home > articles > philosophy > The Tests of Truth

What are The Truth Tests?

Author, Nancy Pearcey

Nancy Pearcey left home as an atheist and went travelling through Europe. Her life changed when she met Francis Schaeffer in L’Abri, Switzerland. She had many doubts about the claims of Christianity, which Mr. Schaeffer was able to answer. Her eventual conversion to Christianity from atheism was, as she tells, because she came to realise why it was true. In her book, Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey tells a typical story occurring among many of today’s Christians. She writes about a young lady who got saved in a contemporary church and continued on with her education then career.

Although she was sincere about her conversion, she found herself living in three worlds. On Sundays she was in the Christian-world. On Mondays she was in her university science class world. On Sundays she would hear all kinds of helpful messages (and occasionally something from the Bible). But on Mondays she would move into her other world where things of the Bible are not only denied- they are ridiculed. Somehow she was able to live in her Christian world on Sundays by telling herself that what she knew to be true from her Monday science world was a different kind of truth from what she was now hearing. Therefore, when she entered her third world she saw no dilemma. That’s why she saw no problem in taking a job as a technician in an Abortion Clinic. She had done what many Christians are now doing. She had compartmentalised truth into different worldviews.

During the recent Parliamentary debate on the availability of RU486 (“the abortion pill”) we heard this same kind of confused worldviews from several members of Parliament. Some Parliamentarians expressed their ‘Christian faith’ while simultaneously supporting a Bill that will most certainly violate the sixth commandment (do not murder). Other Parliamentarians promoted an even worse kind of truth categorisation when they insisted that religion and morality should have no bearing on legislative decision making. This sounded as innocuous as “the Church should look after it’s own affairs and stop meddling with the affairs that affect the broader community” and as vicious as – “Get your Rosaries off my Ovaries!” In either case the subtle message was that while Christianity might deal in the ‘truth’, this was a realm of ‘different’ truth where the Church and Christians had no place participating. Several Parliamentarians scolded those with Christian views as being ‘biased’ which is an absurdly remarkable statement to think that those who are atheists are ‘objective’ and those who have accepted the reality of God and His claims on creation as ‘biased’. (Romans 1:21 actually says that those who reject God and His Word are biased with their minds darkened by their religious position.)

Nancy Pearcey points out in her book (Total Truth) that while many trendy churches are claiming huge numbers of converts, many of these converts are failing to appreciate the truth of God’s claims in all areas of life. They see no problem in dissecting truth into compartments that cannot be harmonised. Thus, when the science teacher says that the earth is around 4.56 billion years old (which it almost certainly is) and their preacher says that earth is only 6,000 years old (a commonly held mis-reading of the Bible) they simply regard them as both being right, despite how illogical this position is.

Truth and facts are not necessarily the same. For something to be true it must be so without qualification. That is, truth is not subject to time, place, circumstances, or acceptance. It is true despite all of these things. Facts, on the other hand, are subject to change. For example, a person’s exact age can be known factually, but the truth is the answer changes all the time. Another example is in 1968 it was a fact that man could not walk on the moon – but it wasn’t true. Facts change, truth doesn’t. Understanding this distinction helps us to realise that when someone says – “That’s true for you, but not for me!” they probably don’t understand the difference between facts and truth.

As Christians we sometime do a similar thing when dealing with truth. We form an incomplete or even incorrect understanding of the truth then refuse to change our opinion about it – despite all the facts providing evidence that our opinion of what is true is wrong. Based on Biblical comments like the rising of the sun, some ancient Christians agreed with the Greeks that the earth must be stationary and flat. As the science of astronomy developed, this notion about earth became increasingly implausible. Yet some (even today) believe that it is true that the earth is flat – despite the photographic evidence from lunar voyages! This should cause the Christian, in the face of overwhelming evidence, to question whether it is the evidence that is wrong – or their opinion of it. Is it true that the Bible teaches that the earth is just 6,000 – 10,000 years old? Is it true that the Bible predicts the ultimate demise of the Church and the rise of an evil one-world government? I wonder whether these are opinions or whether they are the truth?

Around 2008 in Australia our Federal politicians debated the merits of the Health Minister having special powers to prevent the legal availability of a drug that was originally in 2000 considered so abhorrent that its ban received universal support from all political parties at that time (thus giving the Health Minister the right to exercise extraordinary powers to make it illegal in Australia). This legislation was originally introduced by Tasmanian Senator, Brian Harradine, an ardent Christian. The arguments put forward in February 2006 on both sides of the debate were, on the whole, reasonable and balanced. But there were several appeals to ‘truth’ by certain politicians which deserve closer scrutiny.

