Does Absolute Truth Exist?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

For the believer: truth found in God, in his word, and in Christ

• The question posed (in the host's frame): in your newest book, anchor points (the title as it stands in the text), you discussed the rise of something known as post-modernism. And you note that post-modernism emphasizes that all human understanding is subjective, contingent, and culturally relative. To the post-modernist thinker, of course, there's no such thing as absolute truth. And so, consequently, if a believer, who believes in absolute truth, is engaging somebody else in a conversation about the Bible, they might say something like: well, that's just your truth. People have probably heard that statement. So how do you feel like believers should respond, to this philosophy (as the question is put)? Is there such a thing as absolute truth? And if there is, how can we know it? The answer: let me first of all give you a reference: my latest book, called anchor points. It's an apologetic book. So it helps explain biblical truth, to unbelievers. And helps establish truth, for believers, who are asking these questions: how do we know there is a God? How do we know anything? How do we know what's true, what's real? That's the subject of epistemology, or theory of knowledge. And then: is there absolute truth? How do we know it? So my book anchor points tries to answer these questions. And then after each chapter, I have resources. So if you wanted a whole book, on one topic, I will give you what I think — that I personally read. And it comes from a Christian perspective — or at least, I do use some secular resources, but it provides psychological, or philosophical, support, for what we believe. So I highly recommend that, if you have deep questions, about this subject. But just to answer very briefly: let's consider two alternatives. First of all: if someone believes in God, then you can make a strong, straightforward case. Well, God is real. God is absolute. And so, yes: there is absolute truth. It's found in God. And God has given us his word, and that's found in the Bible. So the Bible is absolutely true. Now, it has a lot of culturally relative things, in that it was embedded, in various cultural settings. And of course, the human authors themselves had various personalities, and backgrounds. But what we're saying is: while God used those people, in their cultural context, the message he gave is absolutely true. So what the Bible teaches is inspired, from God. It's infallible. It's completely true. And if you have questions, on: how do we know for sure the Bible really is God's word, and it's really true, and there are no errors — and I've heard there are errors, and what about errors in transmission, over the centuries, what about errors in translation? Well, I have a book on that, as well, called God's infallible word. So: if we start by — we believe in God, there's a basis, for absolute truth. And then, if we believe God wanted to communicate to us, to have a relationship with us, to fulfill his purpose of creation — we find: where is that word found? That's the Bible. And so, once we identified — the Bible is God's word — then the Bible becomes the source and basis of truth, by which we judge all other truth claims. So that will lead to a straightforward understanding: there is truth. We can find it in the Bible, which comes from God, who is true. And ultimately, it's found in our personal relation, with Jesus Christ. Because he says: I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14, as he cites it — see the note on this record). So ultimately, truth is not an abstract notion. It's not an intellectual reasoning. It's found in our relationship, with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Scriptures: John 14:6

For the skeptic: the moral test — racism, slavery, and the utilitarian hedge

• Now, the other case is: what if you're talking to a skeptic, an atheist, an agnostic, an unbeliever? Where do you start? Well, again: you can ask if they believe in God. And you can start using the proofs, for the existence of God — and which I discuss at length, in my book anchor points, and then give other resources, that go in more depth. So, once you establish the existence of God, then you're back on the track I gave before. But if they're having a hard time there, you can have another point, and say: do you believe there is an absolute morality? Well, they're going to probably say no. Then you say: all right — do you believe that racism is evil? Do you believe slavery is evil? Do you believe that molesting small children — do you believe torturing, and murdering, small children — is evil? (children as a class, in the argument's test cases — see the note on this record.) If they say no, then you say: wait a minute. You're morally bankrupt. You can't live that way. We couldn't have a society that way. We could not exist that way. So that's an intellectually dishonest answer. I can't — I don't believe you really believe that. But if they say these things are wrong: why are these things wrong? What basis? If there's no absolute truth, if there's no God, then there is no absolute morality. So either they're going to be forced to say: there must be a God, who's given us moral teaching. Or: there must be an absolute truth, somewhere. Because that's where we get this basis. But if they say no, it's all relative: then you say: well, then the only way you can support these moral teachings is by cultural opinion, or personal opinion. So you think slavery is wrong, just because that's your opinion? Or because our society has concluded this wrong? But objectively speaking, who's to say it's wrong? Now, they may argue: well, it's the best way to organize society. Or it's the best way to help the most people. Or this is the only way you could live. That's kind of like a utilitarian argument: it's useful, it works, it's good. Well, then you say: good, for whom? So, for the Nazis, they thought murdering Jews was good, for them. The majority of the country supported that. So if you're going to go by culture, or personal opinion, or majority opinion, or what's perceived to benefit the most people: well, throughout history, slave owners felt like owning slaves was the right thing to do. In the culture of Bible days, the Greco-Roman culture, Mediterranean empire: 30 percent of the population were slaves. Well, 70 percent weren't. So for 70 percent of the population, it was a good deal. They thought it was morally right, and justifiable. It benefited the most people. So: no system benefits everybody equally. So if a system benefits seventy percent, at the expense of 30 percent — under a utilitarian argument, society works. It works for the majority of the people ('the jury of the people', as heard). Who are you, to say it's wrong?

