Objective truth, or that which is true no matter what anyone else says, always trumps subjective truth, or that which is true because I feel that it’s true. Of course, it is entirely possible that the truth that I so firmly believe and feel is also that same truth which is also objective. But I could also be entirely wrong if my standard for truth goes no further than myself.
Now add into this mix the debates about absolute truth. Some say their truth is the objective truth, others, with a totally different set of beliefs, say their truth is the objective truth. Even those who claim there is no objective truth assert that there is at least one objective truth (that there is no objective truth), but their position is absurd. Everyone, on some level, believes in some sort of objective truth.
This emphasis on objective truth is what motivated the Apostles of Jesus Christ to go out into all the world, preaching the gospel and making disciples. Jesus Christ was the truth, not a truth.
One of the weaknesses in the modern day church is that we have left off the preaching of objective truth and substituted something that won’t necessarily do the job, subjective truth. It may be true that Jesus has done something for me, but unless I understand the objective truth of Jesus Christ, I am not really going to understand what it is that He did. Sermons filled with endless stories about the preacher betray a very subjective view of the truth. You might get to know the preacher well, but you won’t really learn the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Jesus is not the best way for me, He is the only way for everyone. Jesus calls Himself the truth. Paul states that if anyone contradicts his preaching of Jesus Christ, then they’re wrong. Christians are not called to pick and choose truth based on “what works” – we are called to internalize the objective truth of the Scripture, which is our only infallible source for that truth.
I really believe that this breakdown in the teaching and preaching of objective truth is what causes so many of our teenagers to forsake the faith when they get older. It’s also why so many older people have no clue why they’re really going to church or living as they do. Many are doing and believing what seems right to them, only to be shaken in their beliefs later when something happens that doesn’t fit into their system of subjective truth. And once their foundation begins to shake, the structure of their lives is sure to fall. And when this shaking begins, it won’t matter how many Christian concerts you’ve been to, or how many buildings you’ve built in third world countries, or how many times you’ve walked an aisle and said the sinner’s prayer. You might hold subjective truth, but it won’t hold you.
However, the believer in God’s objective truth found in Jesus Christ will never fall. He may stumble, yes, but he will not fall. Why? Because if Christ is for us, who can be against us? The fact of Jesus Christ, the objective truth of Jesus Christ, is what will hold us when nothing else will. There is a difference between me gripping what I think is the truth, and the true truth gripping me.
This is the difference between subjective truth and objective truth.
would you say that if a person has belief in absolute truth on just one issue, he has to give up subjective truth in the other areas?
for example, can I say that murder is WRONG for everyone but then say that abortion is a matter of personal subjective morality.
I guess what I’m trying to ask is, if there is ANY objective truth, can there be ANY subjective truth?
Isn’t subjective truth just another name for an opinion?
People who talk about ‘my truth’ vs ‘your truth’ give ‘their truth’ more weight than just an opinion.
What is that picture, by the way??
Actually, a subjective truth is something that can be proven pragmatically or coherently. Pragmatically means that it generates desirable results. From this stance, it can be concluded that cheating is good because it gets good grades. This is not an effective measurement of truth. Coherently means that it is consistent with the facts present in its own paradigm, but that does not necessarily make it true either. A dragon is coherent with a fairy tale, but it isn’t true unless the fairy tale is true. On objective truth is truth by correspondence. That is to say that it is consistent with the facts that have already been proven methodically to be true. Saying Jesus is the truth is subjective, because it is coherent only within the context of religion. If you take Jesus out of that context, he is no longer coherent with any outside facts.
Shelby, I think you might have misunderstood what I was talking about. Believing something to be true (because I believe it) is not a basis for actual proof, or even a basis for commending my belief to someone else. The proof resides in the thing itself, not my opinion of it.
Besides, when you start talking about something being true only in the context of religion, it’s like patting a child on the head who believes in Santa Claus. Stating that Jesus is the truth is only subjective if he isn’t really the truth, and there’s no way to find out the truth. But since there is such a thing as absolute truth, then proving whether Jesus is true or false is just a matter of history (it really did happen) or time (it really will happen).
Mister Richardson, you have just illustrated Shelby’s point very well: “Besides…Claus”. A child would be so devastated in learning there is no Santa Claus that they will often refuse to accept the facts, continuing to believe in JC, i mean SC.
Is it an objective truth that the aforementioned “trumps” a subjective one?
I believe thus far is that an objective truth is objective based on who is holding it.
Then it is known as consensus.
Well Jerry, the big difference between SC and JC is that JC actually existed! Whether you believe in him or not, your thinking does not determine the fact of his historical existence.
[...] is on based repeatedly testing and refining theories. In the pursuit of the objective truth, the singular reality of a solution, academics and scientists generally curtail their own biases. This action attempts to eliminate [...]
Whether or not the Church preaches its dogma in the commonality of objectivity or subjectivity is largely irrelevant, seeing as how there is no plausible way for the Church to truthfully do so objectively.
There is no evidence whatsoever for a God. Not just the God of the Bible, but of any God, of any religion. Nor is there evidence for Jesus having conducted miracles (although I won’t outright deny his existence, for several histories circa 100 BC have written of his existence), or rising from the dead, or being born of a virgin. Even any of those miracles alone would not be evidence of a God, just of a miracle happening, of whose origin no one knows.
Therefore, it would be outright blasphemy to preach the “Word of God” as if it were the undying, undeniable, and undoubted truth of the world; there is nothing showing that this is so. Clearly you can see the farcical logic behind claiming the ideology of Christianity to be objectively true.
Jimbo, if there is no God, then there is no final authority for right and wrong, truth or falsehood. These all require some sort of universal standard. Therefore, your comments are equally farcical.
