Who determines
what's true?
![](../images/logoes/truth-banner.jpg)
In
her book, Total
Truth, Nancy Pearcey tells a typical
story occurring among many of today's Christians.
She writes about a young lady who got saved
in a contemporary church and continued on
with her education then career.
Although
she was sincere about her conversion, she
found herself living in three worlds. On
Sundays she was in the Christian-world.
On Mondays she was in her university science
class world. On Sundays she would hear
all kinds of helpful messages (and occasionally
something from the Bible). But on Mondays
she would move into her other world where
things of the Bible are not only denied-
they are ridiculed. Somehow she was able
to live in her Christian world on Sundays
by telling herself that what she knew to
be true from her Monday science world was
a different kind of truth from what she was
now hearing. Therefore, when she entered
her third world she saw no dilemma. That's
why she saw no problem in taking a job as
a technician in an Abortion Clinic. She had
done what many Christians are now doing.
She had compartmentalised truth into different
worldviews.
During
the recent Parliamentary debate on
the availability of RU486 (the "abortion
pill") we heard this same kind of confused
worldviews from several members of Parliament.
Some Parliamentarians expressed their "Christian
faith" while simultaneously
supporting a Bill that will most
certainly violate the sixth commandment
(do
not murder). Other
Parliamentarians promoted an even
worse kind of truth categorisation
when they insisted that religion
and morality should have no bearing
on legislative decision making. This
sounded as gentle as "the
Church should look after it's own affairs
and stop meddling with the affairs that affect
the broader community" and
as viscious as - "Get your
Rosaries off my Ovaries!" In
either case the subtle message was that
while Christianity might deal in the
truth, this was a realm of "different" truth where the Church and
Christians had no place participating. Several
Parliamentarians scolded those with Christian
views as being "biased" which is an absurdly
remarkable statement to think that those
who are atheists are "objective" and those
who have accepted the reality of God and
His claims on creation as "biased".
(Romans 1:21 actually says that those
who reject God and His Word are biased with their
minds darkened by their religious position.)
Nancy Pearcey
points out in her book (Total
Truth) that
while many trendy churches are claiming huge
numbers of converts, many of these converts
are failing to appreciate the truth of God's
claims in all areas of life. They
see no problem in dissecting truth into compartments
that cannot be harmonised. Thus, when the
science teacher says that the earth is around
4.56 billion years old (which it probably
is) and their preacher says that earth is
only 6,000 years old (a slight difference
of opinion!) they simply regard them as both
being right, despite how illogical this position
is.
![](../images/logoes/truth-facts.jpg)
Truth and facts
are not necessarily the same. For something
to be true it must be so without qualification.
That is, truth is not subject to time, place,
circumstances, or acceptance. It is true
despite all of these things. Facts, on the
other hand, are subject to change. For example,
a person's exact age can be known factually,
but the truth is the answer changes al the
time. Another example is in 1968 it was
a fact that man could not walk on the moon-
but it wasn't true.
Facts change, truth doesn't. Understanding
this distinction helps us to realise that
when someone says-"That's
true for you, but not for me!" they
possibly don't understand the difference
between facts and truth.
As Christians
we sometime do a similar thing when dealing
with truth. We form an incomplete or even
incorrect understanding of the truth then
refuse to change our opinion about it- despite
all the facts providing evidence that our
opinion of what is true is wrong. Based on
Biblical comments like the rising of
the sun some ancient Christians agreed
with the Greeks that the earth must be stationary
and flat. As the science of astronomy developed,
this notion about earth became increasingly
implausible. Yet some (even today) believe
that it is true that the earth is flat despite
the photographic evidence from lunar voyages!
This should cause the Christian in the face
of overwhelming evidence to question whether
it is the truth that is wrong- or their opinion
of it. Is it true that the Bible teaches
that the earth is just 6,000 - 10,000 years
old? Is it true that the Bible predicts the
ultimate demise of the Church and the rise
of an ungodly one-world government? I wonder
whether these are opinions or whether they
are the truth?
![](../images/logoes/truth-bg.jpg)
Recently
in Australia our Federal politicians debated
the merits of the Health Minister having
special powers to prevent the legal availability
of a drug that was originally in 2000 considered
so abhorrent that its ban received universal
support from all political parties at that
time (thus giving the Health Minister the
right to exercise extraordinary powers to
make it illegal in Australia). This legislation
was originally introduced by Tasmanian Senator,
Brian Harradine, an ardent Christian. The
arguments put forward in February 2006 on
both sides of the debate were, on the whole,
reasonable and balanced. But there were several
appeals to "truth" by certain politicians
that deserve closer scrutiny.
- Is it true
that the RU486 debate had nothing to do with
abortion?
- Is it true that the life of the developing
baby is of no consequence in this debate?
