In 2022, I was a visiting scholar with Reasons to Believe. During my visit, I sat down with biochemist (and current President and CEO of RTB) Fazale “Fuz” Rana. In this video, we explore the concept of "post-truth" and the nature of truth itself. Dr. Miller defines truth primarily through the correspondence theory, asserting that truth must align with reality. He further differentiates between subjective "my truth," which relates to individual perspectives, and cultural or "synthetic" truths that evolve with societal norms, while emphasizing the importance of transcendent truth rooted in God for stable societal values. The discussion also addresses the role of feelings in understanding truth and the practical significance of objective truth in fostering meaningful change.
FAQ
What is the definition of truth?
The most practical definition of truth is the "correspondence theory of truth." This theory posits that anything that is true must correspond directly to reality. In simpler terms, if a statement or concept is true, it must align with something that exists or is real.
How do people typically misunderstand or misuse the concept of "my truth"?
When individuals use the phrase "my truth," they often take a small, personal facet of truth and mistakenly try to apply it as the entire spectrum of what truth is. For example, saying "my truth is that I love peanut butter" is true for that individual and doesn't become untrue simply because someone else dislikes or is allergic to peanut butter. However, this personal truth is limited and shouldn't be generalized to encompass all truth. It still needs to correspond to the reality of one's own internal state (e.g., genuinely loving peanut butter) to be considered true, even within this limited scope.
How does the "post-truth" view conceptualize truth, and what are its key characteristics?
The "post-truth" view largely defines truth as being completely relative. It often incorporates elements of postmodernism, which suggests that there can be a "synthetic" or "cultural" truth that shifts with societal standards. For instance, while slavery might have been legally and culturally accepted in the 1800s in many places, it is now largely illegal. This cultural truth changes over time but still corresponds to the reality of the legal or societal norms of that period. In the post-truth mindset, the entire scope of truth is often seen as limited to these personal and culturally transient truths.
What is the relationship between "post-truth" and "relativism"?
"Post-truth" and "relativism" are very similar, often overlapping concepts. If "post-truth" is understood through the lens of postmodernism, then the primary difference lies in the scope of acknowledged reality. Pure relativism typically asserts that "my truth" is the entire reality, with no truth or reality existing outside of the individual. Postmodernism, while still emphasizing the transient and shifting nature of truth, acknowledges a social or cultural reality. Both views, however, share the characteristic that all truth is transient and subject to change based on individual feelings or cultural laws, lacking a stable, external foundation.
What role do feelings play in understanding truth, especially from a Christian perspective?
From a Christian perspective, feelings can offer a reflection of how humans are designed, but they can also be deceptive. It's crucial to discern the difference. While it's important to validate and empathize with people's feelings, especially in times of grief or distress, the ultimate goal is to connect these feelings to an external, objective reality, and ideally, to God. Aligning feelings with a transcendent truth provides a stronger foundation for a holistic life, ensuring that emotions are not the sole arbiters of what is true.
Why is it important for truth to be connected to something "transcendent" rather than solely personal or cultural?
Truth needs to be connected to a transcendent reality—a truth that emanates from something like the nature of God—because this provides a stable and unchanging foundation. While personal and cultural truths are transient and can shift, a transcendent truth offers universal applicability. Without it, efforts to change society or address injustices remain vulnerable to the ebb and flow of politics or cultural shifts. For example, the statement "it's wrong to kick puppies" holds its universal validity because it's rooted in a truth that transcends individual feelings or specific cultural laws, applying to everyone in every nation.
How does an understanding of transcendent truth contribute to lasting societal change?
Understanding and embracing transcendent truth is crucial for lasting societal change because it addresses the underlying values of individuals, not just surface-level laws. Laws can be changed with political cycles, but if the values that inform those laws are not rooted in something more profound than transient cultural or personal opinions, the change can be easily undone. A transcendent truth offers a stable moral compass that applies universally, providing a solid foundation for addressing injustices and transforming society in a way that endures beyond specific political administrations or cultural trends.
What is the practical consequence of lacking a transcendent foundation for truth?
The practical consequence of lacking a transcendent foundation for truth is instability and the inability to establish universally accepted moral principles. If truth is entirely relative, based only on personal feelings or shifting cultural norms, then there's no stable ground for universal values or ethical judgments. Actions that are considered "wrong" by one person or culture might be "right" by another, leading to a fragmented and potentially chaotic understanding of justice and morality, where even basic concepts like "it's wrong to kick puppies" could become subjective rather than universally recognized.
Related Content
The Value of My Truth in Christian Apologetics
In certain apologetic circles, it is common to hear the refrain, “there is no such thing as my truth or your truth but only the Truth.” This critique infers that all expressions of ‘my truth’ entail a denial of objective otruth. But, if ‘my truth’ does not logically deny objective truth, then this apologetic approach creates an unnecessary chasm between the Christian and non-Christian thinker. However, we can bridge this gap by using ‘my truth’ as an epistemic bridge to 'the Truth.' In support of this apologetic I offer three arguments.
About Fazale “Fuz” Rana
I watched helplessly as my father died a Muslim. Though he and I would argue about my conversion to Christianity, he never embraced the truth of my Christian faith.
As a graduate student studying biochemistry, I was captivated by the cell’s complexity, elegance, and sophistication. The inadequacy of evolutionary scenarios to account for life’s origin compelled me to conclude that life must come from a Creator. Reading through the Sermon on the Mount convinced me that Jesus really was who Christians claimed him to be: Lord and Savior. Still, encouraging others to join me in following Christ wasn’t important to me—until my father died. His death changed that.
In 1999, I left my position in research and development at a Fortune 500 company to join Reasons to Believe. I felt the most important thing I could do as a scientist was to show Christians and non-Christians alike the powerful scientific evidence for God’s existence and for the reliability of the Bible.
Helpful Links
The Reasons to Believe website where you’ll find many resources exploring science and faith.
Watch more on the RTB YouTube channel.
Consider supporting RTB by making a donation today.