Well, the big difference between SC and JC is that SC actually existed! Whether you believe in him or not, your thinking does not determine the fact of his historical existence.
This is what i like to call a subjective claim. There is no more validity in the subjective claim that JC exists than in the subjective that SC exists. Objectively there is a little more evidence for JC then SC, but still it is not enough to outright prove his existence. But just because an objective truth cannot objectively be reached does not mean it does not objectively exist. That is the point of faith.
Caleb, if you mean that Saint Nicholas was an actual person, then, yes, he existed. But the fictional Santa Claus is made up – that’s why he’s fictional. There is quite a bit of uncontradicted, eye-witness testimony for the existence of Jesus Christ. Even if you reject the New Testament, there’s still plenty of references to Jesus Christ in other sources, unless you want to reject all of them as well.
Faith is not a irrational blind leap, but a reasonable response to the facts that are presented. To believe that Jesus Christ existed as a man doesn’t require faith – it requires an ability to sift historical evidence.
That Jesus Christ was actually God incarnate – a claim that might be more difficult to assess since we don’t meet that many people who claim to be God – requires faith because we haven’t ever actually met God. But Jesus seems to present evidence that He is, in fact, God and He encourages us to believe just that. As the Bible says, “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
I was not actually trying to argue for Santa, just trying to prove the point that you can reverse the previous subjective statement about the existence of Jesus over Santa to a subjective statement about the existence of Santa over Jesus without changing the objective validity of the statement. There is no objective truth in a purely subjective claim.
But to say faith is not an irrational blind leap is to change the definition of faith. A reasonable response to the facts that are presented is called a logical conclusion, or possibly an educated guess. Not faith. To assume that an object is present without actually seeing the object but still seeing its shadow is a logical conclusion. To assume that the same object is there without seeing it or its shadow is faith. To say that faith requires some evidence takes away from what faith is. Faith is an irrational blind leap, but that does not mean its wrong.
You seem to be saying that Kierkagaard’s “leap of faith” is the standard definition of what faith is, but what of the entire 11th Chapter of Hebrews and the biblical assertion that faith is based on evidence? This isn’t the Christian understanding, whatever anyone else may or may not believe.
Besides, if there is no objective truth, or ultimate authority, it doesn’t really matter anyway – it’s irrelevant – believe what you like and hope you’re not wrong. Isn’t that what you’re saying?
The evidence given in Hebrews 11 is deeds that certain people who had faith did. This is how they proved that they had faith. It is not evidence from which their faith was based.
Read the verse again – “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Noah was divinely warned, Abraham was called – not exactly a blind leap.
The reason for this is that God has revealed things to us in His word and in nature. Otherwise, why would Paul say in Romans 1, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse…” One of the charges brought against sinful men is that God has revealed information to them and they have rejected it.
So, faith is a persuasion and an assurance that what has been revealed is true, so you embrace it, even though you haven’t possessed the fullness of it yet.
Hello there Richardson,
It seems to me that several of your commenters are treating subjective and objective statements as comparable. Indeed, you do so yourself in the first line of your article:
“Objective truth, or that which is true no matter what anyone else says, always trumps subjective truth…”
Surely, the two types of statement are not comparable, because they are talking about different things. Objective statements say something about the universe, Subjective statements are about our minds, or the projection of our minds onto the universe. For example, my subjective truth is that blue is the best colour. It is personal to me and my mind and it cannot be ‘trumped’ by any objective truth. Equally, the objective truth that… trees exist, cannot be affected by any subjective opinion about trees.
Hume had something to say in this regard, and attempted to split the universe of statements in two, with Positivist (objective) statements on one side, and Nominative (subjective) statements on the other. His point was also that the two are not comparable. His famous Is-Ought problem is an application of this idea.
If an objective statement is proven to be incorrect, it relegates it not to subjective truth, but to objective falsehood. Some commenters here seem to think otherwise.
As for faith, the best definition I have is:
“A grossly incorrect apportionment of belief in a statement about the objective nature of reality, according to that implied by logic and the available evidence”
I really can’t get my head around you definition. It’s a little inconcise. What do you mean?
Some interesting comments, Asha28. I agree with your statement that if an objective truth is incorrect, then it must be false. But when it comes to dealing with people, many might still believe a falsehood, and therein lies our problem. In fact, the Bible indicates that one of the sins of humanity is that we would rather believe a lie than the truth when it comes to God.
My definition of faith comes from the book of Hebrews in the Bible. I believe that God has communicated his truth to prophets and apostles and that his truth is THE truth by which all others are to be judged. But because we don’t actually SEE God and can’t detect him, we are left to BELIEVE that he is there and that his word is true. So, in this case faith isn’t blind, because there is evidence to back up the belief.
Greetings Richardson,
I hope im not detouring away from the context but at the end of the day we all have our own minds, and we are going to believe in whatever we naturally end up believing in, regardless if its an objective truth or not. We will all have to deal with the consequences of our decisions whatever they might be, if there is such a thing as absolute truth… we cant force ourselves to understand it right away, instead we take our own unique steps towards realising it. What are your thoughts? Thanks
I have faith in myself, faith in my own reasoning, why? simply because theres plenty of evidence which ive experianced within myself, im not perfect i make mistakes… thats life. Buddha taught to believe nothing, even not to believe him… only if it agrees with your logical understanding. Everyone has their own way of understanding the world around them, you can try your best to convince someone to see the same truth as you, but dont let it affect your ego if they simply cant see it… its not meant to be.
The Bible (in Romans 1) says that our own understanding of the universe ultimately leads to idolatry – worshiping the true God in the wrong way. It would be nice if it were purely a matter of logic, but the human heart is deceitful and can be misled easily. The revelation of God in Scripture, not nature, is our ultimate arbiter of truth here on earth, whether I like it or not.