- Is it true that these developing babies
are better off aborted if they are unwanted
and unloved?
- Is it true that the abortion debate is
"now settled" in Australia since Abortion
was made legal by the States of Australia
some 20 years ago and that recent developments
in ultrasound and (especially 4D ultrasound)
technology now shows us something about
inter-utero development of a baby that
couldn't have possibly have known then?
Some
quoted the lesser known statement by Sir
Edmund Bourke (who famously said that all
it takes for evil to triumph is for good
men to do nothing) when he said something
like- an
elected member of parliament does a disservice
to those who elected him if he not only
represents their views but fails to give
his own opinion on a matter for which he
was elected to
make decisions. I'm not sure about
the context of this quote, but I think
that this quote was used by some as a justification
for ignoring the overwhelming expression
of public input into this debate which
urged parliamentarians to allow the ban
to be maintained. It was similar to a debate
held in Tasmania a few years ago when 70%
of electors urged their elected members
not to introduce a piece of contentious
legislation. One parliamentarian resented
the fact that she was being asked to represent
the views of her electorate, curiously
implying that this was not how parliamentary
democracy functioned. Despite the massive
numbers of people objecting to this Bill,
most Parliamentarians ignored the electorate
and voted the Bill into Law (presumably
trusting that when the next election came
around four years later the electorate
would have forgotten all about it!).
![](../images/logoes/truth-tests.jpg)
How can we
test whether a statement or claim is true?
There are some ancient and logical tests.
These include-
- Is it contradictory? (Something cannot
be true if its essential facts disagree.)
- Is it supported by the evidence? (If
all the evidence suggests otherwise then
the claim is questionable.)
- Can it be verified? (This is known as
falsifiability.)
- Is it conclusive? (Is it a blend of partly
true and opinion or guesswork? For something
to be true it should be able to stand alone.)
Thus, when
a Parliamentarian says that debating the
availability of RU486 (the Abortion Pill)
has nothing to do with the morality of abortion
their claim is clearly untrue because
it has dire consequences for abortion rates.
Or, when a Parliamentarian says that RU486
is about a mother's right to choose they
fail to be truthful because they don't adequately
define "choice" which truthfully is a choice
between letting their yet-to-born-baby live
or die. When The Australian Greens Party
says that a person becomes "a human"
the moment they are born, they are not being
truthful with the science of biology that
says a human zygote is 100% human (though
not fully formed, which continues to take
place after birthing by the way). When a
Parliamentarian says that they are privately
opposed to something but publically they
have to support it, they are not being truthful
about their real position.
![](../images/logoes/truth-certain.jpg)
There is a saying that says- What's
new is probably not true and what's true
is probably not new. Facts change,
truth doesn't. To arrive at certainty I
believe that Christians in particular need
to be more sceptical. Being "sceptical"
means that we are reluctant to believe
unless we have a high degree of certainty.
Unfortunately too many Christians think sola
scriptura ("the Scriptures alone"
which speaks of the Bible's unique authority),
means that God only has one revelation
to mankind. But the Bible itself speaks
of several other forms
of Divine revelation that can be used to
have certainty about the truth-
- The record of creation, including biology,
geology and astronomy (Psalm 19:1; 97:6;
Romans 1)
- The person of Jesus Christ (Heb. 1)
When we apply the tests
of truth to any claim we can be more certain
of arriving at the truth. For those interested
in truth in public office, particularly among
our politicians, recent events make it plain
that a person's worldview dramatically affects
the decisions they make. Rather than an atheist
or a non-religionist being expected
to be the only ones qualified to make unbiased
decisions, the opposite is found to be true.
That's why Christians should not be niave
about who they vote for. Good government
is much more than simply ensuring an economy
is running efficiently. Many brutal and evil
dictators have also been good economic managers!
That doesn't mean that we should only expect
good politicians to be inept economic managers-
but we must guard against being fooled into
thinking that as long as the economy is being
managed well any other decision with a moral
implication doesn't really matter.
Unfortunately, we should
also expect more of pastors and church leaders.
Their claims should also be subjected to
the tests of truth. This means that when
a pastor or church leader discourages someone
from scrutinising their teaching they are
discouraging the quest for the truth.
Then
Pilate said to him, “So you are
a king?” Jesus answered, “You
say that I am a king. For this purpose
I was born and for this purpose I have
come into the world—to bear witness
to the truth. Everyone who is of the
truth listens to my voice.”
John 18:37
All truth agrees with God
and His Word. That's why science and Bible are compatible!
It's also why politics and Christianity are
compatible. We need Christians who know
and love the truth stepping up to the public
plates of influence in the arena of society
and culture and batting for truth. Because,
there really is only one kind of truth.
Andrew
Corbett, February 2006
_________________
|