Is it True that there is No Truth?

The Ridiculousness of Relativism

This year will mark the tenth year that I have been teaching logic to students. There are a lot of things I love about logic. I love defining terms. I love constructing syllogisms. I really love making constructive dilemmas. I love talking about formal and informal fallacies of thought. I love using truth tables to check an argument for validity. On and on, I love logic. It’s fun and it is incredibly important for students to learn (and we should all still be students).

The rabbit hole of logic runs very deep but I always tell my students that there is one thing in logic which rises above it all as the most important. If I only accomplish one thing with them, I pray it is to convince them of the truth of the most basic principle of logic. Here it is:

Every statement is either true or false.

Period. Without exception. It does not matter what the statement is about, or who is saying it, or where they are saying it. It doesn’t matter if they say it in a box, or if they say it with a fox, it doesn’t matter if they say it here or there, it doesn’t matter if they say it anywhere. Every single statement is either true or false.

Without fail, when I say this, I receive automatic doubt from my students. Even among Christian kids, from conservative Christian families, the claim, “Every statement is either true or false”, raises eyebrows and inevitably hands.

“Mr. Allee, what about a statement about my feelings or what I like? It’s true for me that I like Taylor Swift but not true for you!”

But even in this case, persuasively stated though it may have been, my original claim holds. Why? Because my student is either telling the truth about what she likes or she is not. Adding me into the equation does not invalidate my claim. If she really does like Taylor Swift, then it is true for all people, in all places, and at all times, that she likes Taylor Swift at the moment she makes that statement. The fact that I don’t like Taylor Swift is simply to add a second claim. A claim which is…you guessed it…either true or false.

The problem is that statements of preference are not about what most people think they are.

The claim “I like Taylor Swift” is not about Taylor Swift. The statement is about the person saying it. “Sarah likes Taylor Swift” is either true or false depending upon what Sarah, in all actuality, likes. “Mr. Allee does not like Taylor Swift” is either true or false depending upon whether I, in reality, do or don’t like Taylor Swift (wouldn’t you like to know!). The claims are actually independent of one another, meaning the truth or falsity of one statement has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the other. There is no contradiction between the statements whatsoever.

The problem our culture is facing, and it is deeply imprinted into the hearts and minds of most people, is that we have been convinced that truth is relative to each person. Even many who reject the idea that “all truth is relative” are often guilty of thinking that some truths are relative. But truth is only relative to one thing, namely, reality itself. Whatever is really the case, about anything, determined what the truth is and it also obligates us to believe it.

That is to say, the basis of what is true depends on the nature of reality itself and has nothing to do with our own powers of will, desire, or judgment. Either water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or it does not. It doesn’t care about your feelings or personal wishes. To say that it freezes at 0 degrees Celsius is equally true because they are different but equivalent expressions of the same freezing point of water, determined by reality, not by the measurement system or the one taking the measurement.

Depending on who you talk to you will get varied responses on the matter of the nature of truth. The scientific mind will often say truth is real and objective (true for all people regardless of our feelings) but that you can only know truth about those things which the scientific method, and tools of that trade, can examine. If it can be examined by a ruler, a microscope, a barometer, thermometer, speedometer, etc., then you can come to know whether it is true or false or probable or improbable. But many in that crowd will deny there is any truth to be known when one makes a claim about religion.

The statement “God exists” is meaningless, according to some scientists, because it cannot be measured by their standards. David Hume famously ended one of his best known works by saying, “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”¹

Too bad for Hume his claim cannot be verified by the tools he claims are the only way to know truth. In fact, if his claim is right, it is also wrong, because philosophy has to be employed to judge its claim.

This, however, is not so much a disagreement of the nature of truth but about truth’s knowability. Hume, and other Enlightenment thinkers, proclaimed that questions which cannot be examined scientifically are meaningless questions. They did not, however, deny the existence of truth itself. Nonetheless, they pulled at a thread and broke the cord which had anchored humanity for multiple millennia when they discounted knowing truth by means of philosophy and revelation.

It was not long after this when people began not only questioning philosophy and religion’s ability to determine truth, but they were questioning the ability of the scientific method as well. The age of relativism dawned and people began to believe that there are no “absolute truths” no “objective truths” there are only “subjective truths” or “personal truths”. Hence the language that has sometimes been used, “That’s my truth!” Or “That may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.”

What this suggests is that “truth” really only means “preference”. Consider the following statements:

“Christianity is true for you but Wicca is true for me.”

“You may believe that human beings are only male or female based upon their genetics at conception, but I believe that someone born male can become a female. In fact, there are many genders, not just two.”

“Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one!”

“I’m glad that Jesus works for you, but I think all roads are equal paths to God.”

“You don’t think I should steal but it’s okay if I really need it.”

All of these statements, and countless others like them, are a product of relativistic thinking. At the heart of each of these statements is the individual and his or her preference. What is completely absent from all of these statements is any kind of reference to objective reality. That is to say, these statements don’t bother to check to see if they can coexist with the way things really are.