Canaan, the dictators — and the moral nature that comes from God

• Or go back to the ancient Canaanites. They sacrificed children, to Molech. They burned them, in the fire. But they sincerely thought that was the way, to ensure fertility — for them to have more children, and for them to have flocks and herds to multiply, for them to have their crops to grow. And so, in all sincerity, probably some of those parents agonized, and suffered, by casting their children into the fire, to be burnt, in front of that idol. But they sincerely felt: this is what's best for our family; this is what's best for society. And the Canaanite society as a whole said that was best. So: any utilitarian, or relative, argument — any argument based on a majority opinion, culture, personal opinion, what's best for the most people, what's best for society — cannot condemn child sacrifice, in ancient Canaan ('cannot illuminate child sacrifice and ancient Canaan', as the letters stand). Although God judged the Canaanites, for that very sin. The Bible says: that's one of the main reasons he had Israel come in, and conquer the land. Because it was God's divine judgment. Or: their sin was so evil, so beyond the pale, so contrary to God's will, so contrary to human nature, that even pagans should have known that was wrong. And they were worthy of judgment. But yet, by any relative argument, you can make a case: they did what they thought was right. And who are we to judge? So, by those standards — any relative, or subjective, or cultural, or personal, standard — you cannot judge the ancient Canaanites, for murdering little babies. You cannot judge the Nazis, for murdering Jews. Take a look at Stalin, the ruler of communist Soviet Union Russia (as spoken), or Mao, the ruler of communist China. It is estimated that, between those two nations — as well as several other nations, in the 20th century — 100 million civilians died, as a direct result of communism. Either through executions, torture, deprivation, or famines, induced directly by the policies of communism. Sometimes deliberate. Maybe sometimes not understanding the consequences. But nevertheless, as a direct cause of communism ('a direct cause of coming is', as heard), 100 million people were killed, in the 20th century (his framing; the phrase once stands as 'the 21st century', in the text). Nevertheless: both Stalin and Mao died in bed ('died in bid', as heard), at the height of power. They never faced the consequences, of their actions. They never faced judgment. If there is no judgment, if there is no life beyond this life, if there's no absolute truth: they will never suffer any consequences. And, by their standards, they chose what was right. They enjoyed life. They accomplished. They succeeded. They implemented their vision. They did what they wanted to do, what they thought was right, and what they thought was best, for their society. They followed their atheistic philosophy, to the end, and fulfilled it. So: if everything is subjective and relative, we have no basis for saying that Stalin and Mao were evil, or should be judged. And moreover, we have no basis for saying their choice was wrong. Because their choice worked. It was good, for them. Now, if you say: well, one person versus one million — but even that question: why should 100 million people, who lived in poverty — why should they matter more, than one person? You know, that's just your relative opinion. But it has no objective basis, in reality. So my point is: if someone is going to stick by relativism — that there is no absolute truth — they cannot end up condemning any kind of evil, that exists in the world. They cannot make a valid case, for any form of judgment, or justice, or consequences. They cannot make any case, for why suffering exists, and how it can be overcome, and how there can be redemption. And so: if you really want to live a moral life, and you really want to have a moral society, at some point you have to say: there's an objective basis, outside human thinking. And that objective basis is in absolute moral law, natural law — which in turn comes from God, who created us. And who is a moral being. Who created us, in his image ('in his his image', as the letters stand). And so, ultimately: if we're just highly evolved, intelligent animals, then there really is no morality, to speak of. Because when we see an animal killing another animal, or even eating another animal, we don't think that's morally wrong. We don't try to punish that animal, because they're just animals. But we humans have a moral nature. We know, inside of us, that we're different, from the animals. Where does that come from? That doesn't just come from us. That comes from God. And that comes from the concept, of absolute truth, and absolute moral law.

Scripture index: John 14:6.