“True Truth” isn’t the Answer to “Post-Truth”

Last updated on: January 6, 2017 at 1:42 pm by Kyle Roberts

“True Truth” isn’t the Answer to “Post-Truth” 2017-01-06T13:42:23-05:00 Kyle Roberts

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

We’re living in a post-truth society now, they say.

(CC BY-SA 2.0 via Flickr)

This is what all those conservative evangelicals once feared, right? The onslaught of postmodern relativism would usher in a thoroughly post-truth world, where ideologies (devoid of solid reasoning) reign supreme, where feelings rule over reason, where morality is simply up to the individual, where everyone is trapped in their own perspective, where Absolute Truth is demolished and truth becomes simply the truth that is true for me, regardless of whether it’s true for you.

But the irony is that, if the “Age of Trump” represents the pinnacle of our post-truth society, evangelicals are no longer railing against relativism, pragmatism, and power-driven ideology. Instead, many of have embraced it, whether in the form of the anti-science, anti-accountability, anti-logic, or just plain old thoroughly tribal-centric self-interest.

Morgan Guyton reflected yesterday about this cognitive dissonance of growing up in a conservative evangelicalism which touted “Absolute Truth” and which railed against relativism but is now turning out to be as, or more, relativistic, perspectivalist, pragmatic, and power-driven than the “postmodern” enemies they once feared.

I’ve had the same experience. And I must say, nothing has surprised me.

I realized, for example, that “Christian apologetics,” was not a legitimate, honest quest for true understanding of world religions (as you might find in the discipline of comparative theology). Rather, very often it was (and is) a polemical enterprise; it was about “winning” a rhetorical argument abut the superiority of Christianity over other religions or over atheism (or in common parlance, “world views”) even when it meant ignoring contradictions and serious problems within one’s own faith tradition and theology.

Similarly, I learned that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy was used as a shield against real discrepancies or problems within the Bible and as a way of imposing theological authority over others — not to mention as a political weapon within institutions that strive to impose order and uniformity.

I also came to understand that evangelicalism was just as relativistic, or perspectivalist, if not more so, than any other religious or ideological perspective. The doctrine of inerrancy actually encourages a strong perspectivalism, because one cannot hold firmly to the doctrine and also have genuine freedom or room to ask serious questions of the text — if those questions run against the grain of the received, authoritative perspective. And cultures (seminaries, colleges, churches, etc.) driven by inerrancy squelch genuine curiosity, often with serious consequences — loss of job, etc.

D.G. Hart concludes a recent post by briefly suggesting (if I understand him correctly) that “true truth” is the opposite of relativism.

But that’s just not true.

“True truth” is an odd phrase made famous by Francis Schaffer, the late apologist so highly revered in conservative evangelical circles. For Schaeffer, “true truth” is basically the conviction that there is such a thing as Absolute Truth and that, as Schaeffer puts it: “it is possible to know that truth, not exhaustively but truly.”

Schaeffer disliked and even derided fideism, which he saw as a retreat from the rigorous arguments of reason and evidence into the warm blanket of faith. As he put it, “Patting people on the head, they [fideists] say, ‘Don’t ask questions, dear, just believe.”

But underlying Schaeffer’s supposed commitment to evidentialism was presuppositionalism, of the sort that Cornelius Van Till advocated. The premise of presuppositionalism is that only God provides the proper beginnings (presuppositions) for [sinful] people to think rationally and “truly” about the world. So, the authority of divine revelation and the inerrancy of Scripture is a presupposition that must be believed in order for people to discover the content of true truth, or at least the content of that truth which is contained in divine revelation.

It’s a famously circular argument. And it circles everything back to the presupposition that the Bible completely and utterly without errors because its author, God, is incapable of erring.

Inerrancy is an epistemological security blanket that can also be used as a political weapon. And it’s not a good candidate for responding to a “post-truth” era; in truth, it only further intensifies the problem, which is that too many people are less interested in discovering truth — even if and when it means rethinking cherished beliefs — and more interested in confirming their own presuppositions.

Previous Post

December 23, 2016

Virgin Births aren't as Miraculous as You Think

Next Post

January 6, 2017 Theologians Opposing the Nomination of Jeff Sessions

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month December 2020 November 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 December 2018 July 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz