foundationalist's approach. Person X assumes the "foundation" must be accepted as absolutely true in order to build on it.
Person Y realizes that we can never know with absolute certainty and seeks to show how his web of beliefs is beneficial. He can't prove anything about his eternal destiny, but he can demonstrate his confidence in a God who has given us promises about that future.
You asked: "Are you concerned that all rules have exceptions?"
In a word, yes. There are probably rules that I do not believe have exceptions. But that doesn't exclude the possibility of them.
I think that there is a backlash going on against Modernism. Lots of people have probably become too relativistic in their thinking, which is something I fight against. Lots of other people have hunkered down and are ready to defend the existence of absolutes at all costs. I wonder if both of these groups need to be shown a better way. I think some of what postmodernism has given us may help with that.
Posted by: Bill | October 17, 2006 at 09:50 AM
Here is the idea behind "you shall have no other Gods before me." being an absolute. It is true whther everyone, or no one believes it. If there is a God, and we believe there is, all authority and adoration belong to Him. The statement is true for everyone everywhere whther they recognize this or not.
Posted by: Chase | October 17, 2006 at 10:28 AM
I agree with what you're saying, but I also think it's not absolutely verifiable. You're starting out with the presupposition that God exists. You and I may share this presupposition, but that doesn't make it absolutely true.
The question I keep coming back to in my mind is this: "Why can't we just say it's true and leave it at that?" Why do we have to worry so much about what kind of modifying adjectives to couple with that word "truth?"
My objective is not to destroy truth in any way. That's what I tried to say in my Love Loves Truth post. I think it's important that we don't fall into relativism. I think absolutism has its dangers as well, though.
I'm not so concerned with whether absolute truth exists. I'm concerned with the way in which we approach truth statements.
Posted by: Bill | October 17, 2006 at 10:44 AM
Bill, I don't think at all that you want to destroy truth. I wish the world allowed us to just say, "It's just true". Both in and out of the Church, many question, "What do you mean by true?". I am compelled to give that answer, though you may not be. I don't think one is right or wrong for being compelled, or not being so, in most matters. Does this make sense?
Posted by: Chase | October 17, 2006 at 11:50 AM
Even though you (Bill) know how many different conversations I would like to start on this topic, I will limit myself to your two questions (and then eventually get to what I think your point is): Actually, starting with question 2, I think we are limited in our ability to discern something as absolute truth. In my opinion, logical truths are absolute, although some may argue that because of what they are, they are not the same kind of truths that you are speaking of (more like tautologies). But certainly we can discern the absolute truth of a statement such as "X(A) & not X(non-A)". Furthermore, what about the absolute truth of existence? Even though Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" no longer receives as much respect in the philosophical community, it still stands for the somewhat weaker (although more fundamental) truth that "something exists" (don't know how to say it in Latin). Surely this is an absolute truth that does not depend on anything (I am looking forward to arguing about that). Anyway, by answering the second question, I think I've answered the first. There are such things as absolute truths, but we are limtited in our ability to discern all but a few of these truths as being such.
Your point, I believe, had to do with absolute truths in the area of morality. On that point, I agree that humans beings are not capable of discerning moral truths as absolute because we are finite. BUT I stand by my position from the other night that God (by definition) sees EVERYTHING as absolute truth. (what a cool idea)
Posted by: Adam | October 18, 2006 at 12:46 PM
I'd just like to say that not being able to verify something as absolutely true doesn't necessarily mean it isn't.
Posted by: Tom | October 18, 2006 at 04:46 PM
Tom,
I agree. I guess the question, then, is what can we identify as absolutely true?
Posted by: Bill | October 18, 2006 at 06:21 PM
BIll,
God's propositional truth's in the Bible are absolutely true. Our ability to perceive clearly does not negate that. We must approach the Scripture humbly and with accountable brothers. In an example that I have given before but that remains valid, "Have no other God's before me" does not brook exceptions.
Can we discuss what that means to a young father with a young career (a boat you and I find ourselves in)? Then we will reach subjective interpretation, but part of Christian fellowship is to gently spur each other on towards God's absolute.
Christian
Posted by: Christian Cable | October 18, 2006 at 06:43 PM
Above, I agreed that we can't say absolute truth does not exist just because we cannot verify it. On the other hand, I'm not sure why you think we can accept something as absolute truth that we cannot verify.
If you want to place your faith in God's existence as a presupposition, that's fine by me (and understandable). But that doesn't change the fact that it's a presupposition, not something you can absolutely know, objectively speaking.
I believe that Christians can have what the Bible describes as assurance, but that's different than claiming absolute certitude. In fact, I would argue that only God could possess such a thing. I prefer to say that we can be "reasonably certain" about things.
Posted by: Bill | October 18, 2006 at 07:22 PM
If we drill down to the operational level, what is the practical difference between your reasonable certainty and my unverifiable absolute truth? I thought that faith was the evidence of things not seen.
That said, I don't believe in a Barth-like empty, contentless leap. I have great reason to believe and you to be reasonably certain. It honestly just makes sense to me (the narrative of the Bible as a whole and propositional truths in specific).
