Reading time: 10 minutes
In Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's book I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist, they lay out a 12 step argument that will lead from the reality of truth to the reliability of the Bible and Godhood of Jesus. Using their framework, I intend to have a series of posts about each of the 12 steps. However, I would like to take a deeper look at many of the issues they cover. This is not to say that the coverage in the book is lacking; it's just to say that my own studies have taken me deeper than, I presume, space allowed in the book. The first post in the series will cover the first 2 steps, which are:
1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.
These steps are obviously related. Geisler and Turek offer the correspondence theory of truth as the reason they know step 1. Step 2 follows from step 1. What I would like to do is to discuss the correspondence theory of truth as well as 2 alternate theories of truth. I hope to demonstrate that we should all accept the correspondence theory and reject the other two theories. From there, in part 2, I am going to discuss the 2 biggest hurdles for the correspondence theory: postmodernism and relativism, which are interrelated.
The correspondence theory of truth can be defined as such: "a proposition (statement, belief) is true just in case it corresponds to reality, when what it asserts to be the case is the case" (1). In practical terms, this means that if I say, "The oven is on at my house", that is only true if it corresponds to reality. In this case it would be true if the oven is actually on at my house. The key here is not that I believe the oven to be on or I assert the oven to be on, it is only true if the oven is actually on. In terms of the steps above, step 1 would be verified by someone going to my house and checking to see if the oven is on. Whether the oven is on or off, we just discovered a truth about reality. Step 2 comes in when we consider my statement about the oven. If the oven actually is on, what I said is true. If the oven is off, what I said is false, the opposite of true. The actual instance of external reality is what makes a proposition true or false. More technically, the correspondence theory of truth could be defined when "truth obtains when a truth-bearer stands in an appropriate correspondence relation to a truth-maker" (2). There are 3 parts to this definition that need to be siphoned out: truth-bearer, correspondence relation, and truth-maker. Let's take a look.
Three types of truth-bearers have been offered by correspondence theorists: sentences and statements, thoughts and beliefs, and propositions (3). Sentences and statements are problematic because of the existence of meaningless sentences and/or statements such as "Hey!". That statement is neither true nor false. Proponents of this view may say that it is the content or what is being asserted that is true or false, but that comes very near propositions. Thoughts and beliefs as truth-bearers are also problematic for the same reason that sentences/statements are. It is not the thought/belief itself that bears the truth or falsehood about reality, it is the content, which, once again, leads us to propositions as the appropriate truth-bearers.
Truth-makers deal with what makes something true. So, what makes something true? Propositions are "true just in case a specific state of affairs... actually obtains" (4). This means that the content of declarative sentences/statements or thoughts/beliefs corresponds to reality through intentionality. Propositions are directed at an object which can then be examined to see whether or not the content obtains. Is the oven on or not at my house? If it is, the content of my earlier proposition, which was directed at the oven at my house, obtains and is true.
The final part of correspondence theory is the correspondence relation which is "a two-placed relation between a proposition and the state of affairs that is its intentional object" (5). When we consider my oven again, we can see that the proposition, "The oven is on at my house", is either true or false based on the state of affairs at my house (i.e. the oven is on or off). The oven is the intentional object. I did not intend the porch light in my proposition, but the oven. In summary, the correspondence theory of truth proclaims that something is true if the relation between the truth-bearer (proposition) obtains according to the truth-maker (intentionality or directedness at an object). If not, it is false, which is the opposite of true. When we consider the logical law of non-contradiction we see that step 2 is correct. "The oven is on at my house" cannot be true and false in the same sense at the same time. Also, the logical law of excluded middle says that propositions are either true or false, there is no other option. The oven can't be anything but on or off.
The other 2 theories of truth will be covered more briefly. The first of these is the coherence theory. This theory proposes that "a belief (statement, proposition, etc.) is true if and only if it coheres well with the entire set of one's beliefs, assuming that the set is itself a strongly coherent one" (6). The major problem with this theory is that the truth of a belief doesn't have to have anything to do with reality. As long as it "coheres" with other beliefs it is true. This is problematic. If "Bob" tells me his name is "John", according to this theory, it is true even though it is actually false. His having the name John coheres with all my other beliefs and therefore, is true. In fact, this is what most skeptics accuse Christians of doing. We believe that Jesus rose from the dead, it coheres with our other beliefs (by ignoring things that disprove it), so it's true. No reality check needed. I don't know about you, but that is not what I think about Jesus' resurrection. I think it corresponds to reality and we can check it in history to see if it's true. The final theory of truth is called pragmatism or the pragmatic theory of truth. This theory says "a belief P is true if and only if P works or is useful to have" (7). Again, there is no relation to external reality and, in general, pragmatists tend to be anti-realists concerning the external world (they don't think it's real). Another issue with pragmatism is that anybody gets to define what works or is useful to have. An example would be Muslim terrorists. They think killing infidels works or is a useful belief to have because it gets them to heaven and in the good graces of Allah. This means that the belief is true whether or not external reality demonstrates it to be true or not. There is good reason to think Islam is false and thus the belief that killing infidels gets you to heaven is false, but according to the pragmatic theory of truth this belief would be true.
The correspondence theory of truth is what you use in every day life. It is the
common-sense view of truth about reality. The oven isn't on at my house right now, therefore, my earlier statement is false. It doesn't matter if the oven being on coheres with my other beliefs or if it works for me; the external reality is that the oven is off so my proposition is false. Our courts use this theory as
well when examining evidence at a trial. If you are a Christian, the
Bible seems to ascribe to this theory as well (Isa 45:19; Pro 8:7; Jer
9:5; John 8:44-5; 17:17; 10:35). It just seems to make sense that when
we say or think something, we can then check that in the world and see
if it is true or false.
In part 2 of steps 1&2 we'll talk about the 2 biggest challenges to the correspondence theory of truth: postmodernism and relativism.
Notes:
1. J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview, 2003. pg 135.
2. ibid, pg 135.
3. ibid, pg 135.
4. ibid, pg 136.
5. ibid, pg 139.
6. ibid, pg 142.
7. ibid, pg 144.
No comments:
Post a Comment