Contents
A. In common parlance, when we say that something "is true", we are stating:
1. What is the case
2. What conforms to the facts or reality
3. What accords with the actual state of affairs
4. What is correct
B. It is very easy to use synonyms to describe what truth is, but it is entirely another matter to set forth a theory of truth - this is something that philosophers have struggled with for years
A. People often present different theories of truth as if they are at war with each other, saying that we are only allowed to pick one of the theories
B. However, different theories of truth advanced by philosophers are not necessarily in conflict with each other
C. If we analyze what is going on with these different theories of truth, we will realize that they are each addressing different questions about truth - some theories ask:
1. What is the nature of the property that we call "truth"? (ex. the correspondence theory)
2. What is the evidence for the presence of that property? (ex. the coherence and pragmatic theories)
3. What is the logical structure or function of those sentences that use the term "truth"? (ex. the semantic and performative theories)
D. Consequently, there is no need to choose between these theories - the correspondence theory is giving us an explanation of the property of truth, while the coherence theory is suggesting a way that we detect the presence of that property
A. Correspondence theory
1. Something is true when it corresponds to the facts
2. A proposition is true when it corresponds to a state of affairs
3. Truth is a property of a proposition or statement corresponding to an abstract state of affairs
4. True sentences parallel or picture extramental reality
B. Coherence theory
1. Something is true when it fits in a coherent theory
2. A proposition is true when it coheres with all the other beliefs that we hold/know
C. Pragmatic theory
1. True sentences are corroborated by their practical results
2. The practical results of a sentence include its practical outworking in life, its cash value, and what it calls for me to do
3. If a sentence is beneficial and helps me be successful, then that sentence is true
D. Semantic theory
1. A proposition P is true if and only if P - this lays down a condition of material adequacy for any interpretation in a language
2. The value "true" should be assigned to all and only those sentences which are regarded as true, regardless of how we determine that
E. Performative theory
1. When we assert that a sentence is true, we are performing the action of offering personal reassurance or confirmation regarding it
2. When we say "this sentence is true", we are just saying "go ahead and believe it"
3. By placing the phrase "is true" after a proposition, we are performing the function of reassurance
A. When considered in isolation, each of these theories has problems and is insufficient for providing a complete theory of truth
B. Correspondence theory
1. This theory rests upon a crude and unworkable metaphor
a. Do true sentences actually picture the extramental world? I have yet to see a sentence that looks like a red Corvette
b. There are true sentences about red Corvettes, but they do not look like red Corvettes, so why do we say that they correspond?
2. This theory speaks of correspondence between sentences and abstract entities which are described as actual states of affairs or facts
a. A fact is not something that we can touch, even though it is common parlance to say "I'm going to show you the facts right outside the door"
b. What we are going to see right outside the door is the world, but a fact is an actual state of affairs - it is the statement of what is true right outside the door
3. In order to explain the correspondence between a verbal expression and an abstract state of affairs, we must first know how to individuate states of affairs because not all states of affairs are the same
4. Any attempt to individuate states of affairs is going to require us to refer to true propositions, which is what the theory was supposed to explain in the first place
a. Individuate: to separate and discern, to see the difference between one thing and another
b. Example: the state of affairs of eating Chinese food is different than the state of affairs of eating Mexican food
1) One thing that individuates these states of affairs is that I ate Chinese food today and that I did not eat Mexican food today - one state of affairs is true and the other is not
5. This theory requires propositions to correspond to not just any state of affairs, but true states of affairs
6. The correspondence theory requires us to know what truth is before we can define what truth is, which is not helpful at all
7. Consequently, this theory is not at all helpful unless we treat it as nothing more than a crude metaphor or a synonym for truth expressed in a particular natural language
C. Coherence theory
1. This theory relies on the premise that two inconsistent propositions cannot both be true - it assumes that two things that conflict with one another cannot both be true
2. Without this assumption, the coherence theory would be unable to get off the ground
3. This means that we have to know what truth is before we can state the coherence theory of truth - to say that two inconsistent propositions cannot both be true already assumes that we know what truth is
4. The coherence theory cannot pick out for us what truth means because we are relying on an understanding of truth in order to state the theory in the first place
D. Pragmatic theory
1. This theory assumes that we know in advance what results should truly be expected for any sentence
2. However, if we have to know which events would truly be expected, then we already have a theory of truth before we can even apply the pragmatic theory of truth
3. Without a proper understanding of truth to begin with, the pragmatic theory will state that certain things are true when they are clearly false
4. Example: I believe that I'm in the Rocky Mountains
a. One of the things of cash value for being in the Rocky Mountains is that if I go outside, I'll see bears
b. But how do I know that this is truly what's to be expected if I'm in the Rocky Mountains?
c. I have to already know what's true before I can practically test the proposition "I believe that I'm in the Rocky Mountains"
d. What if it turns out that I'm in fact in Australia and that when I go outside, I think wallabies are bears because I didn't know any better?
e. In this case, I would have pragmatically verified that I am in the Rocky Mountains when I am really in Australia
5. We have to already have some idea of what is true and what to expect before the pragmatic theory is workable, otherwise any sentence would be true just as long as somebody believes that the satisfying conditions for its practical effects have been fulfilled
E. Semantic theory
1. This theory requires using a formal language which distinguishes between the object language and the metalanguage
a. Formal languages enable us to regiment what we say about another language or level of discourse
b. Formal languages are not languages which we use in informal discourse like English, French, German, Chinese, etc. - they are closer to something like logic, algebra, programming languages, etc.