Christian
Posted by: Christian Cable | October 18, 2006 at 11:40 PM
Bill, I understand that this is a little late to be joining in on the discussion, but I will reguardless.
I know that there is absolute Truth, just like there is Absolute wrong. Sin is always wrong. God is always good. It doesnt matter if we in the end agree with God, He is always true, He is always right, all things work towards His glory and our good, always. If we say that we dont believe in gravity, does that make it not true? If we say that green grass is really florecent pink does that make it so. That being said, if we think things that are contrary to that which God says does that make Gods Word any less true. Usually we suddenly decide that somehting isnt true or isnt wrong or right because we would feel guilty in doing it or feel guilty in not doing it. So we decide, its different now, and I believe it! But does that make it any more or less true?
Posted by: Kyle | November 06, 2006 at 05:49 PM
I think that God is always good and always knows the truth, but there's a difference between that and constructing statements that are absolutely true.
We may often think certain things as an excuse to sin, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't question our understanding of truth. Even if you assume the Bible contains absolutes, you still have to question whether or not you have the right interpretation of what it says.
Posted by: Bill | November 07, 2006 at 09:28 PM
But the fact that God is always good and always knows the truth is an Absolute. If He wasnt always good, He wouldnt be God. If He didnt always know the Truth He wouldnt be God.
Posted by: Kyle | November 08, 2006 at 12:48 PM
I agree that those are attributes of God. That's quite different from saying we can understand truth in an absolute way, however.
Posted by: Bill | November 10, 2006 at 08:26 PM
I guess that we will have to disagree. Maybe I am not understanding you and visa versa. I think that those attributes are true and that tthey are absolutly always true of God. I think that they then show forth how all things can be trusted of Him. I think that it shows how we can look to the Word and find out how to make sense of all that is around us...and yes I know that it wont truly all make sense till we are in eternity...it gives us hope and assurance.
Posted by: Kyle | November 11, 2006 at 08:34 PM
If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things. Rene Descartes
The first precept was never to accept a thing as true until I knew it as such without a single doubt. Rene Descartes
What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." - Steven Robiner
'Tis strange,-but true; for truth is always strange;
Stranger than fiction: if it could be told,
How much would novels gain by the exchange!
How differently the world would men behold! ….Lord Byron 1823
………………………………...........................................................................................
The religious sites that I have looked at on the Internet present a similar view. The people who look at these sites enter a naïve make-believe fairy tale world where logic and reality do not apply. ………………………………..................................................................
To have no doubt about things thought to be true does not make them so. This would apply even to what God thinks (if he/it exists). Many people accept things that they think are true without making any effort to prove otherwise. Yet the truth exists. Not owned by me, by you, or by God. All people on this planet live in a mind frame of acceptance; everyone accepts the world as presented to them. They live in the small bubble of their perceived reality never doubting, never questioning. They receive without question all that the scientists, physicists, astronomers, philosophers, religious leaders etc tell and have told them. The world is highly complex. Space vehicles, jet planes, motor cars, computers, video machines etc. The majority accept and use them without knowing or caring how they work. They also accept all the passed down explanations and understandings of everything from evolution to homeopathy, from what is right to what is wrong. The search for absolute truths does not bother or concern them. Most would say that there is no such thing as absolute truths. They would rather live with the accepted beliefs than question, to search and find out for themselves. They are as people in a dream but the dream illusion is perfect in its deception. They will never open their eyes beginning to see and understand.
………………………………......................................................................
Astronomers can only account for 4% of the universe. They theorise that the missing part is made up of 22% dark matter and 74% dark energy. The universe is behaving in a way that contradicts the understood laws of physics and no one knows why.
The estimated age of the earth is 4.5 billion (4,500,000,000) years. Life is thought to have started 3.5 billion (3,500,000,000) years ago. The fossil record appears to start suddenly about 600 million years ago. All the worlds mammals are thought to have evolved from a small shrew/mouse type creature that lived 65 million years ago at the time the dinosaurs became extinct. Man (Hominid species) emerged during the Pleistocene epoch from 1,808,000 to 11,550 years ago the descendents of ape like creatures that lived 2.5 million years ago. The time lines are not logical. For 63 million years there must have been enormous changes and diversification but for the past 2.5 million nothing. Supposedly, all the many different kind of mammals that live now evolved from a single source (a small mouse like mammal) over a period of 63 million years. Then evolution suddenly stopped.
……………………………….....................................................................
Look round you, open your eyes. The total number of living species runs into millions. Think of the enormous complexity and symmetry of every living thing. Think of the many different types of butterflies with there intricate wing markings. Think of the thousand types of exotic fish in tropical waters. Marvel at the complexity of the eye and the enormously complex structure of the human body. Think of the multitude of insects and beetles. See the many species of birds with their intricate feather markings. Darwin gave us the theory/idea that it all came about by small accidental changes over a long period of time, which he called Natural Selection, the process by which evolution occurs. Putting aside for one moment the question of how life started; not even over an infinite time would we arrive accidentally at the enormous complexity and symmetry of life that we have on earth. The only thing that will come from chaos is chaos.