Is it true that the RU486 debate had nothing to do with abortion?
Is it true that the life of the developing baby is of no consequence in this debate?
Is it true that these developing babies are better off aborted if they are unwanted and unloved?
Is it true that the abortion debate is “now settled” in Australia since Abortion was made legal by the States of Australia some 20 years ago and that recent developments in ultrasound and (especially 4D ultrasound) technology now shows us something about inter-utero development of a baby that couldn’t have possibly have known then?

Some quoted the lesser known statement by Sir Edmund Bourke (who famously said that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing) when he said something like- an elected member of parliament does a disservice to those who elected him if he not only represents their views but fails to give his own opinion on a matter for which he was elected to make decisions. I’m not sure about the context of this quote, but I think that this quote was used by some as a justification for ignoring the overwhelming expression of public input into this debate which urged parliamentarians to allow the ban to be maintained. It was similar to a debate held in Tasmania a few years ago when 70% of electors urged their elected members not to introduce a piece of contentious legislation. One parliamentarian resented the fact that she was being asked to represent the views of her electorate, curiously implying that this was not how parliamentary democracy functioned. Despite the massive numbers of people objecting to this Bill, most Parliamentarians ignored the electorate and voted the Bill into Law (presumably trusting that when the next election came around four years later the electorate would have forgotten all about it!).

How can we test whether a statement or claim is true? There are some ancient and logical tests. These include-

Is it contradictory? (Something cannot be true if its essential facts disagree.)
Is it supported by the evidence? (If all the evidence suggests otherwise then the claim is questionable.)
Can it be verified? (This is known as verifiability.)
Can it be falsified? (If the claim is false, could it be shown to be so? This is known as falsifiability.)
Is it conclusive? (Is it a blend of partly true and opinion or guesswork? For something to be true it should be able to stand alone.)

Thus, when a Parliamentarian says that debating the availability of RU486 (the Abortion Pill) has nothing to do with the morality of abortion their claim is clearly untrue because it has dire consequences for abortion rates. Or, when a Parliamentarian says that RU486 is about a mother’s right to choose they fail to be truthful because they don’t adequately define “choice” which truthfully is a choice between letting their yet-to-born-baby live or die. When The Australian Greens Party says that a person becomes “a human” the moment they are born, they are not being truthful with the science of biology that says a human zygote is 100% human (though not fully formed, which continues to take place even after being born by the way). When a Parliamentarian says that they are privately opposed to something but publicly they have to support it, they are not being truthful about their real position.

There is a saying that says – What’s new is probably not true and what’s true is probably not new. Facts change, truth doesn’t. To arrive at certainty I believe that Christians in particular need to be more sceptical. Being sceptical means that we should be reluctant to believe a claim unless we have a high degree of certainty. Unfortunately, too many Christians think Sola Scriptura (‘the Scriptures alone’ which speaks of the Bible’s unique authority), means that God only has one revelation to mankind. But the Bible itself speaks of several other forms of Divine revelation that can be used to have certainty about the truth-

The record of creation, including biology, geology and astronomy (Psalm 19:1; 97:6; Romans 1)
The person of Jesus Christ (Heb. 1)

When we apply the tests of truth to any claim we can be more certain of arriving at the truth. For those interested in truth in public office, particularly among our politicians, recent events make it plain that a person’s worldview dramatically affects the decisions they make. Rather than an atheist or a non-religionist being expected to be the only ones qualified to make unbiased decisions, the opposite is found to be true. That’s why Christians should not be niave about who they vote for. Good government is much more than simply ensuring an economy is running efficiently. Many brutal and evil dictators have also been good economic managers! That doesn’t mean that we should only expect good politicians to be inept economic managers- but we must guard against being fooled into thinking that as long as the economy is being managed well any other decision with a moral implication doesn’t really matter.

Unfortunately, we should also expect more of pastors and church leaders. Their claims should also be subjected to the tests of truth. This means that when a pastor or church leader discourages someone from scrutinising their teaching they are discouraging the quest for the truth.

Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”
John 18:37

All truth agrees with God and His Word. That’s why science and Bible are compatible! It’s also why politics and Christianity are compatible. We need Christians who know and love the truth stepping up to the public plates of influence in the arena of society and culture and batting for truth. Because, there really is only one kind of truth.