Episode 64 – The Tools of Truth

Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God.

Script: (Bible quotes from the Contemporary English Version)

Show me your paths and teach me to follow; guide me by your truth

and instruct me. You keep me safe, and I always trust you in Him.”

Psalm 25, verses 4 and 5, Contemporary English Version

Truth will last forever; lies are soon found out.

Proverbs, Chapter 12, verse 19, Contemporary English Version

********

VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. I’m here today with RD Fierro, author and founder of Crystal Sea Books, and part-time magician. It seems like when he’s around, things in the office either disappear or move around with no explanation. Well today, RD, you said that you wanted to continue the discussion we began last time about the nature of truth and how we determine what is true when there are competing truth claims. So let’s start with a simple question that concerns truth and magic. How did that box of pens I put in the storage cabinet last week disappear so quickly?

RD: Well, that’s a very good question. But …

VK: Uh oh. Whenever there’s a “but” following a non-answer it’s pretty certain there’s no useful information forthcoming.

RD: … but your question is an excellent example of how important the truth is to our daily lives, especially if you’re looking for a fine-line, gel point pen to mark up a script.

VK: And it’s an example of how difficult it can be sometimes to determine the truth. Anyway, I think that how we could determine what happened to the pens is a great lead-in for our subject today. Because today you wanted to move on from our discussion last time when we discussed the nature of truth - and you want to talk about how it is possible for us to determine the truth especially when the question at issue is more substantive than what happened to the pens.

RD: Yes. Our discussion last time was about the nature of truth. Today I want to talk about what I’m calling the tools of truth. So let’s do a brief review of what we learned about the nature of truth using a list of those things we can state that truth “is” as well as those things that truth “is not.” I’ll start out with the things that truth is. First and foremost, truth is that which corresponds to reality. As such, knowing the truth is extremely important not only for living meaningful lives in the here and now, but also for determining our eternal destiny. Truth is also always absolute and singular. While true statements about individual circumstances may change through time – like whether there are gel-point pens in the storage cabinet – a true statement about that condition remains true regardless of future changes in status. If there were no pens in the cabinet on Tuesday, the fact that pens return on Wednesday doesn’t change the fact that they were missing on Tuesday.

VK: Which leads us to our list of what truth is not. Truth is not dependent on people’s perceptions or opinions about it. So, this means that truth is never determined by majority opinion. Truth is also not altered by errors, deviations, or lies told about it. In other words, just because someone presents an alternative to a specific truth, the presentation of an alternative does not change the original truth. All that the existence of alternatives means is that there are now competing truth claims which leads us the issue we want to get to – what you are calling the tools of truth. You’re really referring to how we can judge between competing truth claims - to know which claim is actually – well – true.

RD: Precisely. In life we will be confronted with competing truth claims on a regular basis. Some of those claims may be relatively easy to resolve – like where the pens are now. But others may be more difficult to sort out. But some of those claims that are difficult to sort out can be some of the most important, because they don’t just affect our lives in the here and now – they can affect where we spend eternity. So, it’s important to be able to sort them out and arrive at reasoned and supportable conclusions.

VK: All right. Then how do we start sorting among competing truth claims? What process do we use?

RD: The basic process of sorting among competing truth claims to determine which claim is valid should always be done using a process of logic, reason, and evidence. Sometimes applying the process is pretty simple and almost automatic. Sometimes the process can be a bit more complicated, but the basic process remains the same.

VK: I think a lot of people would think that those three terms – logic, reason, and evidence – are pretty close in meaning. So, what do you mean when you use them?

RD: Well, let’s start by taking a look at logic. Logic is the set of principles, or laws if you will, that guide you in making valid decisions. It goes without saying that it is a huge area and that countless books about the science and study of logic have been written. And of course the study of logical fallacies is a very popular area of study in certain academic disciplines like philosophy. But for our purposes today we just need to think about a few basic rules that all of us know intuitively, but we rarely think about specifically.

VK: Such as …

RD: The most fundamental law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. It can be simply stated as “A cannot be both A and non-A, at the same time and in the same relationship.” The classic example is that biologically a woman may be both a daughter and a mother but not to the same person. We apply this principle every day to live safe lives and sort out problems we just rarely think about it. A second principle we routinely apply in our lives is the law of causality which might be stated that “every effect requires a necessary and sufficient cause.”

VK: Without wanting to jump too far ahead, the law of causality is one that is particularly troublesome for ardent atheists. Empirical observations show that the universe had a beginning and the 2nd law of thermodynamics means that someday the universe will run out of energy and have an end. So anything that has a beginning and an end can’t be eternal which means that the universe needs a cause outside of itself to explain its existence. So the law of causality points directly to the need for a Creator God.

RD: Exactly. But as you said let’s not jump too far ahead. Before we leave the consideration of logic we need to note that problems with invalid conclusions often arise because a logical fallacy arises in an argument or decision making process. Certainly, one of the best known logical fallacies is the invalid form of an ad hominen argument. Ad hominen means “to the person.” So, if someone says to me I disagree with you because you have gray hair, that’s an ad hominem attack because the person doing the disagreeing is attacking the person rather than the proposition at issue.