2. The metalanguage is the language in which we speak of the truth of the object language (natural languages like English)
3. However, if we need a formal language of this metalinguistic sort, then this theory is going to remain unworkable and inapplicable in the natural languages of English, French, German, Chinese, etc. where truth claims are normally debated
4. To make this theory workable in practice, a definition of truth in English would call for assigning names to all objects, giving satisfaction conditions for every predicate, and then recursively determining the values of every possible English sentence - this is simply impractical
5. Consequently, the semantic theory is just impractical
F. Performative theory
1. In this theory, the notion of offering reassurance is simply unhelpful - what are we offering reassurance of if not the truth of the proposition?
2. Consequently, this theory fails to pick out what truth is because it only tells us the obvious - that a sentence offers reassurance of its own truth
3. Furthermore, this notion of reassurance is linguistically inaccurate - we do not use the phrase "is true" in a reassuring way
4. Example: Every statement made by Napoleon was true
a. When I say this, I am ascribing a property to the statements made by Napoleon
b. I can't be properly rephrased as saying "I confirm every statement made by Napoleon" or "go ahead and believe every statement made by Napoleon"
c. Go ahead and believe what about every statement made by Napoleon? - the performative theory leaves this question unanswered since it does not account for the fact that we are ascribing the property called "truth" to the statements made by Napoleon
5. In many cases where we use the locution "is true", it does not make sense to say that I am functioning to offer reassurance of the sentence rather than ascribing a property to it
6. It is because the property we call "truth" is ascribed to a statement that people are reassured of that statement - the notion of reassurance cannot stand on its own independent of the property we call "truth"
A. The Christian understanding of truth is more basic and less formal than these theories of truth, but it is also richer, fuller, more substantial, and personal
1. The Christian recognizes that it is the broader Christian worldview which gives particular character to each one of these theories
2. Consequently, the Christian rejects each of these theories when they stand in isolation, attempting to put forward a complete theory of truth on their own
3. However, the Christian also embraces aspects of each one of these theories when they are understood in terms of the broader Christian worldview
B. The Christian understands more fundamentally than any of these theories that truth is whatever conforms to the mind of God
C. Since truth is whatever conforms to the mind of God, the truth corresponds to the facts (the correspondence theory)
1. Because the facts are predetermined by the mind of God, truth corresponds to what he has predetermined
2. Truth is therefore whatever corresponds to the mind of God
3. Since facts, propositions, and assertions that are true correspond to the mind of God, the Bible applies the term "truth" to a variety of facts, propositions, and assertions
a. "Send one of you, and let him bring your brother, while you remain confined, that your words may be tested, whether there is truth in you. Or else, by the life of Pharaoh, surely you are spies." - Genesis 42:16
b. "and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel," - Deuteronomy 17:4
c. "Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another." - Ephesians 4:25
d. "This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith," - Titus 1:13
e. "And he said to me, 'These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.'" - Revelation 22:6
4. Since truth corresponds to the mind of God and since God is eternal and absolute, the truth possesses the properties of being eternal and absolute
a. "But you are near, O Lord, and all your commandments are true." - Psalm 119:151
b. "The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." - Psalm 119:160
c. "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." - Proverbs 30:5
d. "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." - John 17:17
5. Since truth corresponds to the mind of God, God himself is the truth
a. "Whoever receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true." - John 3:33
b. "So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the temple, 'You know me, and you know where I come from. But I have not come of my own accord. He who sent me is true, and him you do not know.'" - John 7:28
c. "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" - John 14:6
d. "This is he who came by water and blood - Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth." - 1 John 5:6
e. "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." - 1 John 5:20
6. Jesus is the truth because he corresponds to the mind of God - the Bible teaches that he is the mind or logos of God
a. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1:1
b. "He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God." - Revelation 19:13
D. Since truth is whatever conforms to the mind of God, true beliefs cohere with other true beliefs (the coherence theory)
1. Because of who God is, propositions that correspond to God's mind will be coherent with each other
2. Since God is faithful, his word, which reflects his mind, is not contradictory
a. "As surely as God is faithful, our word to you has not been Yes and No." - 2 Corinthians 1:18
b. "if we are faithless, he remains faithful - for he cannot deny himself." - 2 Timothy 2:13
3. It is part of God's character for it to be impossible for him to lie and contradict his own word
a. "God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" - Numbers 23:19
b. "in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began" - Titus 1:2
c. "so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us" - Hebrews 6:18
E. Since truth is whatever conforms to the mind of God, the truth helps us get along better in God's world (the pragmatic theory)
1. Because both truth and creation correspond to the Creator and cohere with the Creator's will, the truth shows us how to get along in creation by acting in a way that conforms to the Creator's will
a. The book of Proverbs emphasizes in numerous ways that the most pragmatic way to live in God's world is to submit to the guidance of God's wisdom - the truth
b. Proverbs teaches that the most efficient and successful strategy for living in God's world is to live in a way which conforms to the mind of God - the truth
2. The Bible speaks of the truth as that which is ethically right - we are to walk in the truth
a. "Teach me your way, O Lord, that I may walk in your truth; unite my heart to fear your name." - Psalm 86:11
b. "But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God." - John 3:21
c. "I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as we were commanded by the Father." - 2 John 1:4
d. "For I rejoiced greatly when the brothers came and testified to your truth, as indeed you are walking in the truth. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth." - 3 John 1:3-4
3. Walking in the truth is more than saying true things when we talk - it is a very broad and rich concept in the Bible that means walking in the character of God, being Godly in all aspects of our behavior, not just verbal or intellectual aspects
F. The Christian understanding of truth (whatever conforms to the mind of God) therefore gives particular character to the correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic theories of truth in a richer, fuller, more substantial, and personal way than any of these theories can achieve on their own