Subjective vs Objective Truth
To purchase the entire Summit Lecture Series, Vol. 2 on DVD, visit summit.org.
Now, that’s our review session. It’s over, now it’s time to take a little test, okay? But it’s okay, it’s kind of a joint class test, so you can kind of take notes or cheat a little bit. But here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to say a bunch of statements and I want you to determine whether they are subjective truth statements or objective truth statements. Am I making a claim that’s kind of like ice cream, or am I making a claim that’s kind of like insulin?
And so If I’m making a subjective claim, I want you to all shout, “Ice cream.” However, if my claim is an objective truth claim, I want you to say, “Insulin,” okay? Does that make sense? So let’s start off with some easy ones to just kind of get the juices flowing on this issue, okay? Here we go. Disneyland has 79 rides. Is that a-
Insulin.
Okay, insulin, very good. Very confident, commanding answer, I like that. Yes, it’s insulin, all right? Because this is something that can be tested, we can go to Disneyland, see are there 79 rides? I have no idea, by the way. And by the way, the fact that I don’t know, or perhaps may never go to California… Obviously I live near it, but suppose you never are going to go to California your whole life and you can never know what the answer is, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still an insulin type of claim, okay? How about this? I like Ford more than Chevrolet.
Ice cream.
Ice cream, good. Very confident answer. That’s correct, ice cream. How about this? Alan, myself, can bench press 315 pounds.
Ice cream. Insulin.
I heard some ice cream. But now, the reason why it’s not ice cream is why not?
You can test it.
Yeah, you can test it, right? We could get a bench up here right now, put 315 pounds, and you would see I could bench 315 pounds. I mean, I look thin and scrawny, but really, if I flex right now, my muscles just come right through my shirt. I rip them. My wife doesn’t like it because it costs money to buy new shirts. So, I don’t want to show off and all that stuff. So just Christian humility, you know. But of course, this is, you’re right, an insulin type of claim. All right, good. How about this one? The chairs in this room feel comfortable.
Ice cream.
That’s right, it’s an ice cream kind of claim. All right, so we got the juices flowing here, let’s kind of go more towards some moral issues here. How about this? Slavery is wrong.
Ice cream, insulin.
Wow, had a lot of ice cream.
Yes, it’s an insulin claim. And the reason it’s an insulin claim is because this isn’t a matter of personal preference. We’re talking about slavery, something that’s out there, and we’re asking, “Is it a right thing to do or a wrong thing to do?”
Now, it could be that slavery is okay, but whether it’s okay or not okay makes it fall into the realm of objective truth claim. Because when I say slavery is wrong, I’m not saying, “I don’t prefer slavery,” I’m saying, “No, I think slavery, this thing out there, is something that is immoral and wrong, and therefore it’s wrong for everybody, not just for me.” Okay? So that’s why slavery is wrong is an insulin type of claim. How about this? Abortion is wrong.
Insulin.
Okay, yeah, that’s right. So now everybody’s like, “Yeah, insulin.” That’s right, insulin. Now again, if there was an abortion choice advocate here on the stage with me today, they would have to claim that abortion is wrong is also an insulin kind of claim, even though they think the statement abortion is wrong is false, because they think abortion is right or morally permissible.
But the fact that they think abortion is morally permissible and should be legal for all people, and I think that abortion is wrong and should be illegal for all people, is exactly one of the reasons why we think that this is an objective truth claim. Because it’s about the thing, abortion out there, and we can test is abortion really wrong, or is it just a matter of our own personal preference? Now I know there’s some people who try to make a claim that it is a matter of personal preference, but in reality, our claim that abortion is wrong is not merely our example of our personal preference, it’s a matter of objective truth, okay? How about this? I love Jesus.
Ice cream.
Yeah, ice cream. It’s a matter of personal preference. Okay, how about this? God does not exist.
Insulin.
That’s correct, insulin. Now, probably 99, if not a 100%, of everyone in this room thinks that God does exist. But notice this statement says God does not exist, but I’m glad you correctly answered that this is an insulin thing. Because again, this is about the question of whether God, this thing that perhaps exists out there, is something that is testable. Can we determine whether he exists? He either exists or he doesn’t exist. And so since he either exists or doesn’t exist, this is an objective, insulin type of claim. How about this? Gay sex is wrong.
Insulin.
Yeah, very good. I know some of you probably were thinking, “No, that’s ice cream.” But again, even this statement is an objective claim. I’m, or we, or whoever says it is claiming that thing out there, that action, that behavior is a wrong thing. Now again, even if there was a homosexual person here on the stage, they would say, “Well, I disagree with that statement,” but they’d have to agree that this is also an insulin type of claim because it’s not merely an expression of my personal preference, although that might be the case, but that’s irrelevant. What I’m claiming is gay sex is wrong for all people, okay? It’s a morally inappropriate action to engage in.
