Skip to main content


Showing posts from February, 2010

Logical or Illogical?

Cornish writes, “The foundational pillars for thinking, pursuing truth, and acquiring knowledge are the Laws of Logic. These weren’t invented by Aristotle or anyone else. Like gravity, they just are—reflections of God’s reality and the world He made. They govern the way we think, often assumed to be part of our God-given common sense. No moment goes by in which we do not use or assume logic. To deny it requires using it.”[1]

Logic has three interconnected laws:

(1) The Law of Non-contradiction. This law simply states that two contradictory statements about anything cannot be true at the same time and in the same respect. For example, a person cannot smell and not smell at the same time and in the same way.

(2) The Law of Excluded Middle. This law states that something either is or is not. It cannot be both at the same time. For example: you are either smelling or not smelling, there is no middle ground (excluded middle).

(3) The Law of Identity. Simply stated, something is either itself …

Faith and Reason

Is Christianity unreasonable as critics claim? They say it is because according to them, faith contradicts reason. Many believe this and as a result we have seen many within the Church divorce faith from reason, a concern that many evangelicals are addressing, such as J. P. Moreland in his book Love Your God With All Your Mind, and others. This is a charge leveled by those who don’t understand how the Bible defines reason and what is says about the relationship between faith and reason. Neither do they know what orthodox Christianity has historically held and taught concerning this whole issue of faith and reason. Just because they don’t understand the relationship between the two doesn’t make faith or Christianity unreasonable. If only that which we fully understand is reasonable, then most of what we hold to be true in our lives would have to be labeled as unreasonable, isn’t that unreasonable?

God is a rational being; therefore we are rational beings as well since we are created …

Is It Credible to Believe In Absolute Truth?

In light of the arguments presented for the other philosophies about truth, it seems ridiculous to even ask the question of whether it is credible to believe in absolute truth. But we will ask and answer it as anyway.

People, either consciously or unconsciously, are on a journey in search for truth, for something to believe in. That truth or unchanging reality serves as what we call a fixed point (or absolute). That fixed point is what we use to measure our progress in our journey. Consider this, if truth is relative, then you have no fixed point, without that fixed point, how do we even know we are traveling in the direction we should be traveling in? Well, we won’t. The curious thing is that even relativists themselves have a fixed point (even though they would never publicly acknowledge that).

Relativists know that truth is not relative. That is precisely why they so fervently argue and propagate their view. Think about it, why the battle to convince everybody else that relativism…

The Truth About the Tolerance

In this postmodern, relativistic, and pluralistic society we live in, it is not unusual for those who believe in absolute truth to be accused of being intolerant and narrow minded. Are those charges and accusations true? Well, let’s consider them more closely:

(1) On the charge of being narrow-minded, there may actually be some truth to that, not because those who believe in absolute truth are narrow-minded themselves but because truth is narrow by definition. For example, if one person states that France is in Asia while another states the France is in South America, is the person who rejects those statements as being false because he happens to know that France is in Europe, intolerant? If somebody who knows that 5 + 5 = 10 rejects somebody else’s statement who says that 5 + 5 = 7, because he has never studied any math, does that make him intolerant? That is nothing more than political correctness run amuck. Truth is narrow by definition because it says that if something is true, the…

Exploring the False Philosophies about Truth (Part 4)


Moseley states, “Hedonism as a philosophy, or worldview, measures the rightness or wrongness of a particular course of action by whether it is pleasurable. “If it feels good, do it; do it if it’s what you feel” is the contemporary proverb that expresses the philosophy of hedonism…hedonism formulates this natural tendency into a philosophy of life, an ism”.[16]

The philosophies of hedonism and naturalism are philosophies that are closely connected:

(1) Hedonism is a result of naturalism; it has a naturalistic view of nature and as such it excludes God from nature as naturalism does. When God is excluded then self is the only one left to whom we answer to.

(2) Naturalism is the result of hedonism. When self-pleasure becomes a persons highest good, inevitably, one’s worldview will exclude God from it because the very thought of God will hinder one’s pursuit of pleasure.[17]

Many of today’s venues that promote those “self-help,” “self-fulfillment,” “personal happiness,” topi…

Exploring the False Philosophies about Truth (Part 3)


This argument states that if you hope to ever discover truth, you must rely on your feelings and emotions to do so. In other words, if it feels right, if it feels good, then it must be true. There are several problems with this philosophy as well:

(1) Feelings and emotions are constantly changing, how can we possibly make them the test by which we determine whether something is true or not. If truth is subjective, then truth would be continually changing since our feelings and emotions are continually changing. Just think of how ludicrous that would be. Think of how often we would have to change our minds about any given thing in a week’s time. Many certainties such as the law of gravity or the law of thermodynamics would have to be revised often depending on how a given scientist feels. Why bother printing textbooks, after all, the authors’ feelings and emotions may change a month after the book has been published requiring it to be recalled and re-written, again and ag…

Exploring the False Philosophies about Truth (Part 2)


Skeptics, unlike agnostics, don’t say that truth or God cannot be known. What they do say is that we should doubt or question everything. Skepticism is nothing more than the philosophy of uncertainty[7]. As a skeptic, I would say, truth and/or God do exist, truth and/or God can be known, but I doubt, question, and am indecisive about both. Skepticism by implication, teaches people to procrastinate in making any decisions and to set aside those things that need to be decided on. There are several problems with this philosophy as well:

(1) Skepticism refutes itself as well. Is it possible to be truly skeptical about everything? If skepticism is true, then I should by definition doubt, question, and be indecisive about skepticism as well, shouldn’t I? How is it that I should be skeptic of everything but skepticism itself? I wouldn’t be a very good skeptic would I?

(2) To procrastinate in making a decision about anything is to actually make a decision about it. If you are a s…

Exploring Different Philosophies About Truth (Part 1)


Agnosticism claims that neither truth nor God can be known. They don’t necessarily deny that either exists, they only deny that either can be known. There are several problems with this philosophy about truth:

(1) It is a self-destructive argument. One who holds to this philosophy fails to realize that he already possesses some knowledge about truth and God, i.e. that God and/or truth can’t be known. If agnostics are right, they would not be able to make such a statement because it contains knowledge about God. If we cannot know God, then how is it that we know we cannot know God since knowledge about God is implied in such a statement? Clearly, we would have to know something about God to know that He is unknowable.

(2) “Truth cannot be known by man,” is that a truth statement? In other words, if I am an agnostic and I believe I can’t know truth, then how do I know that what I am saying and what I believe (agnosticism) is true? Ironically, agnostics claim truth cannot be…

The Truth About the Truth

What is Truth?

“What is truth?”[1] This question was asked by a man named Pilate about two thousand years ago. Two thousand years later, this question is still being asked by many, even by many within the Church. Why? Because TRUTH itself has once again come under attack, to the extent that, all who have adopted the various false philosophies about truth being propagated in our growing liberal society today, now deny the very existence of absolute truth. Not only have they adopted for themselves these philosophies, but they propagate them, and in fact, they have been quite successful in doing so. National polls show that an incredibly large number of freshmen college students, Christian students included, when surveyed, state that they don’t believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth.

Why bother with this discussion? Does it really matter whether there is or isn’t such a thing as absolute truth? It does, because truth is foundational for the survival of society itself. …