# A question for Christians about "truths" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 12, 2003, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012 "2003-07-12T18:02:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/41 "2003-07-15T00:48:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoundGuy \* > \*\*Isn’t that the whole point of this thread? Isn’t that, essentially, what the OP is asking us to clarify? What, are we supposed to use some arcaic definition of “fact” that no one uses anymore? \*\* Yes. Just as we should use the word ‘literally’ to indicate that a statement should NOT be taken as a metaphor instead of a reinforcer or emphasizer of that metaphor. > [@](#): > > \*\*Like this one perhaps? Please cite your source for this definition. \*\* If it weren’t, we’d have no reason to distinguish between “fact” and “truth”. The dictionary defintion referenced earlier shows that I’m correct. ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/42 "2003-07-15T01:11:51Z")
**ImNotMad2** > [@](#): > > Jesus died for our sins." Althouth there are some so-called “Christians” who do not believe this, those who do believe it, believe it as a fact. No, we believe it as a truth. We can never prove it as fact. Which is the whole point of this thread. > [@](#): > > My point is that a true Christian will see all 6 statements as immutable facts of reality. As soon as subjective opinion enters into this, you no longer have a Christian in the true sense, but either a doubter or a liar. See, now this really gets my knickers in a bunch. Do you have any idea what the word **subjective** means? Of course our belief is **subjective opinion** , because there is no way we can **objectively** prove what we believe. Is this really that difficult? ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/43 "2003-07-15T01:22:46Z")
**TVAA** I really have no idea what your point is, and frankly, I have no desire to attempt to read your mind. Will you agree that, for most reasonable people, fact=true? Would you also agree that, for most reasonable people, truth=one’s belief of what is true? So then, would you also agree that: Fact always equal truth, but truth does not always equal fact (for a reasonable person)? If not, why not? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/44 "2003-07-15T01:27:25Z")
In most people’s minds, a fact is a truth. I’m just pointing out that technically, this is incorrect. For reasonable people, truth != one’s belief of what is true. This is part of what _defines_ reasonable people in my view: the awareness that their beliefs and ideas do not necessarily correspond with reality. All truths are facts, but not all facts are truths. No opinions are truths (or untruths). Opinions are nontruths: they exist outside the concepts of truth and objective reality. ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/45 "2003-07-15T01:51:10Z")
Ok **TVAA** , fair enough. What I really want to know is how previous posters can say that something which is based on faith can be an objective reality or “immutable facts of reality”, whatever that means. ```auto *"It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence"* (W.K. Clifford) ``` ---
**Author:** ![ImNotMad2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@ImNotMad2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ImNotMad2)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/46 "2003-07-15T02:52:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoundGuy \* > No, we believe it as a truth. We can never prove it as fact. Which is the whole point of this thread. The ‘evidence of things unseen’ proves it beyond reasonable doubt. We believe it as fact. Why? Because the alternative is so unreasonable. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoundGuy \* > See, now this really gets my knickers in a bunch. Do you have any idea what the word **subjective** means? Of course our belief is **subjective opinion** , because there is no way we can **objectively** prove what we believe. > > Is this really that difficult? I think you have no idea how much objective evidence there is for our faith. If you haven’t already, you might consider checking into “The Case for Christ” and “The Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel, “No Doubt about It: The Case for Christianity” by Winfried Corduan, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell, or “The Third Day: The Reality of the Resurrection” by Hank Hanegraaff. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoundGuy \* > The fact is, however, that the Bible is filled with errors and contradictions. The “so-called” contradictions of the Bible are usually little more than misunderstandings dealing with context, translation, culture, etc. Check out “Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible” by John W. Haley, “When Critics Ask” by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, or “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” by Gleason L. Archer. ---
**Author:** ![mama2nate\_anna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a9a28c/32.png) [@mama2nate\_anna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mama2nate_anna)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/47 "2003-07-15T05:21:06Z")
I think I know the difference between objective and subjective. And some day (I am referring to Judgment Day here) it will all be proven out. For now I will exercise my faith. As the Bible says, “Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord…” ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/48 "2003-07-15T09:30:23Z")
I really don’t think you do know the difference, or at least I think you’re not admitting that “I believe X is objectively true” is not equivalent to “X **is** objectively true”. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/49 "2003-07-15T12:21:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ImNotMad2 \* > **If you haven’t already, you might consider checking into “The Case for Christ” and “The Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel, “No Doubt about It: The Case for Christianity” by Winfried Corduan, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell, or “The Third Day: The Reality of the Resurrection” by Hank Hanegraaff.** Bwa-ha ha ha ha! Bwa-ha ha ha! [wipes tear from eye] What a wonderfully ironic screen name. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/50 "2003-07-15T15:07:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mama2nate&anna \* > \*\*I think I know the difference between objective and subjective. And some day (I am referring to Judgment Day here) it will all be proven out. For now I will exercise my faith. As the Bible says, “Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord…” \*\* Of course, that depends on which flavor of Christianity you subscribe to. ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/51 "2003-07-15T16:56:21Z")
> [@](#): > > I think you have no idea how much objective evidence there is for our faith. If you haven’t already, you might consider checking into “The Case for Christ” and “The Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel, “No Doubt about It: The Case for Christianity” by Winfried Corduan, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell, or “The Third Day: The Reality of the Resurrection” by Hank Hanegraaff. > The “so-called” contradictions of the Bible are usually little more than misunderstandings dealing with context, translation, culture, etc. Check out “Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible” by John W. Haley, “When Critics Ask” by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, or “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” by Gleason L. Archer. Thank you. You’ve just proven my point, to all rational and intellectualy honest people, that you have no clue what **objective** means. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/52 "2003-07-15T20:26:12Z")
There are many theories of truth, including [Revision](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-revision/), [Coherence](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/), [Identity](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-identity/), [Correspondence](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/), [Deflationary](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/), and so on. Here is a good [introduction](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthlikeness/) to the general notion of verisimilitude, or “truthlikeness”. For the A statements in the Opening Post, I like Nesher’s [treatment](http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoNesh.htm) of truth, because I agree with him that truth must of necessity always pass through perception. He argues against Davidson and (more or less) in favor of Tarski, and defines truth as: “For all languages L, and all sentences _s_ in L, _s_ is true in L if and only if we prove _s_ in L”. It is a wonderful definition that gives context to truth in a reflexive frame; that is, a frame of reference in which A -\> A and _w_R_w_ is a condition on the frame. They are synthetic statements. None of the three B statements in the Opening Post is examinable within any particular frame. They are subject to “Plato’s Beard” (e.g., if we say that something does not exist, then something _must_ exist since we have posited an “it” of some kind in order to declare its “nonexistence”). Quine and Davidson’s [treatment](http://abacus.bates.edu/Faculty/Philosophy%20and%20Religion/Philosophy/metsem/quineson/quine.son.html) of this problem is ultimately unsatisfactory owing to the fact that restating a non-examinable statement merely shifts the reference to the predicate. Asking whether God created the universe is epistemologically equivalent to asking whether George Washington was the first US president. Within a reflexive frame, it depends entirely on whether you trust the documentation. They are analytic questions that are known only by either intution or revelation. (Note that 2+2=4 is NOT intuitive — it cannot be deduced without Peano’s axioms.) See Bergmann 's excellent [essay](http://www.channel1.com/users/srbayne/BergmannApriori.html) about synthetic a priori and synthetic a posteriori truths. As a Christian, I believe that God’s frame of reference is absolute; thus His very _essence_ is itself analytic truth. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/53 "2003-07-15T20:40:54Z")
Correction: I should have said: _They are analytic questions that are known ultimately only by either intution or revelation_, rather than _They are analytic questions that are known only by either intution or revelation._. Obviously, they can be known by synthesis if somehow you are able to transcend reflexivity. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/54 "2003-07-15T20:42:10Z")
Who was it who said. “There aren’t any versons of the truth”? ---
**Author:** ![Tricia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/919ad9/32.png) [@Tricia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tricia)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/55 "2003-07-15T22:37:26Z")
Are we discussing truth and fact or religion? Religion is about faith; when an atheist asks for proof or factual evidence, they are told ‘it is a matter of faith’. The fact that so many people disagree about a definition of fact and truth would seem to suggest that this is a grey area; a definition affected by culture, religion, perspective and limited knowledge. Once upon a time the earth was flat: fact? Are we so arrogant that we cannot admit that there may be a limit to our knowledge? What we think is true now may change with experience. What we perceive as a fact may at some time be disproven. Does it matter? We still have to get on with life. The point is being open to new experiences and willing to see things from another point of view. How do people who believe in an omniscient god pretend to understand what is in their god’s mind? How do atheists think they have a complete understanding of the world? We try to understand, to make sense of it all. It is likely we will fail. This is ok. The world is still wonderful, even if you were wrong about how it was put together. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/56 "2003-07-16T10:05:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > \*\*Who was it who said. “There aren’t any versons of the truth”? \*\* That’s basically the Deflationary Theory to which I provided a link above. It would be Quine, Frege, Ramsey, Ayer, etc. ---
**Author:** ![mama2nate\_anna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a9a28c/32.png) [@mama2nate\_anna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mama2nate_anna)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/57 "2003-07-18T22:02:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\*Of course, that depends on which flavor of Christianity you subscribe to. \*\* Umm, how would a quote of Scripture depend on which “flavor” of Christianity I adhere to? The Bible is the same no matter what. ---
**Author:** ![mama2nate\_anna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a9a28c/32.png) [@mama2nate\_anna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mama2nate_anna)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/58 "2003-07-18T22:11:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tricia \* > [there may be a limit to our knowledge? What we think is true now may change with experience. What we perceive as a fact may at some time be disproven. > > How do people who believe in an omniscient god pretend to understand what is in their god’s mind? How do atheists think they have a complete understanding of the world? > > . \*\* I used to belong to an EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian) Church in Virginia before we moved. We have a saying over the entrance to the church. “In essentials - UNITY, in non-essentials - LIBERTY, in all things -CHARITY” I wouldn’t pretend to understand everything about God. But I know a few things are true. And I know these things will be proven out in the end. Other things I’ll be fascinated to find out in the end. Like, will I get to hold the baby we lost? What will he/she be like? Still a tiny fetus? A grown person? Only God knows. I’ve had people give opinions about this, but they are only guesses. I won’t know til Heaven, when I see my Jesus personally. I can hold fast to the things I do know and wonder about the other things. Some things in Scripture are very clear, (The deity of Christ, the atonement, our adoption as sons and daughters of God), and others are not. In Isaiah it says that “His ways are higher than ours and His thoughts are higher than ours.” But there are truths we can cling to with absolute certainty. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/59 "2003-07-19T02:53:04Z")
Well, for starters, Apostolic sucession, true prescence in the Host, the fact that technically, by the faith in which I was raised, you are a heretic. See? It’s not so easy, is it? ---
**Author:** ![RoundGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/90ced4/32.png) [@RoundGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoundGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012/60 "2003-07-19T04:28:43Z")
**mama** > [@](#): > > But I know a few things are true…Some things in scripture are very clear What about the things in the Koran that are very clear? How can you hold to the so-called “truths” of one holy book and ignore another? What is your basis for making your decision? Is there some objective evidence that you have available that we don’t? Can you share it with us? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-christians-about-truths/188012.md?page=2)