Absolute Truth vs Relative Truth: How Do We Know What’s Real?

Today there is a pluralistic approach that claims there is no single truth, and that each person may create their own truth, even if some form of relative truth still exists. Indeed, there is such a thing as relative truth. For example, a person may be considered attractive by some and unattractive by others. However, it is still reasonable to believe that absolute truth also exists.

Consider a simple question: Is there a God?

There can only be one answer to this question, yes or no. It does not make sense to say that God exists for me but not for you. Out of convenience, many people claim that such a possibility exists, but this position is not objective, but is influenced by personal bias. If people were truly impartial, they would arrive at the truth. In reality, many prefer to believe what is more comfortable. For some, it is convenient to believe in God, while for others it is inconvenient, because it may interfere with their ideas and the way they wish to live.

A Parable About Truth

We can illustrate the definition of truth and the path to discovering it through a simple example.

Imagine you are observing a trial. A man is accused of breaking into a home in an upscale neighborhood, pointing a weapon at the occupants, and enabling his accomplice to empty a jewelry cabinet. The robbery ended without physical injury, but the family was left deeply traumatized.

The court’s task is to determine who is responsible and uncover the truth.

How is this done?

First, the court must establish through evidence that a crime was committed. Then it must determine whether the available evidence points to the suspect. This raises a deeper question: what qualifies as valid evidence?

Ways of Establishing Truth

There are several accepted methods for establishing truth.

One is the scientific method. A scientist proposes a hypothesis and builds a theory. They then attempt to prove it through mathematical calculations, experiments, and observation. If the theory is confirmed, it is accepted. However, only those who directly observe the experiment and its results can know with certainty that it is true.

Another method is testimony. People who witnessed an event can testify to what they saw and thereby establish its reality.

The Power and Limits of Testimony

Returning to the courtroom, suppose there are witnesses who were present during the robbery.

One testifies that he saw the suspect leaving through the back entrance. Another says he saw a car parked nearby with a license plate from the suspect’s hometown. The family itself identifies the suspect as the one who entered their home.

Even so, the court may still hesitate. The family members may have spoken to one another beforehand and coordinated their testimony. Their statements could be biased or even false.

Now imagine that ten independent witnesses, who did not know each other and had no opportunity to coordinate, all describe the same event in the same way, without contradiction.

In such a case, the court would have strong confidence that the testimony is true.

Defining Truth

There is little doubt that when multiple independent witnesses describe the same event in precise detail, without contradiction, we accept that the event truly occurred.

We can therefore define truth as something we either experience directly or something described consistently and in detail by many independent sources who could not have collaborated to fabricate it.

This principle becomes even more compelling when applied to an entire community.

If a whole nation preserves and transmits the same account of a historical event, with consistent details and no contradictions, it becomes extremely difficult to claim that the story was invented.

It is not reasonable to suggest that thousands, or even tens of thousands of people, independently fabricated the same detailed account.