The modern world says, “Truth is what works for me” or “Truth is whatever pleases.”

The historic view of truth, the view that built all the good things of Western Civilization from cathedrals to concertos, the view of the Bible, says “Truth is what corresponds to reality.”

But it is not just that there are competing definitions of how we ought to define the word “truth.” It is not as though if we change all the dictionaries and convince all the school children to define truth after the modern fashion, that is what truth will be. No, that’s just the thing, it doesn’t matter what people say is true, it matters what is true. Truth simply is what corresponds to reality whether you like that definition or not, and I can prove it.

Imagine that you want to cross a busy street. Cars are flying back and forth across the road at 45-50 mph. But you want to cross the street without dying. Which definition of truth do you think will best help you make it across the road? The modern definition would lead you to a ridiculous and dangerous position, “I don’t want to get hit, so I won’t get hit.” Good luck! The correspondence theory of truth will lead you to find a crosswalk or, at least, to look both ways until the coast is good and clear before crossing!

Again, imagine you want to walk across a frozen lake. Which theory of truth will best serve you? Better stated, how much power does your personal desire to walk across a frozen lake have upon the thickness of the ice? You can really want it to be thick enough. You can believe really hard that it is thick enough. If, however, it’s only two centimeters thick, you will fall in no matter what you want or believe. Because truth corresponds to reality, not desire.

When a Christian says “Christianity is true” what that person means is Christianity corresponds to reality. The claims of the Christian faith correspond with the way things actually are and it doesn’t matter whether you like it or not. You see, especially with religious claims, people like to think statements like “Christianity is true!” are only a matter of preference like “I like Christianity!” But although both of those claims are either true or false, they are fundamentally different claims. One is about the religion itself and the other is about the person making the statement.

The same thing happens in the abortion debate all the time. The slogan, mentioned above, “Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one!” misunderstands the issue completely. It is true that pro-lifers don’t like abortion, but the claim they are making is stronger than that. Pro-life advocates are saying, “Abortion is the wrongful termination of the life of a human person and should therefore be illegal.” There is a huge difference between those statements no matter how reductive pro-choice advocates would like to be.

The fact of the matter is this, no one is truly a relativist when it comes to truth. People are only relativists when it is convenient. No one, absolutely no one, is a relativist when withdrawing money from the bank. If you ask the teller for $400 from your account and she says, “I can’t do that, you only have a balance of $20.” but you just deposited $3,000 in your back earlier that morning, you will not be a relativist. You aren’t a relativist when crossing the street, you aren’t a relativist when reading your prescription medicine bottles to check the dosage, and you aren’t a relativist when someone is trying to harm you.

Everyone knows truth corresponds to reality. So why do people pretend otherwise?

It’s not difficult to figure out. People pretend truth is relative because they want to justify their immoral behavior. People pretend truth is relative because they are afraid of the implication of truth being objective. The objectivity of truth means that we live in a world that we did not make, but that someone else did. The objectivity of truth, especially moral truth, but really any truth at all, tells us that there is someone to whom we are obligated. We are obligated to the maker of truth, and we are obligated to others who are also subjects to truth.

The claim that “Jesus is Lord” is either true or false. It is no different than claims about mathematical equations, or scientific lab results. If “Jesus is Lord” is true then Islam is false, homosexuality is sin, the Bible is trustworthy, marriage is the only place for sex, abortion is evil, etc., etc., all by implication of that one statement being true. That would be very inconvenient for many people who just want to do whatever they want to do.

No one believes truth is relative, not really. But self-deception is very real. Even though people know that truth is real (they manage to make it across streets all the time) they pretend very hard it is not when it is inconvenient. They adopt a “cognitive dissonance”, that is, they build a wall in their mind and separate things into compartments. “I will operate according to the correspondence theory at banks and railroad crossings but I will operate according to relativism when it comes to religion and sexuality.”

It is nothing less than full blown rebellion against the author of truth. It is a whole generation of people saying, “I want to be God!” What is the result? The Scriptures address quite clearly what happens when people persistently resist truth and its maker. The apostle Paul writes in Romans 1:18-32,

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. ¹⁹ For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,^[g]in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. ²¹ For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

²⁴ Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, ²⁵ because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

²⁶ For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; ²⁷ and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

²⁸ And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, ³¹ foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.³² Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

What we are witnessing in our day is the judgment of God handing people over to their own foolish desires. If they will not have it his way and embrace truth then he will let them have it their way. Their way is literally destroying everyone that participates. I say “literally” without a bit of figurative intent. People are actually destroying their bodies in madness right now denying the most basic truths of humanity like “you are born either male or female and you cannot change who you are.”

Truth is not relative. Truth is objective. Every statement is either true or false. If anyone says otherwise they are a fool or have been fooled. It isn’t even hard to demonstrate.

If you say “there is no truth.” Is that true? Because if it’s true then it is also false, because it simultaneously affirms what it denies, and contradictions are always logically false. If the statement is false then it is false. So either way the statement is false…because every statement is either true or false.

1. David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding.