A number of years ago, a young man was on trial for his life because he claimed to be who he really was. It appeared a group of influential men in the community wanted this young man killed because he was disrupting their culture and challenging their positions of prestige, power, and authority.
When brought before the local ‘judge,’ nothing could be found that warranted a death sentence or any other type of punishment, for that matter. When the judge asked a question, the young man would respond by saying he was telling the truth. In frustration over the volatility of the situation and possibly of continuing conflict, the judge asked the young man, “WHAT IS TRUTH?”
Good question . . .
What is truth?
Is it our own individual opinion?
Is it our perception of a situation or an idea or an ideal?
Is there really TRUTH that does not change?
Or, does truth change with new experiences or new decisions?
Is truth relative?
Do we choose to disregard the truth when it conflicts with what we want to believe?
While working with a non-profit organization, some members sued the organization because they were at odds with the new CEO. The charges filed in the lawsuit were baseless (supported by a court’s ruling), just intended to force the CEO’s resignation. Although their ‘unwritten’ complaints had merit, when asked about the lawsuit, this response was significant to me:
“Perception is truth.”
Perception is truth? Really?
So, what is truth? Is there really TRUTH that is unchangeable? And does it matter? Is perception all we need? If we ‘feel good’ about what we believe is it good enough?
Truth . . . are there any answers?
Truth, as defined in dictionary.com, is,
- the true or actual state of a matter
- conformity with fact or reality; verity
- a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like
- the state or character of being true.
- actuality or actual existence.
In Funk and Wagnall’s College Standard Dictionary dated 1992, truth is defined as “the state of character of being true in relation to being, knowledge, or speech.” And, true is defined as “faithful to fact or reality; not false or erroneous . . . faithful to the truth.”
So, there must be truth somewhere. There must be facts, figures, events, etc. that are true, some that are indisputable. Some even try to dispute that 1 + 1 = 2!
If we accept the classical philosophical approach, we would be inclined towards rationalization. Plato said that we can know truth if we “sublimate our minds to their original purity.” Arcesilaus said that our understanding is not capable of knowing what truth is. Carneades stated that we can never comprehend truth; and, not only that, but even our senses are inadequate in assisting us in the investigation of truth. Gorgias chimes in with the following, “What is right but what we prove to be right? And, what is truth but what we believe to be truth?”
More recently (1996), University of Oxford professor Peter B. Lloyd (1996) stated . . . “Truth is a very simple and handy concept. It is the correspondence of a pictorial or symbolic representation to the thing being represented. In the case of a symbolic representation, the correspondence may be massively complicated, but it is nonetheless similar in kind to a simple pictorial representation.”
Confused yet?
Truth appears, at best, to be a very hazy concept if you agree with classical philosophy or adhere to Lloyd’s statement. It seems to be a philosopher’s subjective interpretation or, perhaps, just an illusive notion.
I will admit . . . I am pretty black-and-white when it comes to things being true or false. There are simply truths and non-truths. And, if there is a non-truth purported, I’m more than willing to point it out, especially when I know I’m right (or am convinced I am right). And, sometimes I’m damn right – doing neither the person I’m in disagreement with or myself any good. And, sometimes I am wrong . . . and, hopefully, willing to accept my error (though reluctantly at times). Thus the contention I make is that there is truth and there is untruth. Can this, however, be substantiated?
The question still shouts loudly to us, “What is TRUTH?”
If we surmise, “truth is that which conforms to reality, fact, or actuality,” this definition is incomplete because it remains open to interpretation. Furthermore, additional questions surface; what is fact? What is Reality? What is actuality? And, how does perception affect truth?
Matthew Slick, an apologist, offers a great response:
We could offer answers for each of these questions, but then we could again ask similar questions of those answers. I am reminded of the paradox of throwing a ball against a wall. It must get half way there, and then half way of the remaining distance, and then half of that distance, and so on. But, an infinite number of halves in this scenario never constitutes a whole. Therefore, it would seem that the ball would never reach the wall if we applied the conceptual truths of halves.
The ball-against-the-wall scenario simply illustrates that defining and redefining things as we try to approach a goal actually prevents us from getting to that goal. This is what philosophy does sometimes as it seeks to examine truth. It sometimes clouds issues so much, that nothing can be known for sure.
But, even though it is true that an infinite number of halves (1/2 of “a” + 1/2 of the remainder + 1/2 of the remainder of that, etc.) does not equal a whole, we can “prove” that it does by simply throwing a ball at a wall and watching it bounce off. Actually, the “1/2” equation above does not equal a whole — mathematically. The problem is not in the truth but in its application, as is often the case with philosophical verbal gymnastics.
In order for truth to be defined properly, it would have to be a factually and logically correct statement. In other words, it would have to be true. But, perhaps we could look further at truth by determining what it is not. Truth is not error. Truth is not self-contradictory. Truth is not deception. Of course, it could be true that someone is being deceptive, but the deception itself isn’t truth.
The debate can continue to include a discussion of relativism, but it too can be interpreted depending upon cultural and personal preferences and experiences.
So, again, we seem to have a conundrum. Or do we?
For us who are followers of Jesus Christ – Christians – the ultimate expression of truth is anchored in a short statement made by Jesus, as recorded in John 14:6, “I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life . . .”
Skeptics and philosophers will dismiss this claim, but the Apostle Paul warns us when he writes, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world (emphasis added), rather than according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)
The young man standing before the judge was Jesus. The judge, Pilot. The influential men who wanted Jesus killed (and succeeded) were the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees – the Jewish rulers of that day. The men who were eyewitnesses to the things Jesus did wrote what they saw. They were some of his followers, his disciples: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are credible witnesses!
We quickly affirm and embrace writings of philosophers, historians, and scholars but are skeptical and disbelieving of writings by witnesses who experienced first-hand the events surrounding this man called Jesus. We readily accept the writings of a man who, at the conclusion of his book, stated his claim is false if no scientific support is provided. The man, Charles Darwin. His book, The Origin of Species. His claims have never been scientifically substantiated yet thousands choose to believe his hypothesis regarding evolution.
If TRUTH does conform to reality and Jesus did what was written, this reality would compel us to accept his claim and we are then confronted with what to do with him.
If Jesus is TRUTH, truth must begin with him, his claims, and what he accomplished. And we are also confronted with the questions, “Do we really believe that what we believe is really real?”
As leaders, we are compelled to seek truth and act upon that truth responsibly. Truly authentic transformational servant leaders need this foundation.
This article is neither all-inclusive or the final word. It is a starting point, meant to engage you in further dialogue. I challenge you to join the discussion and journey to discover TRUTH.