………………………………..........................................................................
The human brain contains more than 100 billion (100,000,000,000) neurons. My personal PC has 149 GB of storage. 149 Gigabytes is 149,000,000,000. That means my PC has more storage capacity than my brain. Nobody understands how the brain stores and retrieves memory, makes us dream and enables us to become thinking aware emotional beings. It is a complete mystery. Martin Rees (cosmologist) said, “What is remarkable is that atoms have assembled into entities which are somehow able to ponder their origins”. What he should have said is “From all the material that came into existence very soon after the theoretical Big Bang it is impossible for life to start”. “Unintelligent atoms will always be that no matter what combinations they are joined in”. So, how are we thinking, living , human animals if we are made of cells, molecules, elements which in turn are made from individual unthinking atoms?
………………………………......................................................................
Why do people believe in evolution and accept it when it is obviously nonsense. Is it because it is a convenient answer to the religious alternative of an all loving and wise creator/fabricator (God) which they cannot accept. It is obvious that if there is an entity called God he/it is evil, malicious and a grand deceiver. If evolution is obvious nonsense (which it is), and there is not a loving wise creator what is the truth? And what is the meaning of life?
A book was published in 2007 called ‘The Testament of Gideon Mack’. It is about a Church of Scotland minister who claims to have met the Devil (Satan) in an underground cave. The end of his life saw Mack discredited as a lunatic and castigated by his kirk. It is acceptable to many people to believe in a loving, caring God but not an evil entity called Satan. Yet the reality is obvious. There is no sign at all of a loving, caring, all-powerful God but every sign that if there is an unseen controlling entity it/he makes the biblical Satan look like a Sunday school teacher by comparison. During the past 120 years, over 200 million people have been killed by the deliberate acts of violence of other people. This excludes people that have died from causes such as famine, disease, flood, earthquakes etc. When we add the deaths pain and suffering from these it is clear to see (but who does) that this place where we all live is very ugly and evil.
………………………………...................................................................
It is more than a 50% certainty that your death will not be pleasant. The percentage chance of you dieing peacefully in a bed surrounded by loved ones is not good. The reality is fear of dying, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, painful infirmity, and all the indignities that come with old age. What intelligent person would want to bring another into this world with the near certainty of that happening? But with all the evidence clear to see and evaluate nobody comes to the correct conclusion.
………………………………................................................................
What is the absolute (complete, perfect, pure, independent) truth? Is it unimaginably complex that no human can understand or so simple that a reasonably intelligent child could? Is there an evil, vicious and malicious entity (Satan)? And is the all knowing, all understanding, perfect in love God only a fairy tale for naïve religious people to believe in? The answer to the absolute truth of these questions is there for you to see, evaluate and come to the correct conclusion based on logic and facts.
Posted by: Robert | June 09, 2007 at 06:57 AM
"All people on this planet live in a mind frame of acceptance; everyone accepts the world as presented to them. They live in the small bubble of their perceived reality never doubting, never questioning."
Well, you and I don't do that! ;-) I choose to believe "common sense explanations for a lot of things. It is not pragmatic to question everything. In fact, it seems to me that the concept of questioning everything implies a foundationalist view of truth. I think, rather, that we can only question certain groups of things at one time.
"...not even over an infinite time would we arrive accidentally at the enormous complexity and symmetry of life that we have on earth. The only thing that will come from chaos is chaos.
What makes you say that? What data are you using to prove such a theory? Maybe it's true, but I don't think we can just assume that. I think that we have a hard time wrapping our minds around truly enormous spans of time and space. Therefore, it's difficult for us to imagine what can be accomplished given such factors.
"It is obvious that if there is an entity called God he/it is evil, malicious and a grand deceiver. If evolution is obvious nonsense (which it is), and there is not a loving wise creator what is the truth?"
I'm not convinced of any of the presuppositions you make here.
"...this place where we all live is very ugly and evil."
It's possible to argue that this is true, given the perspective you share. I think if one looks at things from another angle, however, one can see beauty everywhere. Having said that, I think it's all too easy for someone like me (in the U.S.) to talk about how good life can be. I haven't experienced the absolute horrors that people in places like Darfur or Rwanda have experienced (for example).
"What intelligent person would want to bring another into this world with the near certainty of that happening?"
I hate to admit it, but that's not a bad question. I struggle with that with my own son. I want him to understand life for what it is, but then there is the instinct to shelter him at the same time. I think there must be reason to hope.
"What is the absolute (complete, perfect, pure, independent) truth? Is it unimaginably complex that no human can understand or so simple that a reasonably intelligent child could? Is there an evil, vicious and malicious entity (Satan)? And is the all knowing, all understanding, perfect in love God only a fairy tale for naïve religious people to believe in? The answer to the absolute truth of these questions is there for you to see, evaluate and come to the correct conclusion based on logic and facts."
I naturally put a lot of emphasis on logic, but who's to say I/we are accounting for all parts of the "equation" when we use our powers of logic? As for "facts," I think that's a difficult label to put on anything. That's why I am resistant to the concept of absolute truth.
Posted by: Bill | June 09, 2007 at 10:10 AM