Caleb Harrelson
[Originally published as the first part of When truth is slain in the streets]
Have you ever walked around on a sidewalk while texting on your phone, and then run into something? Sadly, I have done this more than once myself. It’s embarrassing, especially when I run into a pole! The problem was that I was not paying attention to the reality around me.
Something similarly painful happens when people evade reality through faulty reasoning and confusing truth claims.
One of the most historic examples of this is when Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea who presided over Jesus’ trial, responded to Jesus’ statement that “Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice” by simply replying, “What is truth?” (John 18:37–38).
Doesn’t it strike you as odd that Pilate said this? Why would he say this? Was he avoiding the implications of what Jesus just said? I think so. Pilate was avoiding reality by questioning the nature of “truth” itself.
Still today, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9), and people are avoiding the truth in a similar fashion. Many people avoid reality by making misleading statements or distracting one to escape the ultimate issue at hand: is ONLY Jesus truly the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6; Acts 4:12), and are his commands good? (Psalm 119:33–57)
Let’s take a look at a couple of truth or knowledge claims that avoid reality, and I’ll offer a couple of short responses to ponder:
Agnostic: “We can’t really know if anything is true at all. Thus, we really can’t know if any religion is even true.”
Response: “Can we know if your statement is true? If so, doesn’t that mean that we can know that something is true? However, if you know that you can’t know, isn’t that self-defeating?
Pragmatist: “We know what is true by what works. Living for myself and not for Christ works for me.
Response: “There are several things that may ‘work’ and ‘bring results,’ but that doesn’t mean they are always the right or the best course of action. For example, it may work for you to steal something (especially if you don’t get caught), but is that the right thing to do? What ultimate standard are you appealing to on what is good and true when you appeal to pragmatism? A lot of bad things have been justified in the name of what works for the greater good now.
Critical theorist: “Your truth claim is just a power grab! You are a man; therefore, you have no right to say if abortion is wrong. You just want to control people! I think all Christians just want to control people!”
Response: “What happens if your position becomes the dominant narrative in culture? Will your viewpoints simply be a power grab or is it grounded in an objective standard outside of the majority viewpoint? Is it possible that truth is grounded in reality itself and not just power dynamics? Is it possible that power is not inherently evil but can be used for good?
“Also, dismissing someone’s viewpoint simply because of the origin (gender) is a genetic fallacy. Furthermore, why are you assuming my intentions when I claim that it’s wrong to intentionally take the life of innocent human beings, and abortion does exactly that. It seems that you are avoiding the reality of what we are discussing and hindering a productive conversation. Bad reasoning hurts people and avoids the pursuit of truth.”
Post Modern: “Truth is just a social construct. Truth is just relative to the individual. Christianity is just a social construct as well.”
Response: “Is your claim that truth is relative an absolute claim for all truths? If so, how is that not self-defeating? Is 2+2=4 a social construct or something that we discover? Have you ever seriously investigated the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? If so, would you be willing to watch this video? (click here).”
New Age: “If something makes me feel good about myself, then it must be true and good. If following Jesus works for you, cool, but it doesn’t work for me since I think it’s just fear-based.”
Response: “There are many things in this world that can make us feel good, but are not actually good for us. You can overeat and it feels good, but that doesn’t mean that it’s good for me. What is your ultimate standard for determining what is good when feelings can change so much? Furthermore, if feelings are always changing, then by what standard would someone be wrong to say that it makes them feel good to hurt you?
“Have you read my article about your ‘fear-based’ claim? I’m not sure if you realize that statement is a genetic fallacy.
“It would also seem to be the fallacy of ‘faulty appeal to authority’ when you appeal to your feelings for what is right and good. This is because ‘feelings’ are not a proper authority on what is ultimately right or wrong (see Jeremiah 17:9). You need an objective standard instead (see 2 Timothy 3:16; 1 Timothy 1:8–10).”
New Age: “You are wrong because you don’t embrace non-dualistic thinking. Stop thinking that there are dichotomies and simply accept the unity of all things. We are all one. We are all one and divine.”
Response: “Wait, so you are saying that EITHER I embrace your view OR I am wrong? Why are you making a distinction between viewpoints? How is that not contradictory?”
New Ager: “No, you don’t get it. What we need is a ‘non-dualistic theological framework.’ We don’t need an either/or option. For example, in the Bible, Job’s friends were stuck thinking that only the righteous prosper and the sinful suffer. If his friends were really comforting, they would realize that what they really needed to do was to see things from a non-dualistic theological framework.”
Response: “I’m sorry, but I think you are committing several errors in reasoning here. On the one hand, you recognize that Job’s friends made a false dichotomy (only two options) on why Job is suffering, but then you conclude that since those two options are wrong, then there must be no truth at all.
“The error here is that there is an equivocation on the term ‘non-dualistic’ that confuses some readers to think that it may refer simply to ‘mystery.'” These two terms do not mean the same thing.
To be continued…
