How does a person know which church is true? More generally, how does one know whether anything is true? An investigation into this question helps reveal an answer to the abstract question, “What is truth?”
This essay presupposes that there is a God and a divine truth. Call the following Proposition I:
I. It is possible to learn about God.
This proposition could be debated ad nauseam, but that is not the intention of this essay. If the proposition is false, then there is no reason to continue the discussion further on this or any religious subject. So let it be accepted on faith.
Religious leaders teach ways to discern whether something is true, by listening to God. Call the following Proposition II:
II. Divine inspiration is a reliable way to know what is true.
If inspiration from God does not lead us to truth, then what could? One alternative is to listen to prophets or other special individuals that give us God’s words. But since there are so many different sources that claim to know God’s will, a person still has to choose between them. That decision itself requires that a person be privy to personal inspiration. Another alternative is the belief that it is impossible to know what is true. But that contradicts Proposition I, because it leaves people without a way to learn about God. Once it is accepted that Proposition I is true, then Proposition II must follow.
Next, conduct a thought experiment involving two sincere people. Both practice different religions. Is it possible that both of them feel that they are following God? Simply out of respect for various religions and for their faithful members, it is easy to conclude the following:
III. Sincere people following their beliefs can be found in many different religions.
It seems reasonable to claim that not all religions agree on what is true. Even though it could be argued that all religions are on the same path, that is certainly not an argument that is supported by many religious adherents themselves. So then what would happen if the people in this thought experiment are both in the habit of praying about their beliefs? Specifically, what is to be expected if both of them pray about whether their religion is true? One easy answer is that neither of them would ever get a response from God. But that would contradict Proposition I again. Another theory is that one of them (or possibly both of them) would receive an answer that their current religion is wrong. That experience certainly has happened to some people. However, it’s not possible for that to always be the case for all people. If it were, then all the sincere people would leave those wrong religions. Eventually all sincere people would belong to the same religion, and the other churches would be left with the people who either didn’t pray about their religion or that didn’t heed the answer. That theory contradicts Proposition III, which asserts that no single religion has a monopoly of sincere people. The only reasonable explanation is that people of many churches have prayed about their respective religions and have gotten an answer that theirs is true.
IV. An answer to a prayer for one person can contradict an answer to a prayer for another person.
The next task is to discover what it means for different answers to be given to different people. The most common reaction to this paradox is to adopt the philosophy of cold absolutism. Namely, only one of those answers can be true. At least one of the people who thinks they know the truth is actually confused or deceived. This is an attractive philosophy because it means that the truth is simple, and that some people are right and others are just wrong. It’s an especially attractive philosophy if you believe you are one of the people who are right.
Unfortunately, absolutism cuts like a double-edged sword. It admits the existence of confusion in personal revelation. If it is possible for someone to think they have received inspiration from God but in fact they have been given a wrong answer, then how can a person avoid being deceived? Anyone who thinks that prayers are less than perfect for other people should put himself or herself in those shoes. This explanation is tantamount to saying that many answers to prayers are not accurate, which contradicts Proposition II.
A similar absolutist explanation is that both answers may contain some truth, but both are not true to the same degree. In other words, an answer from God may lead someone towards truth without revealing the whole truth. Because of that, a yes-no question about whether a principle is true might evoke either a “yes” or a “no” answer depending on the maturity of the listener. Again, this belief is more attractive to people who think they have received a greater degree of truth than their neighbor.
This theory means that people who are following answers to prayers can trust that they are on the right path, but they cannot know whether the answers themselves will prove true in the end. They can assert, “I am following the path that is right for me.” They are not justified in saying, “My doctrine is correct.” According to this theory, prayer is not expected to reveal correct principles. At most it reveals a correct direction. Unfortunately, this undercuts Proposition II.
Many faithful believers are wont to say, “I know my church is true.” If absolutism is correct, then testimony like that is merely speculation. Even when someone claims to be a prophet or missionary and to teach God’s word, they could still be incorrect. Worse, a proselytizer makes the additional mistake of succumbing to overconfidence in such convictions.
It’s common to find people in pursuit of “universal truth,” which is an absolutist concept. Universal truth means truth that is the same for all people all the time. Based on the foregoing discussion, universal truth could be seen as a temptation created by the devil, rather than the handiwork of God. If universal truth existed, then it would be austere and unattainable.
