Christians hold to objective truth, that if something is true for one person it is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not. At one time this was simply called ‘truth’. Unfortunately, it is true that we live in a post-truth culture. The world around us increasingly prefers the concept of subjective truth, or truth based on the perception of the individual.

Dangerous waters

We often call this ‘relative truth’ and those who hold it ‘relativists’. When this is confined to matters of taste, for example, ‘Ian McKellen is a great Shakespearean actor’, then it is merely the profession of a personal preference. However, when subjective truth enters matters of morality we move into dangerous waters.

Suddenly, despite the experience of millennia, subjective truth has ousted objective truth as our touchstone of morality and is an open door to much of the moral chaos swirling around us today.

‘That may be true for you, but it’s certainly not for me’, is typical of the reactions Christians receive when we interact with non-believers on matters of morality. Another common reply is, ‘Don’t impose your morality on me’.

That may be true for you, but it’s certainly not for me’, is typical of the reactions Christians receive when we interact with non-believers on matters of morality.

When Christians express the idea that concepts of truth and morality are not subjective but absolute, applying to everyone in every place at every time, we are considered to be arrogant at best, oppressive at worst. Because of their fluid notions of truth, unbelievers often see Christians as intellectual Neanderthals who want to impose their personal values on the rest of the world.

Corresponding to reality

Objective truth has certain qualities, and we use these to decide whether or not a statement is true. One of these qualities is that truth has to correspond to reality; this means that it has to accurately describe something. If I describe an orange as a citrus fruit, that corresponds to reality and is true. If I describe an orange as a legume which grows in the soil, that does not correspond to reality, I have described a vegetable and so my definition of an orange is not true. Truth is independent of my perception. The believer in objective truth is humble enough to accept he could be wrong.

The new normal tells us that our highest calling is to ‘be true to ourselves.

Today, that is considered to be old fashioned and restrictive. The new normal tells us that our highest calling is to ‘be true to ourselves.’ When your standard for truth and virtue is the person you see in the bathroom mirror, you don’t have to be an Einstein to see what’s coming. Personal feelings rule and we are encouraged to evaluate reality based on our own perceptions instead of reason and logic. Ultimately, there is a certain arrogance in this, for if truth is based upon personal experience and emotion how can we ever be wrong – it is our truth?

Problems with subjectivism

Subjective truth has certain logical problems:

• Subjective truth is self-defeating. Relativists believe that subjective truth is true for everyone, not just for them. We can observe this in today’s culture. If relativists believe a certain behaviour is right, then it is right for everyone and the person who doesn’t go along with their ‘truth’ ought to be cancelled. Therefore, if a relativist thinks something is true for everyone, then he believes in an absolute truth.  The relativist cannot say ‘It is only relatively true that relativism is true’. If it is only relatively true then relativism is only true for some but false for others, why then should we then accept it as true? The only way the relativist can avoid the dilemma is by admitting that some truths are absolute.Subjective truth breaks the law of non-contradiction.

If a relativist thinks something is true for everyone, then he believes in an absolute truth!

• If a Christian believes God exists and an atheist believes God does not exist, under an understanding of subjective truth both would be right. If what is paramount is ‘your truth’, God would have to both exist and not exist. It would mean that when the Christian says that Jesus died on the cross and Muslim says that Jesus was brought down from the cross still alive, both would be right.
• Subjective truth means no-one is wrong, even when they are. Denying an objective standard of moral right and wrong means that as long as something is true to the holder of truth, it is true, even if it is wrong by objective truth. If no-one can be wrong, then everything can be accepted as morally right. The concept of relative truth also, if consistently practised, would put an end to education. Learning is a process of moving from an intellectual state of ignorance or misunderstanding to one of knowledge or understanding. This would be unnecessary if truth were relative.

Absolute truth

We can argue that absolute truth which always applies ‘exists’. Our existence is undeniable, I would have to exist in order to deny my existence. The very fact that we can deny our existence demonstrates our existence. We cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. We can be absolutely sure that we exist.

How many of us would wish to fly in an aeroplane designed by someone who didn’t hold that there were absolute truths?

There are a myriad examples of absolute truth. In a decimal system of counting, 3 x 4 = 12, and always equals 12 – yesterday, today and tomorrow, in Scotland or Kazakhstan, it doesn’t vary no matter who holds it or where. This may seem a trivial example but it is important. How many of us would wish to fly in an aeroplane designed by someone who didn’t hold that there were absolute truths?

Discussing this and showing the importance of absolute truth can lead us into pointing to the one ultimate truth: he who is ‘the way, and the truth and the life’ (John 14:6) and to the fact that we can find him in the Bible, which is the truth (John 17:14).