Truth: Part 3

This is the 3rd and final post about "Truth" (for now).  You may want to read Truth Part 1 and  Truth Part 2 before you read this part.  Truth Part 1 shares, "Truth promotes Logic". Truth Part 2 shares, "Truth promotes Law." And now,  

3)    Truth promotes LORD (had to have a "L" word for God)

 I agree with Nietzsche that we all have different perspectives (way we look at life, opinions).  Perspectives do not guide us to truth.  And, truth exists independent of all perspectives.  Either a person’s perspective is true or false.  An example I used with my daughter: we could both look at my purple cell phone and have different perspectives (opinions) of the color.  I could wrongly say, "It is black," She could disagree saying, "It's purple."  I asked her if the the phone has a true color.  She said, "Yes, it can only have one true color."  I agree with my nine-year-old.  Because the phone exists, it has a TRUE color.  What if we both decided to call the color of my phone, red?  Would that change the TRUE color?  No.  What if we agree on the color, does that mean it is correct?  Not necessarily.  The phone's true color is true because it is true.  True? (my daughter laughed at the last statement)   

Nietzsche denied God’s existence (his perspective).  Can God not exist for Nietzsche and others who deny God, and yet exist for those who do believe in God?  No.  Either God exists or he doesn’t.  Our perspectives do not change the truth.  Because we live in reality, we can believe the truth about who we are as people, who God is, and how we relate to God.

Many Christian philosophers offer several arguments for God's existence.  The editors of the book, "To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview" include five different arguments:  the kalam cosmological argument, an argument from design, a Thomistic cosmological argument, a moral argument, and an ontological argument* (may simplify these in a future blog post).  Philosopher Paul Copan summarizes the moral argument in his chapter as:  If objective moral values exist, then God exists. Objective moral values do exist.  Therefore, God exists.*  Simply speaking:  "objective" defined as "measurable"; "moral values" defined as "what is right and wrong (true or false)" The moral argument bases this statement on the fact that truth exists.  Moral truth (right or wrong) must exist for objective moral values to exist.  Therefore, truth promotes the moral argument that God exists. 

Wow!  My brain hurts.  
   

*Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland, To Everyone an Answer: A Case For the Christian Worldview , (Downers Grove, Illinois:IVP Academic, 2004) .

Truth: Part 2

 
I remember the first questions each of my girls asked repeatedly, "what's that, what's that, what's that?" I answered this question with one or two words for them to add to their vocabulary. The next phrase, "why?" wasn't as easy to answer. My simplified answer usually led to another, "why?". After answering about five "whys" in a row, I would usually exasperatedly answer, "That's just the way it is. Or, I don't know. Or, depending on the question, sometimes I used the phrase I heard my parents say and promised I would never use, "because I said so."

When it comes to questions about what I believe about the Bible, God, Jesus, heaven, faith, and other religions, I had easy answers for the “what’s that?” questions the girls asked.  However, when I had no answer for God’s existence when talking to my atheist neighbor a year and a half ago, I knew I needed better answers for the “why?” questions.  I want to defend my faith with truth and not just respond with, “I don’t know.  Or, that’s just the way it is.”  I desire for my girls to know why they believe what they believe and not just, “because my parents told me so.”

1)    Truth promotes LOGIC (see last post; Truth part 1)

2)  Truth promotes LAW

According to Douglas Groothuis, who quotes from Friedrich Nietzsche’s books, The Will to Power and The Portable Nietzsche, Nietzsche’s philosophy of perspectivism has influenced the “no truth” person today.  Nietzsche claimed that facts do not exist, “only interpretations (or constructions) created according to one’s particular needs to enhance one’s life, what he called “the power to will.””  Groothuis quotes Nietzsche, “There is no true world, “only “a perspectival appearance whose origin lies in us.” In other words, we all have different points of view and none of them are actually true.  Reality doesn’t exist. *1

Perspectivism also supports the idea that lying does not exist.   If there is no truth, only a matter of interpretation, the facts in which to deny (lie), do not exist.  Can that be true?  Sounds like the law of non-contradiction again.  Ironically, the biggest problem in our world began with a lie, a lie from the “father of lies”, Satan himself.  Satan lied to Eve, telling her she will not die, like God said, if she ate of the fruit (Genesis 3).  Eve believed Satan and not God.  Choosing disobedience caused sin to enter the perfect world God created.  We will always be tempted to believe Satan’s lies, tell lies ourselves, and believe in the obvious lie, that truth does not exist.*1    

To summarize, if perspectivism is true, (which can’t be by its own definition), there is no reality, no lying, and no need for laws.  Does that sound absurd to you? However, because truth exists and people still lie, we need laws against lying.  Think about it, God included “not lying” in the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20:16 says, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”  God knows people don’t you think?  He created us, you know.  And He died for us, "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8.

Truth (and lies) promotes the need for law.

Source:*1) Douglas Groothuis, “Facing the Challenge of Postmodernism” in Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland, To Everyone an Answer: A Case For the Christian Worldview , (Downers Grove, Illinois:IVP Academic, 2004) .



For Truth Part 3

Linked to: Laura (friend of Douglas Groothius)

Truth Part 1

After completing a certificate from Biola University in Apologetics (defending the faith), I’m finally trying to get thoughts on paper that I can understand and teach my girls.

 Why stand for truth?

1)    Truth promotes LOGIC

When I explained to my girls, ages 10, 9 and 6, the idea that some people don’t believe truth exists, they looked at me as if I’m from another planet.  They’ve learned enough math to understand 1+1=2  is always true.   If they would answer differently on a test, they would get it wrong.  They couldn’t argue, “Well teacher, in my opinion, 1+1 = 3.” Math demands absolute truth. 

However, Douglas Groothuis, in the book To Everyone an Answer: A Case For the Christian Worldview states, “The postmodernist deconstruction of objective truth and rationality amounts to this: truth does not lodge in statements that correspond to reality.  Truth is a matter of perspective only; it is something that individuals and communities construct primarily through language.”

 In simple words, people today will argue, “We cannot know if anything is 100% true or not.  What is true for you may not be true to me and that’s ok.  With no truth, every word we say is really only opinion and should not be stated as fact.” 

I modeled the following argument  to the girls. A “no truth” person argues, “There is no absolute truth.”  Another person asks, “Really? Is that true?”  The “no truth“ person says, “Absolutely.”  My nine-year-old started laughing.  She understands the contradiction of the “no truth” statements.   She understands Aristotle’s  law of non-contradiction, “opposite assertions cannot be true at the same time” (Metaph IV 6 1011b13–20)*2,  without knowing the brainy term.  In other words, a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time.  The “no truth” person breaks the philosophy law of non-contradiction.

Do you stand for truth? Why, or why not?
Sources:

*1) Douglas Groothuis, “Facing the Challenge of Postmodernism” in Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland, To Everyone an Answer: A Case For the Christian Worldview , (Downers Grove, Illinois:IVP Academic, 2004) .

*2) Malpas, J., "Donald Davidson", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2003 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2003/entries/davidson/>.

For Truth Part 2

Linked to:

big enough logo? :)