So, very good. So you got, I’d say, most of those correct. Now the problem in our culture that is immersed in relativism is that most people think that choosing your religion or your morality is like choosing your favorite flavor of ice cream. You just pick what you like, and whatever you like, it’s true. It’s true for you, that’s the way it comes. So they think that religion and morality are subjective truth claims, not objective truth claims. So take the first one, for example. When you apply relativism to religion, you get what’s known as religious pluralism. And remember, I had that conversation with my friend Raj, who’s a Hindu, turned out to be a religious pluralist.
This is what he thinks, and the reason why… Well, at least in his case, it might be a function of his religious beliefs, but he’s also a product of American values. And the fact of the matter is that when you combine a relativistic approach to religion, you get religious pluralism. The idea that when it comes to picking your religion, just pick what you like, whatever floats your boat. To each his own. Whatever gives you comfort.
So here’s the question I want you to think about. If most people you talk to in America are religious pluralists, or they think of relativism applying to all these issues. If they think religion, and when you pick a religion it’s a matter of subjective truth, a preference, what are they going to think when you say to them, “Hey, I think God is real,” or you say, “Hey, you know what? Jesus died for your sins,” or, “Hey, you want to come to church?” What are they going to think about those statements if they believe that picking your religion is like picking your favorite flavor of ice cream? How are they going to respond? Yes.
They’re going to think it’s all subjective.
They’re going to think it’s what?
All subjective.
All subjective, yeah. And how are they going to respond?
That it’s okay for you, but not for me.
That’s right. “That’s okay for you, but it’s not for me.” They’ll say, “Oh, I’m so glad you found Jesus to be true for you. That’s so sweet. I’m so glad that’s so true for you, but it’s just not for me. He’s not for me. I’m so glad you found him, that’s so touching, but it’s just not for me.” I know most guys wouldn’t do it that way, but that’s the way they come across. It’s like, “Okay, that’s not what I’m saying,” right? Because is that what we’re saying? That we found Jesus to be true for us and that’s all we’re saying? No, what else are we saying?
That’s right, we think Jesus is true for everyone. So we are making an objective claim, and what are they doing with our claim that is objective? What are they doing to it? What’s that?
That’s right, they’re taking our objective claim, that Jesus is true for everyone, and they’re turning it into a subjective claim. In other words, they’re relativizing our objective claim. Now they might not realize they’re doing that, but that, frankly, is rude because we’re not saying, “I prefer Jesus like I prefer lime sherbet,” right? We’re saying, “I think Jesus is for everybody.”
Now I could be mistaken about that, perhaps I’m wrong, but I’m not saying that I just think he’s true for me. And so in a sense, they’re twisting our words, making us say something we’re not saying, and they’re trying to dismiss us by just making the claim that we’re sort of saying a subjective truth claim, and of course that’s not exactly what’s going on. Now, it also works when you take relativism and apply it to morality, and then you get what’s known as moral relativism. Can anyone here give me a sample definition of moral relativism? Yeah.
It’s like the debate over abortion.
Say it again.
The debate over abortion.
The debate over abortion, okay. Well no, give an example of the definition of moral relativism. Yeah, that might be a sample topic where there’s a debate about it, but how would you define moral relativism? You don’t have to, that’s okay. Go ahead.
When morals depend on the culture.
When are what?
Depend on the culture.
Yes, when morals depend on a culture. If what’s right and wrong is relative to a culture, American culture, French culture, Italian culture, then that would be an example of moral relativism, okay? So morals could be relative to a culture, they could also be relative to who?
To a person, to an individual, right? I could have my sense of what’s right and wrong, and you could have your sense of what’s right and wrong. And we might differ on what that list entails, but even if we differ on it, we’re both right, which is the idea of moral relativism. Now, if that’s the way people think about morality, and I assure you that is the case in the United States, and in many countries. If people think morality is merely subjective truth claims, then what do you think your friends or family will say or think in their mind if you say something like, “Hey man, you can’t cheat on that test, that’s wrong,” or, “Hey, you know what? Abortion’s wrong,” or, “Man, you shouldn’t be having sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend or whoever that might be?” What are people going to think if they believe, which they most likely do, that morals are subjective? What will they think about you?
That you’re judging them.
What’s that?
You’re judging them.
Yes, that you’re judging them. And they think you’re judging them because you have your set of morals, they have their set of morals, but you’re taking your morals and forcing them upon somebody else. “Why are you judging me? Who are you to judge?” Right? When they say, “Who are you to judge,” they’re basically saying, “You have your personal favorite flavor of ice cream, why are you forcing that on me? Let everybody pick whatever flavor they like,” because they think that morals and picking your morals is just like picking your favorite flavor of ice cream. That’s why they say, “Don’t judge me. Don’t force your morality on me, to each his own.”
Follow Christian Podcast Central on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to see our ongoing discussion with Dr. Jeff Myers regarding worldviews.
(This podcast is by Summit Ministries. Discovered by Christian Podcast Central and our community — copyright is owned by the publisher, not Christian Podcast Central.)