VK: And another well-known logical fallacy is Post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this." Simply stated it means "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy. It’s the old observation that because the rooster crows just before dawn, it’s the rooster’s crowing that causes the dawn. Kind of like my buying pens always precedes the pens’ disappearing – so I’m the one causing the pens disappearance.

RD: Well, that does make some sense.

VK: Yeah. No. Anyway what’s next?

RD: Let’s think about reason for a second. Logic and reason are similar but whereas the laws of logic are the principles that guide correct decision making, I think of reason as the application of those principles to a particular process. In other words, reason is the human faculty or ability for being able to apply logical principles. So, like all human abilities not everyone possesses the same innate level of reasoning ability any more than every person can sing or dance equally well, or throw or catch a ball. But reason can be developed or improved through study and practice and developing your ability to reason can actually help improve a Christian’s witness in a world that’s often hostile to that witness.

VK: And reasoning ability is vital when it comes to sorting through competing truth claims. So, if we believe that the Biblical account of the confrontation between David and Goliath is historically accurate we have to be able to provide a reasoned explanation for that belief against the counter claims that it is either an allegorical story, or worse, mythical. But again, we should emphasize that the fact there are counter claims does not change the underlying truth. As we discussed last time the existence of alternative truth claims does not, in any way, affect the original truth. As our second opening scripture, Proverbs 19:12, says, “Truth will last forever; lies are soon found out.” Though it sure seems sometimes like some lies do last a long time. Anyway, we’ve covered logic and reason. So, that leaves evidence as the third tool of truth.

RD: Yes. And I guess it would be a little cheeky to say that the nature of evidence is, well ... self-evident.

VK: Yes. It would.

RD: So, given that, evidence is the body of facts, observations, or details that forms the basis upon which the reasoning process is based. I want someday to do an entire series on the nature and types of evidence but let’s just think about a couple of the most basic distinctions with which most of us are familiar even if we never think about them. Let’s start with the fact that there’s a difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference. Examples of direct evidence would be things like an audio tape of a suspect admitting to a crime or a video tape of the suspect entering the building. This distinction is important to judgments made in courtrooms every day, but it’s also important when we think about the kinds of competing truth claims that arise out of the Bible such as whether the flood of Noah was literally true or whether Jesus rose from the dead.

VK: Uh-oh. I sense some danger in the near future. You’re about to make one of those statements that causes head scratching or headaches.

RD: Ah, you know me so well. Yes. Here’s a truly mind boggling statement, but one that is absolutely true. Since eyewitness testimony is direct evidence, the only direct evidence that we have about certain historical events comes from the Bible. That’s one of the reasons that it’s so important to have a firm grasp on the validity and reliability of scripture.

VK: And as a general rule direct evidence is more compelling than circumstantial evidence isn’t it?

RD: All other things being equal I think most advocates would prefer to have direct evidence to support their contention, but I wouldn’t want to diminish the importance of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be used to strengthen a case whose foundation is direct evidence and circumstantial evidence is also important because it can be used to rebut opposing claims.

VK: I think those are reasonable, no pun intended, observations. Alright. You are calling logic, reason, and evidence the tools of truth. So, how are these tools employed in the search for the truth – which often involves choosing among competing truth claims?

RD: Well, let’s think about it this way for a minute. Logic, reason, and evidence roughly correspond to the tools that you need to make a cake. To make a tasty cake …

VK: So, not like the ones you make?

RD: Definitely not like cakes I’ve made. Anyway, to bake a successful cake you need a recipe, the right ingredients, and someone who can put it all together – to crack the eggs, fold in the flour, mix, and put it in the oven.

VK: And take it out of the oven at the right time.

RD: Precisely. So we can think of the laws of logic as the instructions in the recipe, the evidence is the ingredients in our truth cake, and reason as the process of assembling, mixing, and baking. If we’re making a cake and we mess up any of the parts of the process we wind up with something inedible. Same thing with using logic, reason, and evidence to determine the truth. We have to use them all properly to arrive at the real truth.

VK:. But that, of course, raises the question of how we can know whether, even if we’ve done our best at using the tools, we’ve arrived at the correct conclusion. I mean we can taste the cake to see whether we did everything properly but it’s not quite that easy when it comes to making a determination about whether Jesus did come out of the tomb, or whether Noah really did build an ark to survive a worldwide flood.

RD: I completely agree that when it comes to knowing some of what I’ve referred to as the big truths we don’t have a simple and inarguable way of knowing that we have arrived at the correct conclusion. But that is quite a different thing from saying that we can’t have confidence in our decision making process and in the conclusions our process produces. If we are willing to do some careful analysis and study we cannot only know the truth we can have a high degree of confidence in our conclusions. Sometimes, I think Christians think that we go through the kind of analyses we’ve been talking about – knowing the nature of truth and using tools to discover truth – as way to persuade unbelievers, but that is an extremely limited way of thinking about this subject.

