Sunday, February 28, 2010

Truth

I am relatively certain that if you were to ask ten different Christians to name the most fundamental belief in their worldview, you'd get ten different answers. Some would probably say the existence of God, others the resurrection of Jesus and so on. No doubt those are core beliefs of orthodox Christianity. I would like to make the case, however, that there is a belief that is logically prior to even a belief in the existence of God. I am referring to the belief in the existence of absolute truth. For most of recorded history, the belief in absolute truth was a given. Few, if any, doubted that beyond our perception there was truth being perceived. In our post-modern (and increasingly post-post-modern) society the belief in absolute truth is far from universally accepted and quite often rejected out of hand.

Before I move on to the main point, I think I'll digress a moment to expound on the current situation and how we arrived there. (Note: This is a simplified explanation of a very complex series of events) Before our culture made the post-modern turn the majority of people in the western world had very limited interaction with people who thought and believed differently than themselves. Much of that social segmentation was explicit and was expressed as bigotry, prejudice and racism. As those who fought against those harmful approaches achieved success, more and more people were exposed to ideas, viewpoints and beliefs that they would not have otherwise. Just to be clear, I believe that to be a very positive development. One fruit of this new, more cosmopolitan society was the notion that since not everyone agrees on one perspective but each of us, to some extent, has a unique way of perceiving the world then to claim that one's perspective is superior to another is arrogant and unjustifiable. Consequently, doubt was cast on the possibility of arriving at any kind of absolute knowledge. Pursuit of such knowledge was at the heart of modernism, hence the rejection of that pursuit became known as post-modernism. So, if absolute knowledge is impossible because each of us is bound by his or her own subjective perspective then we can never be certain that there is actually absolute truth to be known. Instead we are left with our own subjective, non-absolute truths that are true for me but may not be true for you.

So, what does all that have to do with Christianity? Well, if truth is only subjective and not objective and absolute then what does my claim that God exists amount to? Surely nothing more than my own subjective sentiments about how I feel. Some philosophers suggest that saying, "God exists" is less like saying, "the earth is round" and more like saying, "Yay!". Not a statement of fact but of feeling. Make no mistake, you Christians out there, many people you try to talk to about your faith have this mindset. What about us though? Is that sufficient for a Christian worldview? In case you hadn't guessed already, I vote no. I happen to agree with the apostle Paul when he says that if Christ did not rise from the dead then our faith is in vain. I take him to mean that if the person named Jesus, known to many as the Christ, did not really die and really rise from the dead then there is absolutely no point in being a Christian. If that is not a true-for-all-time fact about the universe then all the going to church, singing songs, praying and so on are worthless and we would be better off doing something else. Because if it is just a nice myth, then it has no power to change my life in any way. On the other hand, if it is true, if that did really happen, doesn't that change everything? Isn't anything possible?

Critics of Christianity today have much to teach those of us who call ourselves Christians. They complain about the way Christians live in the world and rightfully so. We don't live as people who truly believe that something as miraculous as the resurrection happened and we most certainly do not live as though the same power that accomplished that is in us (which, the Bible says is true). We are no different, much of the time, than the people around us who don't claim to follow Jesus. We are so caught up in the facts of life that we ignore the absolute Truth of the power of God to change that life.

4 comments:

  1. So true, at least in my subjective opinon. But what about faith and doubt? Where do they come in when talking about what is true?

    ReplyDelete
  2. That is an excellent question! Off the top of my head, I'd respond like so. If you accept the premise that we all share the same capacities for discovering and discerning the Truth (I should have capitalized from the beginning) then I would make the argument that each of us, through our own means of discovery and discernment arrives at beliefs about what is and what is not True. Faith, as I understand it, comes in after that belief and it is the action or actions one takes in response to those beliefs. I have always defined faith and belief in action. To use a worn out analogy, if I believe a chair will support my weight I put my faith in that chair when I sit in it. Doubt, far from being evil as many Christians in the past have thought, is either our imperfect will wavering at the commitment (intellectual or practical) that is required by certain beliefs or it is the intellectual uncertainty about the veracity of our beliefs. More simply put, doubt comes when I'm either not sure I want to do what I truly believe I should or when I'm not actually sure that what I believe is the truth. I find that often people confuse the two kinds of doubt. So, according to my definitions of faith and doubt they are experiences common to all people, theists and atheists alike, because we all have beliefs about what is True (even if that belief is that there is no such thing), we all act on our beliefs and occasionally doubt them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice. but if you think about it...
    Can anyone ever be certain that you cannot be certain about anything?

    ReplyDelete
  4. HI LUKE!! Another excellent question! I'd say that certainty is relative. Some things I am more certain of than others due to my proximity to them and access to their absoluteness. For example, I'm more certain that I exist than that Socrates existed. I'm relatively certain he did but not as certain as that I do. This idea came up when discussing this with Cristen as well. In that conversation she talked about "knowing" certain things to be true. I suggested that for the purpose of intellectual humility I prefer to stay away from using the word "know" because of the arrogant connotation it holds for many people in our post-modern world. Instead, I prefer to say "I am convinced". To me, that holds similar weight but without the same connotation. So, to finish answering your awesome question, certainty is not excluded, just relative. That's the connection, Truth is not relative, merely our certainty that what we believe to be true actually is.

    ReplyDelete