While it would be hard to disprove this theory, it is certainly unpalatable. It would be comforting to discover an alternative theory, in which prophets are not presumptuous, and in which divine truth is accessible. The following proposition springs from this wish:
V. It is possible to know true doctrine, and to know that one knows it.
If Proposition V is true, then what are the consequences? It contradicts absolutism, because in absolutism there is no way to distinguish between someone who is incorrect and someone who knows the truth. So the implication is that people could feel inspired that their religion is true, (as in Proposition II), and those people could all belong to different religions, (because of Proposition III), and they could hold different beliefs, (as in Proposition IV), yet their beliefs must all be correct, (because of Proposition V).
That assertion that, “My church is true,” is similar to the affirmation, “I am special.” From an absolutist perspective, neither statement has any meaning when everybody says it. Paradoxically, though, we don’t look down on people who say they are special. This makes sense only because they are not in competition with each other, and they don’t intend for their specialness to be exclusive. We don’t worry that only one person is special and that all the other people are wrong. Likewise, the commitment to a religion makes sense when it is viewed noncompetitively. If two sincere people claim to belong to the only true religion, then let’s be generous and assume that they are both truthful. We may need to reexamine what “truth” means.
This does not mean that all religious beliefs are equal or interchangeable. It doesn’t mean that people can whimsically choose whatever religion they want, even though that is a popular relativist philosophy. If a person is inspired that a certain religion is true, then following that religion is the way for that person to learn about God. Each person is responsible for following all the inspiration they have received. Ignoring inspiration always runs contrary to Proposition II, because there is no better source for divine truth. The truth is defined externally, by God, even though it may not be the same for each person. In other words, each person gets to discover truth independently, but each person does not get to make truth what they wish it would be.
What then does “truth” mean, if reality is so plastic? In absolutism, truth is whatever agrees with reality, which is the same for everyone. In this alternative formulation, truth is whatever agrees with personal divine inspiration. The latter idea is easier to understand in some ways, even though it may sound foreign. For example, in absolutism, philosophers get into arguments over the fact that reality gets interpreted by different people in different ways. Reality presents a new face depending on the observer. Only through divine inspiration can one get a clear picture of what God wants us to see. From there, it only takes a small logical leap to define the inspiration itself as reality. In other words, nothing is more real than revelation from God, even though revelation is confined to the receiver’s own mind. The idea that something external is more real than our thoughts is an absolutist illusion.
Under this definition of reality, it does not make sense for two people to expect that they both have the same understanding of truth. It is as if our existence is an individual gift, and what we know as reality is tailored for us alone. It is pure vanity to try to judge someone else’s beliefs according to our standards. We are only able to decide that others’ beliefs don’t agree with our standards, or that others’ actions don’t agree with the government’s laws. We cannot make the additional assumption that those others have disobeyed what God instructed them. So what should be done to reconcile our beliefs with the people around us? The Bible commands us to “judge not.” It is sufficient in this life that we each understand and follow the truth that has been given to us. To try to appraise the world’s spirituality according to any one standard is to want something that we were not meant to have.
Because of this disparity, it is possible for two people to hear the same speech and to draw opposite conclusions, or for two people to be involved in the same argument and to leave with different ideas about who won. The obvious problem is that subjective experiences may be different enough as to render people incapable of fully understanding each other. A related concern is whether or not a person should share their beliefs, knowing that such communication may be meaningless. On these subjects, an objective observer can find precious few guarantees. One guarantee that should make a difference is found back in Propositions I and II. Whenever two people discuss their beliefs and feel the presence of the divine, then they are learning about God and can trust in the information. So those who endeavor to preach the truth may not know whether their listeners will be inspired to follow, at least until both parties feel a spiritual confirmation. Experience suggests that God at times calls people to teach to each other, and that those words can frequently help others on their own path.
Seeking out truth is still important to people who oppose absolutism. The opinion that universal truth must be the only kind of truth is a misconception. Renouncing absolutism can even lead to a healthier respect for other beliefs. The key to finding an alternative is understanding that the nature of reality is a private matter between each individual and God.