What is truth?
Since the beginning of time, mankind has tried to make sense of the world through their search for truth. Does the Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew Bible, hold the answers we’ve been looking for? Let's examine our assumptions and deconstruct what we may have been taught.
What is truth and can we know it? Last year around this time, we began deconstructing the Christian "truths" that we had been taught since before we could remember and determined that they were in fact, a lie. As you can imagine, the shock is real! And I wouldn’t say that we have fully grieved that loss. But here we are, trying to make sense of the world as we now see it. If you've read our backstory, even though we've left Christianity, we are still exploring the god of the Hebrew bible and thinking critically about what that ancient text says. How does it hold up as truth? Laying aside our assumptions and preconceived notions we are examining and questioning everything.
Judeo-Christian theology is still arguably vastly different from all other religions both in the way that it was revealed and documented and by its monotheistic worldview versus other polytheistic religions. But can we really know anything? I'm not sure if I'll ever feel 100% confidant again, that lingering doubt probably has a little something to do with the religious trauma I’ve experienced but I am still hoping that I and you can find something meaningful and true. What does the word 'true' mean anyway? Dictionary.com defines it as being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false. Ok, so truth agrees with reality. Seems simple enough. Since none of us were here at the beginning or even several thousands of years ago, our best guess is evaluating ancient texts and using what we currently know of fact and reality. If I've learned anything lately, it's that I don't know much.
There is a saying that goes something like this, you are only as great as the least among you (Marjory Sheba), and I tend to agree with this statement. If we are considering whether the Hebrew bible is true, our hypothesis is that if absolute truth does exist, it has to be the most obvious to the least intelligent among us. If it is in fact God’s word to mankind, then it has to be able to be understood at even the most basic of levels. So, we reject the idea that the Hebrew text is too difficult for us to know. That we need a leader or Pastor who understands it better than we do. If it is God's word to all mankind, we must be able to understand it ourselves. However, let’s keep in mind that we are sorting through thousands of years of ideologies "telling us" what the text says. But, what if we read it for ourselves? What if there is a plain, simple meaning? What if it is absolute truth? What if it's a different truth, then most are teaching?
"Some people would say that there is no true reality, only perceptions and opinions.” We don’t see things the way they are, we see them the way we are. With this view there are no absolutes that define reality. Everything is relative to something else. If this is what you believe then there are no moral absolutes, no authority deciding whether an action is right or wrong. This belief system leads to situational ethics, that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation. Therefore there is no right or wrong, whatever feels right at that time and in that situation is right. It is easy to see how this belief leads to a subjective mentality and lifestyle of “whatever feels good” at the time. Unfortunately this can have devastating and lasting effects on society and individuals. When every truth, lifestyle, belief and value is valid, chaos ensues. Have you really taken the time to consider what it means to have no absolutes? A good question to ask people who say, “There is no absolute truth” is this: “Are you absolutely sure of that?” If they say “yes,” they have made an absolute statement—which itself confirms the existence of absolutes.
“Beside the problem of self-contradiction, there are several other logical problems one must overcome to believe that there are no absolute or universal truths. One is that all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore, cannot logically make absolute negative statements. A person cannot logically say, “There is no God” (even though many do so), because, in order to make such a statement, he would need to have absolute knowledge of the entire universe from beginning to end. Since that is impossible, the most anyone can logically say is “With the limited knowledge I have, I do not believe there is a God.”
The opposite view would argue that there must be some absolute reality or truth. That there are indeed absolute realities and standards that define what is true and what is not. We, therefore, can measure those actions to the absolute standards. Consider the law of gravity, for instance. If it were not an absolute, we could not be certain that we could stand in one place without floating off into the abyss. Or if one plus one did not always equal two, the effects on civilization would be disastrous. Laws of science and mathematics would be irrelevant and there would be no point in studying them. What a mess that would be! Thankfully, one plus one does equal two. There is absolute truth, and it can be found and understood.
However, those who believe in absolute truth might use our consciences or experiences to defend their view. I’m not convinced that human conscience is evidence for anything other than in general there is some kind of moral code that humanity is aware of. Most would agree that there is something “wrong” with murder, suffering, starvation, rape, etc. And that there are attributes that are positive or “right” that all should strive for, love, peace, compassion, generosity, etc. Whether or not anyone follows this general moral code and how it is to be interpreted is another matter entirely.
Some might argue, what might be “right” for you does not mean it is “right” for me. While on the surface this seems to be appealing, but deep down it means that everybody sets his own rules to live by and does what he thinks is right. Inevitably, it won’t take long for one person’s sense of right to clash with another’s. What happens if it is “right” for me to ignore stop signs or speed well above the posted limit? I put many lives at risk. Or I might think it is right to steal from you because I want what you have and it is easier to take it from you then to acquire it another way, but to you this behavior is not right. Who decides? Clearly, when we are left to determine our standards of right and wrong there are conflicts. If there is no absolute truth, no standard of right and wrong that we are all accountable to, then we can never be sure of anything. People would be free to do whatever they want, and no one could say those things would be wrong. There could be no government, no laws, and no justice, because who determines the standards, the majority or the minority, there would be issues with both. A world without absolutes would be the most terrifying world imaginable.
Do you think that both sides could at the very least agree that science is evidence enough for absolute truth? Simply put, Science is the pursuit of knowledge, the study of what we know and the quest to know more. Does science always get things right the first time, no. But all scientific study is by necessity founded upon the belief that there are objective realities existing in the world and these realities can be discovered and proven. Without absolutes, what would there be to study? How could one know that the findings of science are real? So where does that leave us?
If there is indeed a Creator, then He becomes the standard for absolute truth, and it is His authority that establishes that truth.
Excerpts from gotquestions.org