VK: I think I see where you’re going with all this. Certainly, one reason Christians should understand the nature of truth and how to sort through competing truth claims is to explain our beliefs to unbelievers. That is complying with the commandment we have in 1 Peter 3:15 which says that we are to, “Always be ready to give an answer when someone asks you about your hope.” But the following verse, verse 16, says that we are also to “give a kind and respectful answer and keep your conscience clear.” So Peter is saying that by being able to give answers to people who want to know why we are Christians not only serves the person asking the questions, but also serves the Christian. Being able to give reasonable answers helps us keep our consciences clear.

RD: Exactly. In this day and time, in this country and really around the world, there are attacks being mounted against the Christian faith every day. In a certain sense, though, this has been true throughout the entire history of the church so we needn’t think that we are experiencing anything unique. And I am not concerned that these attacks will succeed. Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His church. But in the midst of so much opposition it can sometimes be hard for Christians to retain their sense of confidence that what they believe to be true is really true. In other words, understanding how to properly use the tools of truth isn’t just important for discussions believers might have with unbelievers. It’s also important so believers can be confident in their own faith.

VK: So, what you’re saying is that it is important for Christians to think through the big questions that lead to the transcendent truths so they can be strengthened in their personal faith – so they can be fully confident as they go about their daily lives and worship.

RD: Yes. In our next show we’re going to delve more deeply into the nature of faith, but for today it’s important to recognize that the Christian faith is not a faith that is in opposition to logic, reason, or evidence. To the contrary, once Christians understand the evidence – including evidence that’s derived from science – and apply logic and reason, they can be exceedingly confident that their faith is grounded on, surrounded by, and established by the truth.

VK: That goes back to one of what you call your trick questions. You sometimes ask believers, “why are you a Christian?” You believe that the best answer to that question has to begin with the observation that the claims of Christianity are true - objectively, propositionally, and historically. And this view isn’t something you came up with. In fact, the Apostle Paul says that the Christian faith is one that is grounded in a single historical event: the resurrection of Jesus. Writing in 1 Corinthians, chapter 15 Paul rebukes some of the Corinthian believers for not believing that it’s possible for the dead to rise to life. Paul says that if the dead can’t rise to life, then Jesus couldn’t have risen out of the tomb. And if Jesus didn’t rise out of the tomb that their faith that Jesus saved them from their sins was null and void.

RD: Right. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul made it expressly clear that the Christian faith is a faith grounded in reason and evidence. In that chapter he employs the valid form of the ad hominen argument to demonstrate that a disbelief in the resurrection would invalidate their entire faith. While there is an invalid form of ad hominen argumentation there is also a valid form. So, in the space of just a few sentences Paul provides an extremely compelling example to all of us that we need to understand the evidence that supports Christianity, the laws that govern logic, and be able to use reason to demonstrate the basis for our beliefs. This is, of course, completely opposite of so much of what you hear today when you will often hear someone say, “Well, you have your faith, but I believe in science and reason.”

VK: A lot of Christians find themselves intimidated by those kind of assertions because they’ve never heard anyone talk about the errors that are embedded in assertions like that. Christians, in fact no one, needs to make a choice between whether they place their trust in Christianity or in so-called science and reason. That’s a false dichotomy. Logic, reason, and evidence, including scientific evidence, support the truth of the Christian faith. It’s just that most people have probably never had anyone present them with an appropriate explanation for how that is true.

RD: Exactly. In a certain sense it’s sad that we have to spend time discussing issues like the nature of truth and the tools that we can use in the truth discovery process, but today it’s essential that we do. One of the scariest statistics I’ve seen recently is that up to 75% of kids who are raised in Christian households lose their faith when they leave home. Of course, many of them lose it when they go off to college and encounter belief systems that directly challenge Christianity and no small percentage of Christian kids lose their faith over the issue of evolution versus Biblical creation. That’s one of the reasons we did our Truth in Genesis series with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati to provide an overview of how real science actually supports the Genesis account rather than refuting it as is popularly believed. As a church we have to do a better job of equipping our believers, young and old alike, to deal with the challenges to their faith that they are going to confront.

VK: And it’s a good idea to note that in preparing to confront these challenges that we are imitating Jesus. When Jesus encountered opponents in Jerusalem, in John 10:36 through38 He said to the opponents, “Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” So not only did the Apostle Paul say that the Christian faith was grounded in evidence, but Jesus Himself said the same thing.

RD: I think that is an excellent observation but before we close today I think we need to make one more observation about using logic, reason, and evidence to search for the truth. Christians do have one advantage that those who are not Christians do not. Romans 8:16 tells us that Christians can be sure that we know the truth because we have the inward assurance that comes only from the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:16 says, “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.” So, no matter what we challenges the world chooses to pose to our faith, we have assurance from God himself that He has led us to the truth.

VK: That’s certainly a powerful and comforting thought and a great way to close for today. Since the Holy Spirit is the one who provides the assurance to us that we are, in fact, God’s children, today let’s hear a prayer of adoration for the Holy Spirit.

---- PRAYER FOR THE ADORATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.”

If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!”

(Bible Quotes from the Contemporary English Version)

Psalm 25, verses 4 and 5, Contemporary English Version

Proverbs, Chapter 12, verse 19, Contemporary English Version